As tickets have proven time and time again, to be illiquid and their utility can be removed by other asset voter voting it away, I propose that we move to a system where all official raffles after Land 3 are held using pure uncut GLTR.
GLTR has many uses, and is a luxury item that if left unsinked, causes excess inflation and potential unbalances.
Raffles are unreliable and people can vote to delay or cancel them, and are also easily manipulated by simply making posts on the discord.
Many people feel that the ticket system is manipulated by large actors, to use the rest of the community as exit liquidity and the system has many ways to abuse it. The quality of Frens, has come into question.
Lets stop the insanity, and move 100% to using GLTR as the entry for raffles. No intermediary such as a ticket is needed. If a raffle gets moved or canceled, you can use it for something else, and it is useful the entire time you hold it. To maintain the dynamic of splitting the entries into different piles, we can simply make the raffle interface accept glitter for each type of raffle, in appropriate sizes.
To start, the frens count of the legacy ticket system x 100, would be appropriate. That would give you one common entry at 5000 glitter, 1 godlike entry at 5 million glitter, and should a land or haunt ever occur again, 1 million glitter per entry, is perfection.
I agree with getting away with frens. Why GLTR tho? Why not just use GHST like in the case of the proposed mini-raffles? Then burn the GHST that entered the raffle.
I am still against excess asset inflation so I am against planning any raffle on a roadmap, but if demand picks up, we could vote to do new raffles and introduce new assets.
By doing those in GHST, we effectively deflate the GHST supply while we inflate the asset supply. This in turn would make GHST more valuable over time. Since assets are tied to a GHST value, you are in this case not inflating the value of your assets as much, while still having fun raffles.
I am not completely against using GLTR but I fear it will turn into another frens where people will start demanding raffles to increase the value of the GLTR that they bought.
Glitter has multiple uses, so there is no reason to ever feel that you got stuck with it. You can LP it, you can speed build, you can use it for all the various things weâre going to charge you for, and then we have raffles, which give you a chance to forgo all those sure thing niceties, and gamble with it too. It makes a nice setup for having people stake a lot without turning the whole installation side of game into instabuild everywhere.
One thing that may reduce factionalism is to realize that by far the biggest extractors in aavegotchi were the whales who single-side-staked GHST through the whole bull market with extremely low risk, won tons of prizes which the people still here bought up over and over for high prices, and then exited before the crash. We are currently dealing with the wreckage those whales left, and blaming all sorts of different groups for it.
I think this is a great idea. I was thinking the other day about the raffles and how we could actually make them more lucrative for the smaller players. I think if we Give Aavegotchi Souls we could experiment with different interesting raffle structures.
For example, what if there was one pool of items and the Total Number of Items = Total Number of Souls on X date. Each level of item: Common, Uncommon, Rare, Legendary, Mythical, Godlike would be available as a percentage of The Total Number of Items.
Total Souls on XX/YY/ZZZZ date = 3,000
Total Items = 3,000
Common = 1,575 (52.493%)
Uncommon = 787 (26.246%)
Rare = 394 (13.123%)
Legendary = 157 (5.249%)
Mythical = 79 (2.62%)
Godlike = 8 (0.262%)
We could use drop tickets, itâs limited to 1 per Soul, there is a price per ticket in terms of GLTR, Iâm not sure what this price should be, something accessible but not trivial. Itâs probable that not every Soul will have the required GLTR to purchase their ticket for inclusion in the raffle. I think this issue can be overcome by adding in a round 2 that utilized the GBM.
For example, only 2,000 Souls purchase tickets in the first round. Then those 2000 tickets are entered into a VRF and 2,000 of the 3,000 items are distributed. Then we conduct a 2nd round where we GBM the remaining 1,000 items to whomever wants to participate. This GBM can be either conducted in GLTR or GHST⌠(Leaning towards GLTR as letâs keep it consistent).
An added benefit of this is it gives everyone who purchases and enters a ticket in round 1 an equal probability of getting all items (Godlike, Mythical, etc). This could be a true, economically viable way to conduct wealth redistribution in the ecosystem. If you are a small player and by the luck of the draw get a valuable asset this could be very impactful. It should also help with price discovery. Additionally since we GBM the remaining assets we let the whales duke it out plus add an earning option.
This is just one potential option if we started thinking in terms of SoulsâŚ
How would moving from FRENs to GLTR change your statement?
My 2 cents on the subject in general:
FRENS are non-transferable. GLTR is transferable. This makes FRENs superior in my book.
Staking-rewards are inflationary. However, because FRENs are non-transferable, this wonât affect the price of the tokens being staked. So instead of dragging down GHST, FRENs inflation just drags down the price of tickets. However to go from tickets to another token, you need a buyer on the other end because there is no pool. This is a protective barrier. With GLTR you donât have this protection. With GLTR as staking-rewards, staking inflation will now creep into our token prices via the quickswap and GAX pools. The GHST/GLTR pool for example is a snake eating its own tail. But the other GLTR rewarding pools have similar issues.
All those one-shot sinks wonât be able to keep this system in balance. Raffles are not often enough, upgrades are not often enough, moving channeling time-of-day only needs to be performed very rarely, probably only once for most people. So as each and every day more and more GLTR is printed, PC would (rather periodically) need to come up with new sinks. Itâs like trying to prevent a leaking boat from sinking by using a bucket. So instead of proposing that each and everything should now cost GLTR, how about we change the system and turn GLTR from fixed cost to running cost? You wanna operate a harvester? Well, thatâll cost you X GLTR per block. And itâll stop if it runs out of GLTR. How would we get the GLTR in the harvesters? Well, we could have a GLTR silo providing all the installations on a parcel / estate with GLTR to cover these operational costs.
Non-transferable staking rewards might (not legal advice) be more tax friendly, at least if you decide not to sell your tickets. Obviously that argument would work better if tickets were non-transferable too, but depending on your country or even the specific clerk you get, you could try to make the argument that the value of a FREN isnât tangible.
Iâm starting to realize that you are definitely in the top 5 most based people in this DAO.
And yes, that is what I meant by us being their exit liquidity. I have zero love for the mostly GHSTly. I know what a real extractor is, and itâs someone who has so much money that they can live off of a no risk yield. The people hustlin⌠they are working, not extracting, as far as I am concerned.
The entire point of what I am proposing, really comes down to the part where the tickets are only good for one thing, and then you are stuck, and if there is a delay, they dump, and then more are printed,. and the only way to reduce the supply, is the thing that got delayed⌠at least glitter can do other things. You arenât trapped, and you also arenât subject to a system where the source of the thing they are selling is also the reason your vote doesnât matter, and this creates a ânon-optimal situationâ
If someone suggests we use GLTR for voting⌠I dunno. The whole money = votes thing seems to be a recipe for for extraction. Yeah, it should scale, but the guy with a million GHST that doesnât play the game is actually far more dangerous to the ecosystem, than an army of bots, in the end.
Wondering why youâd remove the tickets part of this? I get that GLTR can be cashed out through other methods whereas frens canât, but if raffles continue using the same rarity styles we have now (com->god) for a variety of different things (wearables vs decorations vs whatever in future) donât we need a market mechanism to price these? Iâm not convinced by âappropriate sizesâ - doesnât that artificially and centrally predetermine a value for the prizes? Iâm probably wrong lol.
The reason we should remove tickets is because it creates an expectation to hold raffles. We would need to keep scheduling more raffles as we go or else ticket prices keep dropping. We can not provide that promise as there needs to be demand for the underlying asset that is being raffled out first. Otherwise it is just the NFT holders suffering in the long term and people will stay away from investing into them.
It might be different if we made raffle tickets untradeable and only a reward for stakers. At least u would not feel rugged by ticket prices dropping in value as it would be a free token only.
I personally prefer moving to GLTR or GHST as I do not see many raffles in the near future as long as market conditions stay the way they are.
Iâd prefer keeping tickets, simply because without them weâd have to radically change the Raffle contracts.
But what if instead of purchasing tickets with FRENS, they could be purchased and redeemed for GLTR, maybe with a small redemption penalty? It would kill the ticket market, as there would be no need to trade tickets. You could simply purchase them as needed, and sell them back to the contract, minus the penalty.
The apGHST in the wapGHST contract cannot be used as collateral since the owner of the apGHST is the contract, and therefore cannot be leveraged by stakers.
I think this would be an ideal solution to implement after the last raffle (REALM? More Decorations?), so people get a chance to use up all of their unspent tickets and FRENS. Just gotta make it clear that the ticket market will basically be âclosedâ after, so noone can cry foul.
In the meantime, people are going to continue single-staking GHST to earn FRENS. One way to begin incentivizing GLTR-staking rather than FRENS staking would be to begin slowly lowering the FRENS peg for single-staking GHST. RIght now itâs 1 FREN / GHST / Day.
This was originally suggested by Marc Zeller and could be implemented fairly easily, after a coreprop was passed. Just a gradual monthly reduction, instead of going from 1 directly to 0.
When you launched GHST, single staking made a lot of sense to incentivize people to hold onto their GHST, and to reward people who believed in the Aavegotchi protocol in the long term. I believe it helped to put GHST on a great trajectory.
Nowadays however, I wonder about the reason to reward single staking, whether itâs for FRENs or GLTR. Even at 1/3 the weight of the other pools, the risk profile is so much lower on single staking that it doesnât really seem fair for liquidity providers of the other pools
But wapghst is actually aaveâs deposit, anyone can borrow ghst from aave, and then convert it into wapghst to produce frens while waiting for the next one to continue lending ghstďźSo the loop will be repeated, and eventually 1 ghst will generate more than 1 frens
You are correct that 1 GHST can generate more than 1 fren, but this is actually already the case with LP pools for example where each GHST is matched up in a pair, and that pair as a whole is rewarded with FRENs even though it is only half composed of GHST.
IMO, the main focus should be on eliminating same asset recursive leverage, which is exactly what is done with wapGHST. Borrowing GHST with any other collateral asset to farm in wapGHST carries substantial risk and requires your position to be overcollateralized. The value of assets you must lock up to farm 1 FREN by borrowing is actually higher than just using GHST by itself.
