DinoSwap mega update and next steps discussion

Hi fam, I’d like to bring attention to the fact that our DinoSwap extinction pool will soon expire (3rd week of October I believe). DinoSwap core team wants to know if we are keen to fund another round and shared a few key updates regarding the platform. Here is a synopsis direct from team DINO:

"We are preparing to launch our own AMM and we’d like to propose that Aavegotchi migrate it’s liquidity of GHST-ETH from QuickSwap to DinoSwap.

We will then incentivize this new DinoSwap LP token of stkGHST-ETH with a 2x multiplier for the first week and a 1x multiplier for the remaining 3 months. *We do understand that our token value has dropped so the DINO rewards are expected to be less than the previous term. However at current prices, they are still estimated to be roughly $500k.

In exchange, we ask that Aavegotchi provide $200k of GHST tokens and we will launch a brand new GHST extinction pool in conjunction with the new farm.

Please feel free to reach out with any questions and again we’re very thankful to you guys for supporting our launch from Day 1.

Hope to continue this collaboration! "

In conclusion:

  • DinoSwap AMM going live quite soon (target is vague but definitely this Q4)
  • stkGHST-ETH currently holds $6M of liquidity on Quickswap without any QUICK rewards incentive; its all DINO and FRENS
  • The ask from Dinoswap is the same as last time $200k USD worth of GHST
  • Last time AavegotchiDAO funded $100k and Pixelcraft Studios matched. Pixelcraft was excited to help fund round 1 but any further rounds will be up to the DAO. This does not reflect on Pixelcrafts opinion of the extinction pools but rather how we saw our role being key in the first significant treasury use by the DAO. We were glad to help with “walk then run” principle in a nutshell.

*Discuss if the current offer is desirable as is, something that needs a counter offer, or is to be outright rejected.
*Signal if you would like to have DinoSwap back for another AMA for real time discussion of possibilities.


What’s the rationale for creating their own AMM? Quickswap and Sushiswap already have a significant market share and there are plenty of other AMMs out there. Does the Dinoswap AMM offer any improvements to those and if not, what’s even the point lol?

I’m generally open to keep this program running because it did help us get a nice amount of liquidity but I don’t like the path Dinoswap is taking. If there is no ground breaking improvements to the AMM it just feels like a scheme to a) drain liquidity from other protocols and b) create some sort of hype to push the token price back up (so investors can dump?).

Maybe I’m too harsh on our prehistoric frens but those are my thoughts.


I agree on all of your points here, Moon. Was a bit skeptical about it before things got rolling the first round, but was happy with how things played out post-launch. Definitely think we need more info this go around though, we need clear rationale on why that liquidity should be migrated and the implications of that so we can all make an informed decision.

AMA would definitely be a good idea on this – and a voice based one would be best this time around imo.


Yes I def would like another AMA on how are their AMM better than Quickswap and sushiswap. Though Quickswap farming is becoming more meh to me, sushiswap might be a better alternative (coz big brand).


While I was generally happy with the coop last time, some things left a bad aftertaste:

  • In our last AMA with them, they barely explained a thing, and a lot of questions were “answered” with the equivalent of “trust us, it’s gonna be good”.

  • This non-transparency was also how they treated their own community in the days after launch.

  • They deviated from what was announced. Impromptu decisions by the team (like e.g. when they suddenly doubled rewards for stable-coin pairs) led to FUD and a dump. No reason or explanation was provided.

  • Questions and concerns by the community were largely ignored in the days after launch.

All in all it felt like they were making it up as they go. I’m not against giving them a second serving, but they would need to be a lot more transparent and consistent this time around.


I agree with the points mentioned above. The Dino team has been less than transparent regarding their roadmap and execution of the project. I also recall them in the beginning saying they weren’t going to compete with Quick/Sushi in making an AMM. I feel they’re sort of winging it when it comes to things. They realised the extinction pools didn’t curb inflation as they’d hoped so then they scramble to come up with ways to make their token have value (AMM).

I do feel there is opportunity for a really kickass AMM to take over Polygon (Quickswap is a bit horrifying imho). But the question I have to ask is, is the Dino team able to execute and capture the market?

I definitely made out like a bandit with the launch of Dinoswap and so am very grateful and happy for that round, but now that they’re fully launched and their token down 90%, things are different.

As stated above, without some new innovation re: AMM, it just feels like a scramble to pump the price for exit liquidity for VC investors.


My confidence in dinoswap ability to take the market has dwindled a bit from last time but I still think they are in for the long term and now that their token is not hyped as much there is possibly room to grow. I doubt the AMM will change much so I think we have to consider the incentives only. We would be moving existing liquidities to replace the loss of quick rewards. Basically spending 200K to get 500K back in rewards for our liquidity providers. It seems straightforward unless we’d rather not participate in the extinction pool anymore and move our liquidity elsewhere (like sushiswap). Also they do not mention how much they would give us for the extinction pool, last time it was 2M so if it’s only the 500K it seems low for the same amount on our part

1 Like

In relation to this. There was a weird pump and dump on kucoin with dino/usdt pair. The price was pumped to 2.35 usd while deposits on kucoin were not going trough. Perhaps it has nothing to do with the team but little suspicious anyways. I still support this initiave coz I have dino on a tar pit :slight_smile:

1 Like

I think regardless of what people think about Dinoswap, this is a good deal for the Aavegotchi community. I don’t think DINO speculation should play a huge part in our decision making. At current prices, they are willing to provide 500k incentives and have Aavegotchi only contribute 200k. Even if DINO halves in price, that’s still a larger contribution than the GHST contribution, and these tokens will be distributed pretty much exclusively to GHST-ETH LP providers and GHST accumulators. As long as there are no other projects promoting a GHST-ETH pair, I think taking up Dinoswap on their offer can only be a good thing.

1 Like

I’d rather finance Quickswap’s rewards instead of Dinoswap.
Did we even manage to at least make a crappy 2x from the rewards on Dino or we didn’t even break even? Somebody should investigate everyone’s addresses who staked GHST-WETH in the Dinoswap farm.


Unfortunately we are on a tight schedule for the next few months. Might be a good idea to put this one through for now till we get something more concrete as a replacement.


I remember them talking about cross-chain swaps as a value proposition. I would like to see this implemented along with the team being public before investing any more treasury funds.


Looks really bad. The incentivising stable coin pairs was extremely suspicious.


Seems like everyone wants a piece of our treasury to give out rewards. Quickswap wants it in their Syrup pool, and and now Dino wants us to ante up again to continue to get rewards. No more free lunches, eh?

Maybe then the question is - which would be better?

GHST-QUICK on Quickswap

OR… Maybe the question is: Is this a good way for the DAO to use our funds (hoping to get a multiple back for the participants)?

Should we be finding ways to improve Aavegotchi adoption instead? Or is that Pixelcraft’s job?


I would like a live AMA from the team to find out more details, and it’s a no for me in the current context.

I like Dinoswap, and the rewards are worth considering, but I am a big fan of Quickswap and outright replacing liquidity from that pool just for the additional $DINO rewards doesn’t seem like a good trade off to me.

1 Like

Hey there Jesse!

“In exchange, we ask that Aavegotchi provide $200k of GHST tokens and we will launch a brand new GHST extinction pool in conjunction with the new farm.”

Personally I don’t know how to feel about the extinction pools (i have not entered them) but the ROI is negative in every pool. Is it possible to see GHST in the Jurassic Pool? I am a lot more invested in DINO-wETH than stkGHST-wETH Pool too to have this as an idea but think there could be opportunity to bring people in our ecosystem being able to earn GHST thru the Jurassic Pool.


I agree, progress on the cross-chains swaps is something I hope they can confirm soon.


My main concern is that a new AMM means new risks. Quickswap being a uniswap fork, the risk of getting rugged is pretty low. I’m not moving my GHST-ETH stake to some new AMM by a shady anon team. Unless there is huge some tasty yield. $500k rewards for 6M liquidity sounds like 40% APR, which won’t hold if the token keeps crashing.

With no more info (team doxx themselves, reveal how their AMM will crush the market,…) i would vote no unless if they can match the initial $2M rewards offered. We are their biggest pool after all (after DINO-USDC & UST-USDT), gotta leverage that.


Quick hasn’t proved to be a very stable pair as of lately and in our last task force call Coderdan pointed out that Quickswap user count has been dropping for some time. (Personally a bit salty about rewards getting stuffed, and when I asked them in TG they were evasive and told me “no plans to lower the rewards” then guess what? Lowered)

I would not feel comfortable with changing my GHST-ETH LP to GHST-Quick as an alternative


For the record I was pointing out that their liquidity was down a little less than 50% from the ATH back in August, not users. Haven’t looked recently at their user numbers.


The ROI always turns negative near the end of the lockup period. But it was positive for everyone who put in before the lock. Just how the math works (though I agree it’s weird to display it that way).

1 Like