Another AMA would be good to bring about confidence, at the moment, the uncertainties and risks are more than the known benefits.
1 Like
I agree with most of the sentiments here regarding the team’s decisions and performance. They’ve been erratic and in some cases nonsensical. In my opinion this offer is not even close to worth the contract risk to move our liquidity from a tried and tested AMM.
4 Likes
So the general feedback I’m picking up is we are not that interested in the new AMM. If we put that to the side, does anyone want to write a brief counter offer that limits scope to any continuation of DINO rewards/extinction pool?
2 Likes
I would say that we are much more skeptical than the first time, but would be open to having our minds changed with an AMA. Many people did well from the first partnership but the clear communication and timely delivery we are used to from Pixelcraft haven’t been there with Dinoswap. To me, if we can have confidence in the project, we should seriously consider their offer at least; if we can’t have confidence, I don’t know what counter to write.
4 Likes
Agree with your points @Moon.
Separately, I was pretty dismayed to see some of the other NFT project collaborations that DinoSwap have made publicly, particularly with their collaboration with PolyPunks https://twitter.com/DinoSwapHQ/status/1430601983958917122
I think with any partners and investment Aavegotchi DAO makes, heavy scrutiny needs to be applied on the prospective partner’s involvement with the NFT ecosystem. IMO, officially partnering with or promoting a blatant cryptopunks copy project does not align with the extremely innovative NFT mantra of Aavegotchi. Taking that into account with all of Moon’s points, I would vote against use of any DAO funds for future partnership with Dinoswap at this time.
3 Likes
My stance is the same it was back when we started the partnership: I’m against investing any DAO money in yield farms in general. Plus, although I do keep some free DINOs because why not and because I think are trying to be innovative, I don’t really have much faith in the new AMM and I’ve always seen it as a bad move. Lots of big players on Polygon already (even building cross-chain, like DFYN). I would have axed the exchange feature and focus on innovative features instead.
But anyhow, at this point although I don’t really like Quickswap for things already mentioned in this thread, if I had to choose I’d go with Quickswap because they were one of the first movers and they have become one of the biggest DEX’s on Polygon. Only if I had to choose between those two though.
No point, quickswap and sushiswap is plenty.