Just to be clear @kain and @tburd.eth , I don’t think this proposal could damage the relationship with Quickswap, in fact they are the ones that get the most out of this deal, cause they get extra liquidity and volume without giving out any rewards. You will have to deposit your ETH and GHST on Quickswap to farm DINO basically.
Thank you for clarifying, I wasn’t thinking it would hurt exactly, but just more to build on top of. But knowing that, I still don’t really see the reason to move forward with that particular project
Since there have been several talks between Pixelcraft and Dinoswap over a prolonged time (which means that there has been very valuable time invested into this) and since I am trusting Pixelcraft with a considerable portion of my portfolio, I trust Pixelcraft with this too.
in your estimation, have you found something that discernably distinguishes „Dinoswap“ from all the others? (not asking for alpha, just your level of conviction)
Has there been a specific attribute of the Dinoswap-project, that convinced you at some point ultimately (already in the beginning or something that you suddenly realized in the process of discovery) - or was it rather a gradual process?
Will the distinction between Dinoswap and others be obvious instantly once they go out of stealth?
For me the most important pro-points are:
new GHST-pool on Quickswap + earning Frens
new trading-possibilities through GHST-ETH
new marketplace in which the Aavegotchi-brand will get known.
(* and … who the heck knows… maybe trading Dinos could be fun too)
I‘d look very much forward to directly trade GHST-ETH – this will open up some new trading-options.
In my estimation this will impact liquidity positively.
And another pool to earn FRENS with? Definetely yes.
But I think its healthy to counter-weigh enthusiasm with the picturing of worst-case scenarios:
lets imagine Dinoswap goes belly-up…
we loose 200k (Pixelcraft 100k, the DAO 100k) Would it hurt? Surely. But would it be catastrophic? I would think, no.
What possible benefits are there on the other side? whats the risk-reward-ratio? Are the possible gains (not only monetary, but also strategically) justifying the investment?
My calculation is this:
the DAO risks 100k in this.
According to Dapp-Radar Aavegotchi has approximately one thousand(1000) users.
That means every active member is risking 100GHST (so to speak, I am breaking this down in this simple way to get a grip on the thing)
If I personally would have to come up with 100GHST out of my own pocket for this, would I agree to it?
Yes, I would:
I deem the targeted 300% APY as conservative in the current environment. (stGHST-QUICK has… ehm… used to have… way over 300% for months )
What if the returns will be below that? Disappointing, but I‘ll take that.
But there is certainly also the possibility that they could be higher? The 300% isnt a cap, right?
Looking at the liquidity providers and aggregators in the Polygon-ecosystem its hard to say which one will succeed, as many of them seem to be mere copies of one another.
If Dinoswap uses a truly new farming-mechanism, this alone could make them unique.
As they seem to have an interesting concept, it will also offer the possibility to learn something new.
Many discussions in the DAO have been about marketing. This now is just the opportunity for getting the word out – additionally to the other benefits.
My guess is, that the probability is quite high, that the DAO(the treasury) and thus every DAO-member will get back more in worth than the risked 100GHST.
I understand the inclination to be hesitant: first rule should always be to protect ones capital.
But as I see it: letting capital/potential sit idle in a burgeoning and expanding ecosystem is equal to loosing it.
I think that especially the possible long-term rewards justify the risk.
As last point:
A „no“ to this option would inhibit the opportunity for the first serious DAO-discussions, incorporating the economic outlooks and evaluations of the individual DAO-members. The discussions would be about something very concrete and not mere theory.
The investment in Dinoswap would be the first communal investment and thus something through which the DAO could start to get some concrete shape.
Moreover, I think this will be fun.
Nice read! I’m gonna have to agree to disagree here, too many assumptions and conclusions that I don’t agree with. That said, the discussion shouldn’t be about whether to let the treasury sit idle or not, in fact there are threads like this one by @letsgobankless that offer an alternative. And I myself said several times that I wouldn’t have a problem investing in marketing and talent to help us develop and spread faster (100k would go a long way for that). The discussion should be about whether to risk that amount to invest in this particular new yield farm IMO. Also, people keep mentioning the marketing argument… If you guys wanna take this road, why not make partnerships with first movers and big players that have already launched, like polycat or DFYN, instead of this? The risk/reward ratio with those is definitely better. I can’t beat the fun argument though
You’ve pretty clearly stated how I currently feel about this, well done!
I am hoping that Pixelcraft can provide something about why DinoSwap is actually unique and not another derivative app. @coderdan @Jesse_gldnXross would be nice if you could provide anything on this without jeopardizing an NDA
I am happy we can agree on the fun-agurment
If I understand you correctly, thats exactly the point we disagree upon:
I dont think it is Aavegotchi who should (or would need to) approach „polycat or DFYN“, as you mentioned.
I see Aavegotchi as a first-mover and big player with its own domain, with an outstanding brand and unique value-proposition that speaks for itself. I assume thats the reason, why Aavegotchi was approached by Dinoswap. In this case Aavegotchi would be the accelerator of Dinoswap.
In my view the investment in Dinoswap would be simultanously a marketing in itself (so, no further need of marketing IMO)
I think the discussion about wether „to let the treasury sit idle or not“ is an integral part of the consideration wether to partner with Dinoswap or not.
In the thread you pointed me to (thanks for that) @letsgobankless states:
I dont think there is a consensus about that, and it would be interesting to get a sentiment of the community on this – because if you have the position, that the treasury shouldn‘t be touched, then partnerships like the one proposed with Dinoswap exclude themselves.
As @Jesse_gldnXross states above in this thread:
I agree with that, it is one possibility (of many). But it is one that seems to have been vetted.
My position is simply against the „stagnancy“. And its A-OK if we dont agree on this point.
I perceive the risk-reward-ratio being way better, when Aavegtochi acts as an accelerator rather than trying to work with established projects, that anyhow wont find anyway around Aavegotchi
As we stated above, the AavegotchiDAO treasury itself would not be the benefiter in this, as it would not be providing liquidity for GHST-wETH, and thus would not be earning DINO (although it could, if we wanted it to…). The benefiters would be GHST-wETH LPers (which are individual members of the DAO.)
It’s an interesting proposition, but I can understand the “just another farm” concerns. Audits and pre-launch confidence aside, I feel there is simply too much downside potential here. $GHST demand will rise organically throughout further haunts & realm explorations.
Maybe I’m missing something, but more exposure specifically for the $GHST token (extraneous to its usage in the platform) is not something to be too focused on. Perhaps I’m jaded from being around so many farms that try to spring-board off the success of another project though.
Thank you for clarifying! Didn‘t want to make a misleading statement. I see: the DAO wouldn‘t benefit directly. So, if I did not intend to participate in providing liquidity for GHST-wETH, I would have to ask myself, if there is still an advantage for me individually. My argument is there would be. Cool, if this would come to a vote.
My gut feeling is that I’d prefer to be more conservative with partnerships. Unless I’m mistaken, the potential risk is not limited to the funds contributed by PixelCraft and the DAO, but there is also a theoretical risk to the millions in funds provided by LPs. I understand the DinoSwap contract has been audited by Certik, and it sounds like Jesse and Dan have communicated with the team enough to have some level of confidence in the project’s viability. That said, if an exploit or bad actor were to compromise the GHST-WETH pool, it could be catastrophic to the community and to Aavegotchi’s image. However small the chance of that happening, to me it doesn’t feel worth the risk. We have a great relationship with Quickswap and Aave, and if we were to seek to expand our liquidity offerings, I’d prefer to seek out established teams like Sushi, or even ComethSwap.
Of course, most of us probably agree that having the treasury funds sit idle isn’t ideal…Once GHST is listed on Aave, would it make sense to deposit a portion of the treasury’s GHST into Aave? And I suppose we could already be doing that with a portion of the DAI in the treasury. These are, of course, low-risk/low-reward strategies, but given recent market uncertainty, I don’t particularly mind that approach.
Just my .02 GHST
The GHST-wETH pool is still fully controlled by the Quickswap contracts. The main difference for an LP would be instead of staking their stkGHST-wETH receipt token in the QUICK contract (as is the case with stkGHST-USDC and stkGHST-QUICK) they would stake it into the Dinoswap contracts to earn DINO.
The stkGHST-QUICK token is simply a receipt token – it is not redeemable for the underlying LP funds.
Ah, ok, so there is no way for the Dino staking contract to use that stkGHST-wETH receipt to withdraw funds from Quickswap?
I like the idea of collaboration, especially that it involves quickswap & sushi. It would be logical for the treasury to buyback ghst with dai & Lending other protocols Ghst through aave. 100,000 ghst is reasonable… about 100 portals -300 gotchis
Nope, not at all. The actual LP tokens would actually be deposited first into the Aavegotchi GHST staking contract for a new GHST-wETH pool. And only the original staker is able to remove LP tokens from the Aavegotchi staking contracts.
This provides a nice firewall that prevents malicious actors from rugging Aavegotchi liquidity, since they’re only receiving the stkGHST receipt tokens, not the underlying LP tokens (which are stored in the GHST Staking contracts).
Are the devs properly doxed and do they have a good history? same for Polycat and Polywhale. I don’t see any marketing potential unless it’s a giant like Curve. We’re already listed on Binance and there’s no income of users. I already forgot about rot finance, dracula.sucks and countless other farms that were still running and were actually doing consistent APYs to this day.
I would like a partnership with crypto kitties, axies, sandbox, cryptopunks but I don’t think they’ll accept if they believe we’ll take away their current users from them(and vice versa), plus it’s hard to do true NFT partnerships like combining the games together which isn’t possible.
The funds would be better spent on basic exposure marketing on Reddit, TikTok, Twitter, Telegram and the likes in my opinion. Albeit it is nice that we are so secluded from the overall crypto market that the NFTs’ prices are unaffected, albeit the GHST token is still partially affected by being listed on Binance and other places.
The LP staying in Aavegotchi is reassuring, normally farms require you to allow their contract to 100% handle your LPs and not just for one interaction.
Yes, security of funds is our main priority, which is why the stkGHST-series tokens are not redeemable for the underlying assets, except for the original staker
It’s not so much that either side is worried about losing users, as the technical difficulties of doing meaningful collaborations, also the fact that we are on Polygon and most others are on other chains. But it’s a good topic to discuss in a separate thread.
You totally got me wrong here… As I said before, I didn’t go into detail into a quite a few things you said and I disagree with, for the sake of brevity and staying focused. I still won’t, but let me try to be clearer this time.
To be honest, I wouldn’t partner up with a farm like polycat or Dinoswap, I just said that IF the community were seriously considering this, a less risky partnership would be a farm that is already well established, so that there is a lower risk and the same marketing reward, even higher since they already have a big community. DFYN is a different story, cause I usually see DEX’s with high liquidity and volume as a safer bet, DFYN is the third biggest DEX on Polygon, they are trending and the fact they they aim to be multichain could be a great opportunity. I see a real product I’d like to invest in. Plus, their team is doxxed and has been in crypto for quite a while.
As for being us who approach them, I just can’t agree with you, I don’t see why we should be the ones that are “courted” instead of seeking partnerships with teams and projects we like.
As mentioned previously, it would only be an investment in marketing if DINO succeeds and grows, so I would rather put that money into a marketing campaign or even partnerships with other big communities in crypto. So basically, the marketing investment you mention, as of now, it’s purely hypothetical and risky, which is what I’ve tried to say.
I didn’t say it’s not an integral part of the discussion, I’m saying let’s not mix things up. In your original comment you mentioned this:
What I meant is that by saying “no” to this proposal, we are not saying that we want the treasury to sit idle, there are other ways to put it to work, there are arguably better investments. Also, by saying “no”, we are not inhibiting any discussion, quite the opposite, it makes us explore other options. I feel that the way you are putting it, is that either we do this or let the treasury rot… And that’s what my reply was all about. We can say no to this, and still discuss how to invest the money in the treasury.
Consider joining this thread fren!
I’ve read all the new comments and thought about this a bit more, I’m on board for the partnership. There’s an audit and as @coderdan has mentioned, there’s the firewall with “stk” tokens. To me, that removes the biggest downside, which would be a rug pull. So what’s the next worst thing? DinoSwap flops? Okay, so if that happens I still got to farm some GHST rewards and FRENS. Maybe take a bit of a hit on APY vs quickswap if Dino does terrible. I guess you could say some wasted funds from the treasury, but that’s going back to the LP providers, so not a terrible loss.
So downside to me is that maybe they don’t do as well as they expect. We still get to farm some rewards and get a GHST-WETH pool going.
There was never a high risk of rug pull IMO @UnfitStone , since pixelcraft said it’s a well known team, they have been doxxed to them, on calls, etc.
Just to clarify again, you won’t get GHST rewards in the GHST-WETH pool, you will get DINO. The only way to farm our GHST initially is by buying their DINO token and staking it in the single asset pool. So basically:
- Stake DINO on their platform, earn GHST (this burns DINO)
- Stake GHST-WETH on Quickswap, earn FRENS and DINO
So the funds only go back to the LP providers in the form of DINO, which could be worth a lot or nothing at all. The GHST rewards are for DINO stakers, not GHST LPs. So yeah, biggest downside for me is that it could be a waste of funds that we could use for many other things, such as marketing, speed up development or even arguably better investments. Hell, we could even use those GHST to reward LPs ourselves (not seriously suggesting this, just saying)! Not trying to convince you though, just make sure you understand what you are voting for.
If the farming is like this, then some sort of streaming services would be nice