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