Proposal to close the GHST Bonding Curve and allocate Curve’s collateral

One does not simply migrate to a new curve. The GHST token contract is settled and any new curve with new collaterals etc requires an entirely new token along with a new, super well audited smart contract to go with it. That’s why these types of suggestions are not a viable option for GHST.

The GHST Bonding Curve is a continuous token sale smart contract built by Aragon. It is not upgradeable. GHST / DAI is the only pair and the Curve is either on or off according to an on-chain GHST token holders vote. The Curve being on or off is the only adjustable aspect of GHST tokenomics.


The creation of this thread last week kicked off one of the most intense discussions our DAO has ever had. We saw the entire spectrum, much of which was healthy skepticism and also many endorsements. For those recognizing Pixelcraft’s many successes and even fitting our shortcomings into context and not a vacuum, I thank you.

Now, about the two Sigprops being drafted. The first sigprop is a binary yes or no to closing the Curve. We either maintain our treasury on top of MakerDAO and DAI token or we control our own destiny. That’s why this Sigprop will be produced mostly using the language found at the beginning of this thread.

The majority of debate was around what to do with the DAI treasury post-Curve closure.

When formulating our proposal, we looked for precedent in how Pixelcraft and the DAO generally split revenue, and the GHST Circle of Win came to mind.

We call it the Circle of Win because both parties are incentivized to do their best and bring value to the ecosystem: 40% to Pixelcraft as the main engine of growth and public face of Aavegotchi, and 60% to the DAO to fund other development, rewards for holders, and other activities the DAO decides are important. Pixelcraft Studios and the DAO each bring different strengths (and weaknesses) to the table, and we believe the ecosystem will flourish best when both sides are supported.

Speaking of Pixelcraft, we thank the community for your praise of the work we have done on the Aavegotchi protocol these last three years, and for your ongoing trust in our leadership. Trust is extremely hard to come by in this space, and we value it above all else.

Regarding our shortcomings, as you know, Pixelcraft Studios’ DNA is Web3, and it is where we shine. At the same time, it’s clear that gaming as a vertical in Web3 is exploding, which is why, early on, we made a strategic decision to enter gaming. Are we experts at building games? No. At least not yet. Will we keep shipping, iterating, and upgrading until we are the experts? Absolutely.

If you believe we should continue to explore other distribution options, that’s fine. We’ll continue the discussion and figure out something that works for everyone, no matter how long it takes. Having said that, crypto moves quick and the risks we cited initially are not going to go away.

However if you believe in our vision of making our adorable Aavegotchis titans in the NFT gaming industry, and beyond that, an IP recognized around the world, vote to support the GHST Circle of Win. Let’s make 2023 the breakout year for Aavegotchi!


Any update on those details?

Before we sign onto the “Circle of Win,” I think there is a lot of ground to cover before we move on to fund disbursement.

Is it possible to shut down the Curve and lock the funds into a multi-sig while we determine the best path forward?

In the proposal’s current form, how is PC incentivised to do any more work at all? There haven’t been any measures of accountability established yet.

1 Like

Any update on those details?

Yes, we provided a clear overview of how we would put those funds to work on behalf of Aavegotchi in this post -
Addressing the Comments and Concerns about Pixelcraft Finances and usage of DAI Collateral

Is it possible to shut down the Curve and lock the funds into a multi-sig while we determine the best path forward?

Locking Pixelcraft’s proposed funds is the equivalent of what we already suggest for the other 40% allocation to DAO Treasury. Those funds are already locked by the DAO because, as of now, there are no plans for how to put those DAI to work on behalf of token holders.

In the proposal’s current form, how is PC incentivised to do any more work at all? There haven’t been any measures of accountability established yet.

We have done multiple sales where our company made 10M+ dollars in GHST. Many other teams would have ridden off into the sunset, but we are here, still building, still working to make Aavegotchi great. I think that’s testament to our commitment to making Aavegotchi the success it deserves to be.

Polygon is currently exploding in regards to NFTs, and we are positioned as the Cryptopunks of Polygon. That’s a huge deal, so we should start seeing the fruits of our early adoption of Polygon very soon. That doesn’t mean we can sit on our laurels and wait for the inevitable though. Nothing is inevitable, it requires hard work, long hours, funding and a bit of luck. We’ve been putting in that hard work for the past three years now, and will be ramping up the efforts even more now that the spotlight is turning to Polygon.


What Notorious was asking is if we can lock all of the funds until further discussions can be had before making any distribution decisions.

Then why the need for the DAI from the Curve?

And still asking for more money after multiple $10M NFT sales? Do you have any references to comparable companies in our space that have taken in this much in NFT sales and are still coming back asking for more funds?

While it was nice for Sandeep to say that, it doesn’t mean the market will react in a similar fashion. They have no skin in our ecosystem, unlike the people that helped provide those multiple $10M sales.


Because we didn’t sell any of this GHST during the bull run. Should we have? Probably. But we didn’t. WAGMI vibes. But that same GHST is now worth much less than the sale price. Taxman doesn’t care though, we still had to pay taxes on it!

Also, the last sale was over a year ago, meanwhile we have monthly operating costs that we spend building out the game that we did a pre-sale for, which were outlined in a previous post.

Our burn rate is generally OK to cover costs of development + some occasional marketing, but we’re unable to compete at the level of some of our bigger competitors in the industry.

So when I say, “we have enough funds to complete our roadmap”, that’s what I mean. We can complete the roadmap. But can we do aggressive, yet tasteful marketing of it without additional funds? Probably not. As outlined in the previous post, that’s what a lot of the funds will be allocated towards. We’re gonna have multiple games and a whole new chain to market, it’s time to crank up the volume!


What CoderDan said @kuwlness.

Funding at this scale may seem like big numbers but when you understand the cost of visibility + the cost of expanding our team to deliver product at the pace everyone here wants… you should quickly realize that the 40% split to pixelcraft is not something that we would have trouble figuring out how to spend. The budgets do really be like that.

Look at what we shared last week, a 3M annual payroll. Now imagine adding more engineers, specialists, etc and its not a big leap to see payroll going 4M plus easily. And it should because ultimately the hires are all working for you. However, that 4+M payroll doesn’t leave a whole lot for discretionary spending or marketing campaign allocation on par with our competitors. The Illuvium, Star Atlas, and Sandbox budgets of the world are significant. That’s just how it is.

If you don’t trust PC to put funds to work on your assets behalf, please let me know who you do trust and let’s give the DAI to them. The last thing I want, as a believer in Aavegotchi, is all this DAI being stagnant while the Curve is closing. That sounds like a very bad idea and in such a case, lets not close the Curve at all.

What good would stopping the bonding curve do if gotchichain is launched next?

Don’t you think that with the non-control of the price, the token risks to pump & dump and easily end up at a few cents?

:thinking: So if we are not going to use the DAI in the Curve, we should not close it. So why are we actually closing it now?

Jesse I really appreciate your and coderdan’s responses. However, it must have became clear by now that it’s not that people don’t trust PC or people think you guys slack, don’t put in a lot of effort to innovate and deliver as hard as you can. The question is whether the DAO has been putting too much confidence without questioning. Which is a natural question comes up over time, by being part of a whole new way of developing a flagship game gotchiverse, built on aavegotchi web3 protocol.

I don’t think a notion like if you don’t trust us who are you going to brings anything. I think concerns regarding DAI are legitimate and curve should be turned off. However, going forward with the funds in curve people including myself were concerned with imo rather hasty approach on the split for post curve era. There are legitimate points of concern and it’s about finding a middle point as questions from DAO gets answered such as reasons of past delays that we didn’t know until now. Going forward I think it’s okay to talk about difficulties you guys are having while developing the product(s), as there are many developers in the community including myself that can resonate.

Here was my concern for future:

I think 2023 roadmap is a vision roadmap, which is great to see and truly impressive going forward. But the flagship game, gotchiverse, got a single sentence of a mention in it. So on the accountability of development, how are these features prioritized and which are at least meant to launch in 2023? I’m really not asking for any specific dates. Lack of details on future of gotchiverse, bible being stale for months, people had questions about the future of gotchiverse, arena and rewards tied to it as a consequence.

This is why I suggested monthly patch notes for only gotchiverse stuff in detail for balancing and polishing the gotchiverse with efficient involvement of DAO. And again this is what traditional game studios does indie or larger scale, as it’s also a good way for future to have an objective track record and accountability.

I’d much rather have a vote on the split after seeing a bit more specific targets and details on the future of gotchiverse. As I see gotchiverse being the main driving force to attract more people even with more aggressive advertisement. In the end imo gotchiverse will determine the success of aavegotchi protocol, if the game is good looking, has polished experience, fun and social they will come and they will stay.


GM builders! PM mw if you want to add a comment for a quote to the article. Or maybe you have some corrections.

Is it possible in 2 years and 9 months time to reinstate the curve bond or some other form of stablecoin mechanism for GHST? During bull times the curve hinders pump potential, but during bear times it helps not see massive downturn. What would have to be done to make it possible?

What’s going to be annoying with a normal GHST token is that I can’t leave my price offers on the baazaar for months, I got to check them every day to make sure someone didn’t buy the gotchi at a -20% offer in 1 week because of GHST dumping.

I’m not sure what we should use… gold, silver, Tron, XRP?