If we can remove The Curve, why we can’t just move it to Polygon and remove KYC?
@coderdan what limitations do we have? What risks are involved for the PC and the DAO?
2 Likes
Touché. But in fact your assertion that Aavegotchi will never be fun is extremely subjective as Farmville was one of the most popular games I never played and Aavegotchi is essentially a farming game with a lot of hopes and dreams to become an RPG, so that’s just like, your opinion, man.
2 Likes
The RPG is most definitely the draw for everyone I know, with farming being the necessary economic component, not the game and I don’t don’t anyone that has doubt the RPG will be fun when it gets out the door.
All these threads about playing games with the money are just a symptom of people not having enough to do, IMHO.
3 Likes
Actually, we need to rethink our governance entirely, and start siloing VP where it belongs. Imagine there are two major games… both use GHST, but they have their own in game economies and you can’t take things from one, to the other. Gotchis and wearables go to both.
This means that we need to start making distinctions between “protocol” and “gotchiverse”
For example, in the district DAO, your GHST has no VP, it’s the land. I can see some districts deciding to give deco VP(civic pride mentality), or installations VP(use it or lose it mentality), or awarding VP for achievments… As long as they are only dealing with their district, it is fine for them to define their governance. In some other game, like a trading card game, it might be that owning foil cards is the VP, who knows… but that is just for that game. The protocol is the core, and GHST is the core, and Gotchis and Wearables are the Core of the core.
1 Like
It can only be said that you have played too few games. The popular Elden Ring is also only $50. That’s a fun RPG game.
That’s good to hear. I mostly cared about the RPG aspect and thought it was cool to have a little farming done by some of the less spectacular Gotchis - like a little persistent Gotchiverse, but Coderdannn did say, “Aavegotchi is a farming game”, on one of the DAO calls, so I kind of thought more people were into that than the RPG.
Yeah, that’s the great scenario wherein the big candle is green, but this is a company trying to make a game, which takes a lot of time and money, so there have to be systems in place to mitigate the possibility that the candle is red, making people who are curious avoid it like the plague.
Added to that is the reality that PC did exactly what I assumed they needed to do which is dump GHST for USD in order to survive the bear market and not go the way of 2016 ICOs who held their own coin to zero and had to shut their doors. Take the floor away from GHST and that trade looks horrific for the DAO and holders if the aforementioned magical candle is red. People seem to not realize that this is an actual degen risk move… like @stedari pointed out, we can only really talk about this after a lot of effort is put into securing the volatility of GHST organically, but I don’t know if that’s actually worth the trouble, because every change introduces systemic loopholes we can’t see until after they’re exposed, and which can easily lead to collapse of the entire system.
Also, many people who might vote for the curve to be turned of, citing altruistic motives, “for the good of the project”, are also hyper-whales who monitor every single movement in this ecosystem and, even unbeknownst to themselves, would be the first to take advantage of an inefficiency if it meant making a life-changing profit. That’s called an edge and 99% of investors don’t have it. If that profit came directly or indirectly at the expense of the DAO, PC, or new liquidity, it would be a death-knell for the project. Then you have the vultures picking its corpse for break-even profits.
Any idea in movement is highly correlated to initial conditions, in this case the Bonding Curve and the relative stability of GHST. Changing those conditions takes energy and it has to be calculated and applied with almost scientific precision, otherwise the project can go off course into the void.
I can see the dream of massive profit - taking the risk that our Gotchis will one day be worth millions each, but that could very well happen anyway, even with the curve on. Taking the risk of changing a cornerstone of the ecosystem could stop that from happening just as easily as it could make it happen by force.
2 Likes
I argue that it is very much worth putting in the effort to allow an upside while protecting the downside. This was, of course, not feasible without the funds secured by the curve. But now that we have the funds we can have the best of both worlds. Let me give an example:
We decide to hold a small wearable auction composed of a single item in each class specifically chosen by the community to fill stat gaps. It’s a bear market so each item only ends up selling for the current floor resulting in 245,000 GHST spent ($318.5K). If that amount of GHST is purchased from the bonding curve it results in about a $0.01 or 0.8% increase in token price. If the curve is off, this results in a $0.112 or 8.6% increase in token price. While the 10x difference in underlying token price impact is nice, there are more important ecosystem benefits to consider.
- Wearables sales now positively benefit rarity farmers and wearable holders. With the curve in place there is less than a 1% increase in GHST price which is the token awarded to rarity farmers. However a single godlike item being sold dilutes the godlike wearable market by ~5%. The 8.6% increase in GHST token price makes the dilution much easier to swallow, especially as godlike owners disproportionately receive GHST rarity farming rewards. Our current strategy linearly dilutes asset holders with purposeful, non-linear GHST growth (payouts for RF or ecosystem rewards).
- Incoming revenue captured by the GHST token will mean we can spend less Curve DAI supporting the downside price. Let’s assume we commit 15M DAI over 5 years to support GHST token price with a default daily buyback of $8200 DAI. We can set a parameter where the buyback only occurs if there has been negative movement in the TWAP of the token over the last two weeks. This allows an “up only” strategy where we strategically deploy Curve DAI to support price and exercise revenue generating sales and events to save and extend the DAI.
We must align incentives for all ecosystem stakeholders in order to generate revenues moving forward. A thoughtful approach to turning off the curve allows us to move forward together, unite around the GHST token, and offer different paths towards generating revenue again.
9 Likes
Seems like some modeling is in order… maybe a contest even? Get some really good theories on how you could do this, and feed in the 6-18 month time period of data, and see what happens?
I was thinking a contest, because the hypothesii(sp?) need to be of such a high quality that they are worth the effort to model.
The best ideas so far, IMHO, involve making a new polygon native curve, that leans hard to the upside.
My personal favorite idea is to move it to polygon, make a list of MAJOR milestones, and take 10% off the ratio every time we have a MAJOR release.
3 Likes
Sounds programmatic enough to hopefully skew results in our favor.
1 Like
I guess I should have said “surgical precision”. Would have been a great setup.
Anyway, I’ve dropped some bespoke doom and gloom, but people’s ideas seem interesting and innovative. I’d support something better than the curve, if I was as convinced about its superiority as I am that the curve works for what it is intended to do.
Good luck and have fun.
1 Like
2 pts:
I’ve seen a few times now, the idea of using a modified bonding curve mechanism to allow upside but limit downside. It sounds really tantalising - but in a magical, perpetual motion machine kinda way.
I would love to see an explanation of how it could possibly work.
Simplistically: you set the curve to burn when prices are falling but then severely limit minting during upswings?
Sounds like after some time I’d be left hodling the 1 remaining GHST token worth $100,000 but with no more project and no one to sell to?
plz inform me cos this sounds too good to be true
Lastly, as a caution, can you imagine the activity/conflict in this DAO if all of a sudden we had millions and millions of DAI to spend trying to build up a solid treasury investment plan - I fear no one would talk about the game ever again and the DAO would get embroiled in an ever lasting battle over how to deploy/redeploy/re-redeploy these massive funds. A little pessimistic perhaps, but just a caution.
2 Likes
Very relevant to this discussion:
6 Likes
Is it possible to continue to use the bonding curve and migrate to a different stablecoin?
This seems like a mandatory conversation and decision we need to make, and it probably needs to happen sooner than later.
Recurving to a new stable on polygon, would be ideal placeholder through the bear market, IMHO… not sure of the technical feasibility of that, or if there is one stable that fits the bill, or maybe a suite of stables… We need a study. This is blatantly something we should put our best and brightest on, and it should end in us having a dashboard, not just an excel file.
1 Like
I started as GHST investor, but became aavegotchi permabull and it wasn’t possible for me to stay half fiat on this game
yet there are people who still want a share and participation with much lower risk and I think you discovered capital which is interested in this so PLEASE DONT BREAK THIS
curve must stay, but proposition for GHST investors must change. I think giving GLTR is the best option, despite now is not the best time for this
1 Like
I invested in Dec 2021 thinking could get a continuation of bull run in 2022, if not then the bonding curve will mean less damage. Since then for example, Axie lowest draw down this year has been 91%, whereas the lowest draw down for GHST was 98%.
I love the game, project, and community, however from a purely investment point of view the bonding curve idea has not shown justification.
1 Like
yes if you invested 100% into the curve only, but in that case you must understand you are holding 50% fiat and cutting your upside by 2
taking 2 times less risk yet cutting your upside by 2 also
purely from this standpoint GHST is amazing and you can still have much higher risk/reward with other in-game assets
1 Like
Investopedia says drawdown is the max peak to trough decline in an asset. How do you measure a 98% drawdown on ghst in 2022 please? I don’t understand this.
2 Likes
Mistype I would assume…
But more generally I just find it a bit ridiculous that everyone wants to compare drawdown %s… while ignoring or not understanding the positives.
Is it really so hard for ppl to understand that you may have a much bigger drawdown % (higher volatility) but still end up with a much higher mkt cap AND (more importantly) a much bigger long term user base ?
I don’t know much at all about Axie, but I think others have said that despite everyone looking in from the outside and writing it off ( “oh that’s dead it dropper 90%…”) , it’s still got a far bigger active community of long term holders (e.g. “Good” community members) than pre-pump and dump stage.
Anyway seems like this may not be going anywhere for now, which is fine, but seem a lot of people don’t think about it correctly and think that dropping bonding curve and embracing higher volatility native token, necessarily means “short term thinking” somehow… which, IMO, is a little bit middle of the bell curve type thinking 
(teasing…)
2 Likes