THE CRYPT - Portal Bonding Curves?!

[Malaka]

So, I don’t think I am the only one who thinks “if I get 10 portals, I may only open a few and sell the rest”

Given that we have an aavegotchi hosted marketplace launching less than a week after the haunting, we can expect demand for portals from people who “missed out”.

We could let the market figure out the price, OR in addition, we could create a bonding curve for un-opened Haunt-1 portals!!

Not sure if creating a bonding curve AFTER the NFT has been distributed to the people has been tried, but assuming it is possible think of the awesomeness!!! I imagine a smart contract could be created where, by people adding liquidity to the bonding curve, they lose both the PORTAL-HAUNT-1 and ETH (or maybe GHST ) but gain a stake in the bonding curve.

Unlike my couch, the staked pair cannot be pulled out, rather it can collect a royalty from purchases on the bonding curve, or the owner can sell their “stake” to someone presumably at a very attractive price.

Like with the EulerBeats bonding curve, a portion of each new purchace is paid as a royalty to the owners of the bonding curve contract (based on staking share) and a portion going directly to the DAO. The rest is stored in the contract as locked reserves to the bonding curve (with maybe a portion earning interest in DeFi apps).

The curve function itself will be based upon total remaining (not yet summoned) PORTAL-HAUNT-1 remaining in existence. If the 10,000th one is ever summoned, then the total pool distributes 50/50 (or something) between owners and DAO, and stake tokens are burned.

There is some obvious ways to try and exploit this, but also ways to counter them. In general, I propose we discuss this b/c I think it will only draw attention and interest to our new and soon to be growing community!!

[letsgobankless]

I like the idea of placing portals, and even wearables/potions into smarts contracts with a bonding curve. It sounds very good to improve scarcity and drive up the maarket sales. However i don’t feel very comfortable about not being able to unstake. Quoting you, “the owner can sell their stake to someone presumably at a very attractive price.” I don’t want to sell at a very attractive price!

Maybe the curve parameters could evolve through time to avoid that, but I was thinking about another -more childish- approach:

Imagine you stake 1 portal in a contract with 99 others. Portals can be bought at, let’s say for the example, 200 GHST + 2% per portal sold (so portal #10 would be sold for : 200*1.02^10=239, portal #100 at 1 420 GHST).

During the time you stake, 35 portals are sold through the curve for a total of 9 999 GHST collected (as calculated by sum[200*1.02^i,i=1,i=35]). When you unstake ‘1 portal’, you got the right to claim 99.9 GHST (minus a small DAO tax of course) + a 65% (=100-35) chance to draw a portal (raffle with VRF?).

I would feel confident providing NFTs in such a contract. It is pretty easy to understand, and the raffle system -which wouldn’t feel very right for Euler Beats- seems appropriate for a game.