I am in the same boat ser. The proposal sounds promising but I would like to hear from more frens before deciding. I do like the idea of using some of our stagnant reserves toward a project that could potentially reward GHST LP providers and also like that this will be on Polygon so we won’t be killed on transaction costs. I become suspicious of the offer of 300% APY because it feels like it could be too good to be true. We would only be committing ~7% of the reserve which isn’t a huge investment depending on your risk profile as was pointed by @kenymccornick. I trust Pixelcraft’s judgment and and will defer my vote until more frens chime in.
1 Like
I don’t think that’s the way it works, but I might be wrong. Number 1, 2 and 3 are right, but then you basically walk away with their token, DINO.
What they call the “extinction pool” (fancy name for just a burn if you ask me) is a single asset staking pool, in which DINO holders provide DINO to get a share of the GHST pool, and all the DINO is burnt. So basically first they use our GHST to create demand for their token in the staking pool, then burn their token to reduce supply and offer decent DINO APYs for our pair. As I said, to me it’s just another farm with a different burn mechanism.
FYI, there are other farms that are trustworthy @UnfitStone if you ask me, one of them quite successful so far (I’m talking about polycat, polywhale is trustworthy too, I was an early supporter, but polycat devs are just killing it, they deliver faster and better, better at making partnerships as well).
2 Likes
Personally, I would love if we could figure out something with polycat
3 Likes
Yep, aware of polywhale and polycat. I used polywhale a bit for matic-weth farming, but decided just to move into the ghst-quick pool. Polycat is doing surprisingly well, still not willing to use it (I would have to look more into their tokenomics… the referral program has a ponzi scheme vibe to it… that’s just me though).
For me, if DinoSwap has actually backers and an audit by Certik then that puts them ahead of the polycat/whale. Polycat/whale just got the first mover advantage by copying some code and getting it running before anyone else (not saying that is bad… wish I would have thought of that).
More information on the DINO token and the burn mechanisms would be nice though.
I guess I’m confused on what’s makes DinoSwap unique… sounds like their initial product is basically polywhale/polycat (which are basically pancakeswap). I guess the inclusion of a dex aggregator makes Dino a cross between pancakeswap and 1inch?
I’m onboard for a partnership with a farm, but it would be nice to understand why Pixelcraft is drawn to DinoSwap (and not another project like polycat or polywhale that has been mentioned by others).
Just to add, polycat has had audits by Hashex and Techrate. One by Certik is underway I believe.
See, this is exactly my problem. I usually see farms as something very speculative and in many cases lacking a real product. That doesn’t mean I don’t invest in them, but certainly very small amounts if I do. Maybe there are some really cool use cases for DINO that the team can’t disclose, but maybe not. I can only judge what I know, and what I know is that is basically printing free money with the help of our GHST and a nice theme, that there are already quite a few strong DEXs and a whole bunch of farms. Plus, we already have 1inch. Many projects are trying to be the next Pancakeswap, but they were one of the biggest players in a less than a month old EVM-compatible chain, times were different cause there were not so many low cost alternatives to Ethereum, certainly not backed by a giant like Binance. Circumstances were different. So yeah, as you said, I don’t see the same unique opportunity here.
4 Likes
Quickswap rewards aren’t even that bad, even though they have dropped. I voted no because I want to build on the relationship with Quickswap. Having this much volatility currently seems a little risky to compromise the already dwindling rewards. Maybe with more info about who they have as launch partners I’d say yes. Kakaaaaw
6 Likes
I totally agree with what you said about quickswap. I feel like they are leading on a polygon currently and will probably remain the top dex, would be good to progress with them if possible
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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
2 Likes
Yes!
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.
So at this point my question to @coderdan and @jesse_gldnXross is this:
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.
6 Likes
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 
6 Likes
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 
3 Likes
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.
5 Likes
@coderdan
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
5 Likes
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.