Peeps with a lot of GHST can control all the vote from the snapshot ?

We need a balance ! even the gameplay will be pay2win ???


Is this game gonna be a Pay to win ? or it will be skilled stuff ?

1 Like

So far it seems that all of it is pay2win. One almost exception is Kinship. However, since they introduced Kinship-Potions, even that one is pay2win.

The divide between the whales and the regular folk is just gonna get bigger and bigger. They farm a lot more FREN each day, so they can buy a lot more raffle tickets to get the new good stuff. They can also afford the best items to make sure they are winning the rarity farming every time.

There needs to be at least one aspect that is entirely determined by gameplay and cannot be influenced with GHST or FREN.


Right now, there is no real gameplay so wait for the mini games and all to see if it will be a pay to win.


I hope so !!!

1 Like

No need to wait. It is already in the Wiki about Wearables: “enabling them to perform better in minigames, as well as in rarity farming”. So the minigames will almost certainly have at least some form of pay2win component, since they will be easier for those who can afford the good items.

At least some little game mechanic that is entirely based on our interactions would be nice. And the sooner we come up with a good idea, the better. I don’t think ‘hope and wait’ is the best strategy in this case.


the power is in the spirit bond. let them build. trust that as long as your goal is to make friends and love you will succeed!

1 Like

@discobot quote lllll

1 Like

Hi! To find out what I can do, say @discobot display help.

1 Like

Well the solution to that could be perhaps quadratic voting or something like this, meaning the power of persons vote is decreased exponentially with the amount of ghst voted.
For example 1 ghst = 1 voting power
100 ghst = 20 voting power
1000 ghst = 50 voting power etc.

However, if I understand the situation correctly, even if this idea would be praised by the most people, it would be still quite hard to change for that system through the current voting system, because obviously most probably GHST whales would be against decreasing their powers.
If that would be the case then only the change from the devs could help change the situation it seems.


really good idea but I didn’t hear the dev a lot since the launching

1 Like

I really like the idea of getting inspiration from the quadratic model to find a good “democratic balance”. Let’s start with positive thinking : Whales will want to preserve the value of GHST, if there’s only 10 Whales playing Aavegotchi the game will be abandoned very quickly :smiley:

And nobody wants that.

They will want to earn money in the long run so they will HAVE TO comply with a more equitable voting power. Instead of decreasing the voting power, maybe we could get inspiration from the Gitcoin model ? Here’s a proposition :
A random guy voting for the first time = 1 voting power whatever his balance in GHST is
An early adopter voting for 50th time (for example) with 1-100k GHST = 10 voting power.
An early adopter voting for 50th time (for example) with 100k-1MM GHST = 50 voting power.

Of course it won’t be perfect bc whales are early adopters and could biased some votes but it will prevent new whales to overcome a vote :smiley: this way everyone will be happy : Whales are preserving the value of their GHST and are the “guardians of the market” and users / players will be the “guardians of the law”.


Even better, always both ideas could be mixed and polished :slight_smile:


When I see that, I’m proud of this community but I’ll wait the dev :nerd_face:

1 Like

we don’t want pay to win. at least not in everything


Quadratic voting would be something to consider. As I believe the amount of ghst should have an impact anyway on the voting power. But the other aspect which is important for me, and I didn’t saw it explored yet is the reputation and dedication.

A stupid example could be the number of cumulated like you got on dao.avvagotchi.com on your post.

To recap, I would be happy to see a mix between quadratic voting, and a somehow reputation base one


I think there are some great suggestions here. We should try to find a balance between making our “benevolent whales” happy, preventing malicious whales from controlling the protocol, and also giving a voice to smaller players.

Someone mentioned Colony’s reputation system in another thread. I really like Colony and we actually had a call with their founder to explore how Colony could be used with Aavegotchi.

Unfortunately at the time (not sure if it’s changed or not) they did not allow voting power by token, only by reputation. As in, GHST token would not give voting power, and neither would holding an Aavegotchi.

The current model of governance we are exploring right now for Metamorphosis is Aave Governance V2. It has some very interesting features, such as vote delegation and different strategies for calculating voting power. However, even if we fork Aave Governance, we’d still have to make some significant changes to how voting power is calculated. Also, because we are using blockchain and not a Web2 database to calculate voting power, we’ll need to use “onchain” data. So for example, factoring in your activity in this forum would be difficult to do without an oracle.

I hope everyone remembers that we are still VERY early in the governance process! Keep contributing and brainstorming…this is what a DAO is all about!


Thanks boss !

Just don’t make the game pay2win ! Cosmestic is just comestic

And don’t let the whales control everything :smiley:

1 Like

IT’s a year later, can we try something new for voting option even? There are two types of quadratic voting, and IRF is available.

One type of quadratic voting has scaled voting power, and the other one is mostly just a version of IRF. All are great ideas and could be used and implemented with little to no changes other than simply choosing an option in snapshot.

We haven’t even tried simply enabling those options for the test polls people post in their ideas, yet. If we do that, people will have a chance to play around with it and decide what they feel fits this community best.

I’m not even thinking of this from the OP’s angle… I just firmly believe that these are superior options for when you want a vote, regardless of if someone has more votes.

I want to make a post showing how things play out differently in each case, but I cannot, because we only have single choice voting.

There was much discussion about quadratic voting in 1 Aavegotchi = 100 GHST vote. The theoretical foundation for quadratic voting is sound, i.e., weighing voting power through credits such that the cost of additional votes beyond one-person-one-vote increases not linearly but quadratically. Arriving at a consensus for Aavegotchi governance through quadratic voting, however, broke down around what should be counted towards those voting credits.

Allowing large whales to control all governance purely on the basis of $ghts holdings was unacceptable. But clearly large liquidity providers legitimately should have a major say in decisions that affect their investments. Basing voting on $ghst holdings alone wasn’t deemed fair because many gotchi owners had committed a significant portion of their $ghst to acquiring gotchis and wearables. And then how should game objects be valued: cost basis, current market value, some other basis? And what about factors like XP, which quantify engagement? There was a general consensus that community engagement in gameplay and governance should be weighted differently than passive financial investment.

This boiled down to a perception was that there were at least two different voting constituencies with different concerns: financial investors and gamers. Proposals were floated about how to weight the voting for these constituencies differently for treasury focused and other potentially dilutitive financial decisions versus decisions affecting rarity farmers and gamers. With the introduction of Realm parcels, Alchemica and, eventually, value-adding parcel development, determining what to value towards voting credits could become even more complicated.

I think the deliberative process broke down because of efforts to derive $ghst equivalences for every gotchiverse artifact and attribute. The intent, of course, was to derive weighting factors that would enable the broad gotchiverse community to have parity with the $ghst investment community in decision making, especially on matters affecting game2win. Creating different voting classes was explored but it didn’t progress very far because game2win decisions affect not only the DAO Treasury but the market perception of Aavegotchi vis-a-vis other competing NFT games and therefore such decisions impact market cap for all $ghst holders, not just gamers.

A path through the quagmire of complex vote weighting mechanisms might necessitate stepping back and reconsidering what really needs to be measured to determine weighted voting credits. Does every gotchi, its traits and the items in its pocket need to be quantified to derive a voting equivalence? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I think a voting scheme that is too complicated would do Aavegotchi governance and $ghst value more harm than good. The voting scheme should be easy to explain to any potential voter with a simple elevator pitch.