I agree with some of the points you made actually, although I obviously disagree with others and my decision is totally different. As I have said from the beginning, I’m against partnering with any farm at all, especially at this point.
I did say why this one and not another one, for the sake of the argument, but ultimately what drives my decision to vote “no” and the thing we agree on, is that I would rather see the team focusing on marketing, the game, H2, the reaalm, etc. This same argument that you use for time, I use for money as well.
That said, if the game was fully developed, the community was experiencing an exponential growth, and in general we had all things covered, I would probably say “why not?” And honestly, 200k go a long way to hire people, so we wouldn’t have to worry about wasting time on new partnerships, marketing, baadges and what not, cause they’d have no impact on the main development.
Not to be blunt, but you are the main guy who has been pushing for more liquidity on DEXes for GHST. We are focusing most of our energy on the game, H2, etc, but almost every day we have seen posts in the chat discussing how to get more liquidity on Quickswap. So we thought this could be an interesting approach, and a potential way to get good exposure to DinoSwap’s venture-backed base (which exists, btw).
If the DAO decides to pass on this opportunity to get in at the ground floor of an up and coming liquidity farm, then I hope we can collectively come up with some better ways to easily bootstrap liquidity for GHST on DEXes.
Don’t worry, I appreciate blunt @coderdan. And you are right, there has been a liquidity problem, and I’ve tried to propose (arguably cheaper) solutions. However, if you keep reading my last reply, my main point at the end is that if we invest that kind of money on growing the dev team, marketing staff, social media, etc., we would still have the ability to grow our liquidity through different actions without affecting development (even speeding it up) and without taking such an arguably high risk. I get it, they are a big player and that’s basically the only convincing argument I’ve seen so far. Sorry man, it looks like I’m trying to sabotage this, but I really can’t share your approach here at this specific moment. Being blunt too
so all the quick holders are gonna sell for ETH? seems like what I’d have to do. more people selling QUICK wouldn’t damage the price? Just trying to understand…just skeptical because i’ve nvr heard of DINO. but i’m open to whatever is best for the gaang. thanks for the clarification.
Well, I guess it depends what kind of reward people prefer, some people may prefer QUICK over DINO, or viceversa. The hope is that if DINO succeeds and becomes the big player that people expect it to be, this would attract new LPs to provide liquidity for our token. So our overall liquidity on Quickswap would grow. But you are somehow right, probably some of the existing liquidity providers may change pools and leave the QUICK-GHST and the QUICK-USDC pools for a better APY, so they will sell their QUICK or USDC for ETH. It is exactly the same pool fragmentation that could happen if we partner up with another exchange, except for the fact that the overall token liquidity stays in a single exchange (this is one of the reasons why the team thinks this is a good solution). What’s best for the gang nobody knows for sure I guess, we just have different opinions.
This is probably my last reply (I’ll try ), cause there is very little for me left to say that I haven’t said already, and I don’t wanna repeat myself or waste anybody’s time. To sum it up, I would use resources in a different, more conservative way while still trying to fix the liquidity problem by promoting growth (without gambling) and allocating more resources to development.
That said, and for the health of this DAO, I strongly encourage you to vote yes if you believe in this new farm or even have doubts, you can always say “no” later, as @Jesse_gldnXross said. If finally this farm becomes the next pancakeswap, I don’t want you to blame me or have any regrets, it’s always a possibility and whatever decision you make you should be okay with it. I also encourage the Aavegotchi team to make a SigProp regardless of the result of the poll and announce it on discord, to make sure that everyone in the Aavegotchi community votes and that the results fairly represent their decision.
I think you’re good. It’s hard to argue the unpopular or alternative take. I’ve definitely been there!
Thank you for all your energy and time spent on this thread, I don’t think anyone resents it.
I’d be in favor of this proposal, and even would go a step further: why not provide 133k ghst worth of the eth-ghst lp farm on dynoswap?
LPing sounds pretty low risk (IL apart), 133k at 300% APR would actually reimburse within 3 months the initial 100k GHST drop. Financially neutral while providing a new ghst farm and more liquidity.
You missed one… liquidity. The team has to focus on this. They can’t just ignore it and hop it works itself out. Quickswap rewards are dropping. The liquidity is dropping. Pixelcraft has to spend time on coming up with new ways to incentivize LPs. They need to spend time looking at possible partnerships like DinoSwap.
Actually, one could argue that if you vote no on this project then you’re going to force Pixelcraft to “waste” more time trying to figure out another solution.
I’ll agree that I would love to know more about DinoSwap, and hopefully we get to learn a bit more if this move onto a SigProp. The limited information provided has me interested. If DinoSwap has actual backers (unlike the poly(mammal) projects), then to me that is huge. That in itself can bring in users (depending on the backers). One of the only reason I decided to join Aavegotchi is because of Aave’s investment in Pixelcraft.
I can definitely understand if you’re against the unknown of DinoSwap, but spending resources on the liquidity problem is going to happen. It’s going to be time, money, or both.
I think inviting the Dinos in for an AMA would be just the right move before finally deciding about the partnership in the Core-Prop-Vote. If I would vote „no“ already at this stage, I would have to assume, that you wasted your valuable time (and so to speak my money) by taking so much effort in vetting them.
I see this as an opportunity, where Pixelcraft and our Aavegotchi-DAO would act as equal partners.
This is what I wanted to emphasize:
non-regarding how the final Core-Prop-Vote will play out… (if the up-coming info about/from Dinoswap isnt convincing or if I dont like how the Dinos will answer our questions- I will certainly vote „no“ in the core-prop) … but up to that point its the process of discussion and collective formation of opinion what I am giving a „Yes“ to right now -
because I see it as a fitting opportunity for the goo in the DAO-cocoon to gather some more gestalt.
In the interest of agility, voting is open until Sunday June 13. In the meantime, let’s keep the lively discussion going. I will do my best to schedule an AMA and get more pre-launch information from the DinoSwap team.
IMHO, a long-term plan between us and Dinoswap should be outlined first. With that saying, Dinoswap should provide farms and pools with good rewards that will last for at least a year maybe (as PS did enough due diligence) so what is happening with liquidity on Quickswap won’t repeat.
I think the only long term solution for liquidity is for volume to grow so liquidity providers earn more fees. I don’t think any rewards program is a true long term solution. Rewards are meant to bootstrap new projects. I think it’s actually still pretty awesome that the APY on quickswap is still over 100% for GHST-QUICK.
So I think it is important to keep in mind that any rewards program is likely going to be only a short/medium term solution.
Of course, could be wrong, but once a project becomes established and have enough daily users, the need for rewards drops. More Haaunts, more users, and more features (ex. Reaalms) is probably the long term solution, and I believe is what @kenymccornick is focused on, rightly so. I do agree with the position that those are the critical long term solutions to liquidity, but I still support the short/medium term solution with DinoSwap.
You got me right bud @UnfitStone. I didn’t reply to your previous message cause I didn’t want to repeat myself, if you keep reading after the quote I mentioned how I think the money should be invested to solve the liquidity problem, things like development, marketing campaigns, in-game rewards (currently with a high developer overhead), use cases for FRENS, organic growth and less risky/cheaper partnerships.
The proposed solution as the team mentioned and you guys remark, is (quite an expensive IMO, even if it’s just 10% of the DAO treasury) short/medium term solution, if it’s a solution at all (depending on market conditions it could be a huge fiasco, money is not flowing into farms so much right now).
Worst case scenario, we won’t see any serious HODLers joining the farm, probably any new liquidity we see is mostly degens (except for those that probably move from the existing pools for a better APY). Then, after a couple of weeks or a month, as it’s common in most farms, they dump their GHST and their DINO and basically we have the same liquidity problem we had before, plus 200k USD less in our pockets.
Best case scenario, DINO becomes huge, that serves us as marketing for Aavegotchi, and we get more people looking into us and holding GHST. This would solve the liquidity problem long term. I just can’t see this happening right now, even less without a more complete product, a bigger brand, faster development, etc. which is why I’d rather start there. It probably wouldn’t boost our liquidity exponentially as fast as this Dinoswap partnership potentially could, but it would do it steadily and safely. I get that this is a very conservative approach, and other approaches are as valid as mine, so it’s all good, best of luck!
I voted yes as I think this is interesting and would like to see it progress but I am still on the fence. I definitely do not have as much stake in this as some of the voters but here is my 2 cents anyway.
I am not sure I understand the mechanics well enough so correct me if I am mistaken but the 300% APY yield is only for the reward period of three months. If so yield farmers will move on to the next thing after that time. It is not bad in itself but we have to consider what good will come out of it in that timeframe. I think the new pool and users that it will bring with the demand for GHST that goes with it might be real but it seems expensive. The risk of a dump is also very real. Looking at it that way it feels more like a marketing campaign than an investment and would be money spent by the DAO to further the project.
Regarding the other risks I trust in the due diligence done by the team so I will assume this is sound and involves only the ones inherent to the launch of a new farm and token (no rug). With that in mind I think this is a good opportunity since I believe we are already invested in Polygon’s success and we seem to have an early lead on something that might be bringing value to that space thus to us. 7% still seems a lot for that kind of spending. It’s hard to measure, but it would have to payback at least that in fresh money for GHST or aavegotchi which I find doubtful. I’d be more comfortable if it was a smaller percentage.
Thank you for the elaborate breakdown, kind ser. Especially regarding the DAO-discussions part; Progressing to the next stage of discussion would be both appreciative to the Team and the community. Mind changed.
. And you are right, there has been a liquidity problem, and I’ve tried to propose (arguably cheaper) solutions. However, if you keep reading my last reply, my main point at the end is that if we invest that kind of money on growing the dev team, marketing staff, social media, etc., we would still have the ability to grow our liquidity through different actions without affecting development (even speeding it up) and without taking such an arguably high risk. I get it, they are a big player and that’s basically the only convincing argument I’ve seen so far. Sorry man, it looks like I’m trying to sabotage this, but I really can’t share your approach here at this specific moment. Being blunt too 
), cause there is very little for me left to say that I haven’t said already, and I don’t wanna repeat myself or waste anybody’s time. To sum it up, I would use resources in a different, more conservative way while still trying to fix the liquidity problem by promoting growth (without gambling) and allocating more resources to development.
. Bribe me with some wearables and I’m all yours 
