GHST Liquidity Rewards on new launch - Pixelcraft / DAO collaboration

[Jujy]

Ah, ok, so there is no way for the Dino staking contract to use that stkGHST-wETH receipt to withdraw funds from Quickswap?

[Pegasus]

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

[coderdan]

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).

[FlameViper]

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.

[coderdan]

@FlameViper

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

@FlameViper

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.

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.

[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!

[UnfitStone]

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.

[kenymccornick]

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.

[ricJones_Grizzy]

If the farming is like this, then some sort of streaming services would be nice

[UnfitStone]

Yep, thanks for clarifying . Didn’t bother with the details in my post, I personally would plan to use the DINO for GHST.

The only unanswered question for me is why DinoSwap and not another project that is already running on polygon? Probably just an issue with the DAO, but we’re voting with limited information about DinoSwap. Hard to make a truly well-informed decision.

To me the vote is really if I trust that Pixelcraft has their users best interest in mind for this selection. Do I want a LP farm? Yes. Which one is the best one? No idea, but Pixelcraft is willing to help kickstart Dino for some reason, so now the question is “Do I trust Pixelcraft?” Yes, so I vote yes.

[kenymccornick]

Fair enough, and I totally understand your reasoning, although I don’t agree with it . For me it’s not as simple as “do I trust Pixelcraft?” cause if that was the case a DAO would make no sense, we would just back the team in whatever decision they make. But to answer the question, yes, I do trust the team.

The next question is, do I think they’ll always make the best decision for the project/community? They will try, but no, I don’t, cause they are not gods and sometimes they MAY arguably make a bad decision.

There was an example of this recently, I think it was a mistake postponing the snapshot for round 3 and some people in the community felt it was unfair and unprofessional, especially since in other circumstances we’ve heard the argument that something was not possible because that was not what was planned/promised. Changing schedules like that was… well, not fair.

But that’s a whole other topic, the point is that it’s our responsibility to decide whether they are doing what we think is right, or not. And I agree, due to NDAs we can’t make an informed decision, but in my case, even if Dinoswap had great things in store, it’s just an investment that I’m not comfortable with at this point in time, and more importantly, I feel there are better uses for that money right now. If you don’t, then by all means, go ahead and vote

[Nihiliminalis]

@kenymccornick

Thank you for taking the time for going into some points of mine! I think our discussion helps to clarify the aspects/consequences of the respective vote (at least for me).

@kenymccornick

I feel that the way you are putting it, is that either we do this or let the treasury rot…

No, I dont think that we let the treasury rot, if we dont opt for this particular partnership. It‘s just a conservative approach and thats cool too. I absolutely get your position that you consider this option as too risky/not enough rewarding. I agree, that it is risky, and I am opting for taking more risk/action.

@kenymccornick

Also, by saying “no”, we are not inhibiting any discussion, quite the opposite, it makes us explore other options.

Nonregarding a „yes“ or „no“ to this particular opportunity, we want to be exploring more options, I am very much down with that. Our DAO will evolve through such discussions.
You made a good job in helping clarify what this vote is about.

[kenymccornick]

BTW guys, whatever you decide, make sure you check these threads that explore other options somehow related:

• Stake the treasury
• Baadges for long term GHST liquidity providers
• Pursue a partnership with DFYN

[Jesse_gldnXross]

@UnfitStone

The only unanswered question for me is why DinoSwap and not another project that is already running on polygon? Probably just an issue with the DAO, but we’re voting with limited information about DinoSwap. Hard to make a truly well-informed decision.

“what’s the difference between dinoswap and the long list of existing poly(mammal) farms?”

In short, the platforms I see now on the market are all clones with the exact same emphasis on single asset staking.
This model is unsustainable and benefits only the earliest farmers before burning out.

DinoSwap is different; instead primarily built around LP token farming which much more strongly aligns incentives.

ie Dino’s model drives more liquidity to GHST on existing DEX/AMMs (quickswap and a new pair), instead of detracting liquidity to outside farms.

[JG1]

This is a great response and gave me confidence on voting yes.
There are many positives including not hurting the QS relationship, the profit potential, new frens, etc.
Above all, I think we may be overanalyzing the opportunity when the track record in partnerships is fantastic and 100k from the treasury wouldn’t make or break the game even in worst case scenario. Saying other projects may be worth looking into, ignores the work already done with the dinosaaur frens and would mean a long time now devoted to develop a deal with a “more hype/established” farm…
Rather see the time spent on H2 and reaalm TBH.
Finally, the fact that half of it would be financed by Pixelcraft says enough for me.

[Jesse_gldnXross]

When considering how you may vote for the Yay/Nay poll above… I think its entirely possible that one could vote Yes here in the thread, simply because they feel there is enough potential here to warrant furthering the process, but finally vote NO in the Snapshot Sig or Core prop votes.

So I think of this initial conversation as a temp check. If there’s enough positive response, I’ll write up the SigProp Monday. So if you’re on the fence… I’d say consider voting yes in this unofficial poll while we gather more information.

By the time this proposal makes it out of this thread’s poll… and then out of the Sig… we should have more public info starting to come out just in time for the CoreProp. If we find this proposal reaching CoreProp, we could then invite Dino team in for an AMA in our Discord before making final decisions. Hell at that point, I may even change my vote!

So all that said, if this partnership idea already doesn’t fit your vision, feel free to shoot it down for whatever your reasoning. Enjoying the process.

[kenymccornick]

This is not entirely true. Single staking was a way to bootstrap liquidity, same as Dinoswap is doing (but in a different way, i agree). Those farms are now shifting towards LP farming through their vaults, see the examples of iron finance (went from 50M to 400M since they were included in polycat’s vaults) and DFYN and how they are boosting liquidity and buy pressure.

[jarrod]

Will Pixelcraft be in a position to reveal the DinoSwap team before the Core vote happens? How much are they investing in marketing to bring users over to their new platform?

With the 65 million DINO tokens what percentage are being distributed for farming rewards? How are the remaining tokens getting distributed?

I am voting in support of this proposal, but would like to see more of these details.

[marklar]

Do not know enough about DinoSwap team, backers, lock-up period, etc., to support this proposal. This is a better discussion for post-launch / stealth mode. For now, I’d rather the Treasury LPs directly into Quick and churn quick rewards + LP fees into wETH and then deposit the wETH into Aave and churns matic rewards into more awETH.

[nofuturistic]

That works for me. A potential AMA or more info provided by DinoSwap/T(Rex) would be great before a potential Core Proposal vote. I have descended the fence to vote yes to move this to a Sig Prop with the hopes of more information before we reach the Core Proposal.