GHST Liquidity Rewards on new launch - Pixelcraft / DAO collaboration

[kenymccornick]

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.

@Nihiliminalis

I dont think it is Aavegotchi who should (or would need to) approach „polycat or DFYN“, as you mentioned.

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.

@Nihiliminalis

In my view the investment in Dinoswap would be simultanously a marketing in itself (so, no further need of marketing IMO)

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.

@Nihiliminalis

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.

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:

@Nihiliminalis

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.

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.

@Jujy

Of course, most of us probably agree that having the treasury funds sit idle isn’t ideal…

Consider joining this thread fren!