Changing the buyback model - ETH rewards, DAO Treasury, Ecosystem fund


To date, we have spent over 195.84 ETH of platform revenue to buyback ~ 2500 DOKI. The original plan is to re-distribute all of the bought back DOKI to stakers and LPs (The cometh pools are already doing this). However, price action indicates that the buybacks have been ineffective against the strong selling pressure due to bearish market conditions. If the price of DOKI continues to fall, stakers earn less and will become more inclined to sell. Furthermore, re-distributing all of the tokens at this stage does not add any long-term value to the project.

The goal is to improve the current buyback model to better reward stakers, introduce governance to boost community engagement, lock a portion for potential CEX listings, and establish a transparent DAO treasury for the purpose of funding various community-led initiatives.


Change the allocation of ETH revenue reserved for buybacks as follows:

  • 25% of the ETH goes to DOKI staking pools as rewards
  • 25% of the ETH is used to buyback DOKI tokens and re-invest into DAO treasury
  • 25% of the ETH is re-invested into DAO treasury as a more stable source of funding
  • 25% of the ETH is used to buyback DOKI and lock it in an ecosystem fund to be used for potential listings and other value-added partnerships. Tier 1 and 2 CEXs can ask for up to 5% of token supply + listing fees. The amount of DOKI in the ecosystem fund can be capped to 5000 (10% of the supply). Upon reaching this cap the ETH or DOKI can be re-allocated to the DAO treasury.

These %s are open for discussion and can be modified in the future if deemed necessary.

The buyback account currently holds:

  • 1820+407 DOKI = ~ 2227 DOKI
  • 28.4 + 15.1387 ETH = ~ 43.5387 ETH
  • 15 ETH + 7000 Matic on Kittenswap. Depending on DOKI price at time of vault expiration, may be either extra DOKI/ETH/Matic.

The proposed distribution of current buyback reserves is:

  • 1113 DOKI and 20 ETH to the community governed DAO treasury
  • 1113 DOKI to the Ecosystem/Listing fund
  • The remaining ETH, Matic, and DOKI (Roughly ~ 42.8 ETH) to be distributed as dividends for DOKI stakers


  • Re-investing into a DAO treasury incentivizes community contributions which benefits all stakeholders. If no proposals are approved, the tokens are effectively locked.
  • Allowing the community to control the DAO treasury boosts community engagement.
  • DOKI holders benefit from the added utility of governance.
  • Dividends are paid out in ETH, which is relatively more stable. Investors must stake DOKI to earn ETH, which discourages selling.
  • Reduced selling pressure from lower farming emissions.
  • The ecosystem fund makes it feasible for us to list on tier 1 and 2 CEXs in the future.
  • The project will become more sustainable during bear markets


The DAO treasury is used to fund community-led initiatives only and is separate from core team funding. DOKI holders will be able to vote to approve or reject community submitted proposals.

DAO treasury is governed by the community while the ecosystem fund is not. The reason is that listing and partnership deals are usually discussed privately and thus not suitable as a community voting topic.

Further research is needed to find out whether snapshot voting is compatible with tokens on Polygon. The parameters for governance (Quorum, Threshold, Duration) is another topic for discussion.


We need a decent Cex listing as our AMMs are drying up. More AMMs are welcome.

We need more moneyflow, constant trading of Azuki and Doki.

As for Doki rewards, getting paid in ETH is best or burning some DOKI as well.

Team should look into more farms out there, i see a lot of projects are moving to Polygon and are open for more pools, Doki and Azuki could be one of those pools.


I agree with Dokilord. We need more volume and pairs for Doki whether it be through AMM or CEX. If CEX, something like Ascendex (Bitmax) would be a great start since they allow on ramp/off ramp to both Eth and Polygon. For AMMs the obvious card to play is with Sushi. Cometh is quickly losing traction since Sushi started full force. Rewards at Sushi for staking DOKI would be great.

In order to promote DOKI holding and long-term appreciation there needs to be both scarcity AND utility.

The easiest route to utility is through farming contracts right now, but in order to make it scarce we shouldn’t just use that as a mechanism to redistribute Doki since that makes it less scarce and increasing sell pressure of the coin from APY hunters. Rewarding in a high m-cap coin (whether it ETH or MATIC) is the best way to incentivize long term DOKI holding without increasing the sell pressure since we would be shifting that pressure onto the higher m-cap coin.

For scarcity we need to decrease the sell pressure with a method like the above but we could also introduce some kind of burn mechanism on the buyback pool. So we could burn a percentage of the bought back DOKI and then use the rest of it to market buy high m-cap coins for use in rewards.


Can’t agree to MrMrMrMR more. cex should be selected among binance, AscendEX and huobi, the best choice is ascendex and then binance if team can make a difference in confidence in the future.
Once again, on cex is necessary now which can bring more pp and attentions.

BIG Price dumping mainly cause no attention, no believers, no holders. Not buyback mechanism. The team should think ways to make dokidoki knew by more and more people, which is important than spent much time to change buyback issue.

Some ways that I can think of are on big cex, cooperate with big IP for example Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, cooperate with big project for example sushiswap crv aave, make some adv on mainstream media for example CoinGecko and chainnews, etc

1 Like

Rei, I’ve been consistently impressed with how you’ve grounded this project in sound economic principles—it’s one of the main things that caught my eye last year, and a big reason why I’ve stuck around ever since. The “Finance” part may have been dropped following the rebrand, but it’s clear that original ethos still beats at the heart of Doki Doki. Thanks for creating this forum to give us a voice and join you in shepherding the project into a more hopeful future.

There’s a lot to unpack in this proposal: if we’re aiming to recast DOKI more formally as the governance and revenue share token for DokiDokiDAO, any decisions must be considered very carefully, as they will have a strong influence on the project’s future success. I’m going to break my thoughts up across a few posts to make discussion a bit easier. My view is that the general ideas are solid, but that, with a little imagination, and maybe some new partnerships with other high-quality projects, we could really do some ground-breaking stuff here (something Doki Doki is no stranger to). There are some absolutely fantastic tech opportunities out there these days, and several of them address specific pain points currently affecting us.


  • The Treasury and Reserve could stand to benefit from diversification beyond ETH and DOKI
  • A USDC/DOKI-backed stablecoin (oneDOKI), using ICHI v2 as the underlying tech, could be an important part of this, and would also be able to play a useful role as part of the wider Doki Doki ecosystem
  • A Balancer Smart Pool comprising BTC/ETH/DOKI/oneDOKI could be a good way to diversify project funds, pool community liquidity, offer trading arbitrage opportunities, and support both the price of DOKI and the wider ecosystem

First off, the ETH redistribution aspect. I’m on board with the 25/50 ecosystem fund/treasury split: keeping 75% of the value within the system for future use seems solid, as does holding a portion as something more stable than DOKI. With that said, what about market environments where both DOKI and ETH are struggling? Shouldn’t we make provision for that? That’s why I think some kind of token basket involving at least ETH, BTC and a stablecoin would be a good choice as part of a reasonably diversified treasury.

Now comes the magic part: make the stablecoin a DOKI-backed derivative minted using ICHI V2 (oneDOKI), add some DOKI into the token basket, and suddenly you have a hypothetical reserve pool that would serve to stabilize the value of DOKI using the trinity of Bitcoin, Ether and USD. [For the unfamiliar, minting oneDOKI would require a combination of USDC and DOKI, probably something like a 99/1 split to begin with, but adjusting as DOKI’s true value becomes better established and the treasury/reserve grows.]

In line with this, a Balancer Smart Pool (let’s call it the “DokiDokiPool”), consisting of a Bitcoin derivative (e.g. wBTC), ETH, DOKI and oneDOKI, would not only facilitate everyday DOKI–ETH or DOKI–Bitcoin swaps, but would also offer additional utility when the market is going through a rough period. During such times, where higher demand would be expected for oneDOKI as an exit strategy (since it would always be redeemable via our Ichi contract for $1 minus a small fee), if ever the price of oneDOKI went significantly above $1, it would encourage the buying of DOKI to mint more oneDOKI for sale back to the pool as profitable arbitrage, thereby providing an additional source of buy pressure for DOKI at the time when it would be needed most.

The community could also be encouraged to contribute their own funds to DokiDokiPool as liquidity providers in exchange for some kind of staking reward via DStake. Starting with any of the four constituents, depositors would gain BP Tokens granting exposure to a diversified basket of BTC, ETH, DOKI and USD (via oneDOKI). AZUKI-ETH Uni-V2 LP Tokens and uDOKI-ETH Unicly LP Tokens could potentially also be added in future for fuller ecosystem exposure. In fact, PowerPool’s tech might be able to combine the inclusion of the AZUKI-ETH and uDOKI-ETH LP Tokens in DokiDokiPool with staking in their respective farms, but that’s maybe a bit too much complexity :sweat_smile:.

The thing I like most about the idea of oneDOKI is that it would complete the Doki Doki ecosystem by becoming the signature stablecoin, all while supporting the value of DOKI. Besides the potential to use it for staking rewards and as part of a diversified treasury, possibly the best use case would be as the currency for a third category of DeGacha machine, for those artists who would like to peg each spin to a stable dollar value, rather than the fluctuating prices of AZUKI and ETH. This would enable them to calculate their expected returns in a more steady and reliable fashion, rather than having to be experts in predicting the crypto markets (particularly where the machine is sitting around for several weeks/months, whether by design or due to market conditions). That’s something that would need to be fleshed out in a separate proposal, though.


Back again with part 2, this time examining the idea of distributing ETH to DOKI stakers.


  • ETH staking payouts are compelling, but the corresponding loss of buy pressure is unlikely to be worth it at the present time (particularly given the size of the buyback fund in relation to the current DOKI marketcap)
  • Some kind of locking/vesting could be implemented instead to prevent the dumping of DOKI staking rewards
  • Potential options include oneDOKI, dDOKI, and a ChainBinders-like system

I won’t lie, my first thoughts upon reading this part were somewhere along the lines of “WHEEEEEEEEEE, Passive Income FTW! :partying_face:\o/”

Now that I’ve had time to reflect, though, I do think that not using those funds for buybacks would be a mistake at our current stage, since it removes one of the key sources of buy pressure supporting the DOKI price. Like, seriously, 43 ETH is more than 5% of our current market cap! :sweat_smile:

Not to mention, if supporters of the project with a long-term view want access to ETH, there is already the option to collateralize their DOKI and borrow via Kitten Finance, which works magnificently (I even managed my own mini buyback a few weeks ago, thanks to last month’s gains from farming using the borrowed ETH).

The main concern seems to be the potential dumping of DOKI by stakers in a falling market, which is understandable. However, there are ways to avoid that which would still be compatible with a buyback strategy. One approach would be to sell a portion of the ETH for USDC, use another chunk to buy DOKI, and then use that combination to mint oneDOKI (as described in my last post) for distribution to stakers, thereby locking away a chunk of DOKI in reserve. The oneDOKI could easily be exchanged for ETH, BTC or DOKI via the DokiDokiPool (see my previous post for details), giving stakers meaningful options while supporting the price of DOKI.

Another path would be to buy back DOKI using the ETH, and then use DAFI’s technology to mint locked dDOKI tokens for every staker, which would only unlock fully when specific ecosystem- or community-based goals had been achieved. For example, stakers could potentially burn their dDOKI early for 50% of the corresponding locked DOKI amount at any given time (with the remainder being redistributed among the longer term dDOKI holders), while a complete unlock might be achieved upon reaching, for example, a certain TVL in DOKI AMM pools, a specific amount in the buyback wallet, or a given NFT trading volume on OpenSea.

While thinking about that last paragraph, it struck me how similar some of those mechanics are to the economic design of the ChainBinders project. But that means we can put our own spin on things using our very own Doki Doki tech! Imagine this: instead of just being pretty pictures, the quarterly Loyalist NFTs could be imbued with DOKI (or dDOKI) obtained using the previous quarter’s buyback funds (alternatively, one could come up with a dedicated separate category of NFTs for stakers).

This quarterly DOKI reward pool could be set to unlock or vest according to a specific timespan (e.g. three months), or when key targets are reached (as per DAFI’s tech). At any given time, there would be the option to burn the NFT to release 50% of the associated DOKI, with the remainder going partly to the treasury, and partly back to the reward reserve pool to boost the remaining holders’ rewards. Alternatively, the NFT could be sold via OpenSea to somebody willing to hang on until it “matures”.

Those who wait until the full unlock would get their full share of DOKI, including the top-ups from early burners, and would also get to keep the NFT (this part is slightly different to how ChainBinders works, but I think it would be a great way to reward and encourage long-term support).

This approach would probably work best if we were to divide folks up into tiers according to amount of DOKI staked (corresponding to the different NFT rarity levels), but I reckon that shouldn’t be too difficult to organize if there is wider support for the idea within the community.


The last thing I wanted to cover today is the topic of token burns for DOKI, which I feel would not be supportive of maintaining and growing value within the project ecosystem.


  • Given its low, non-inflationary supply, burns are unlikely to create much in the way of long-term benefit for DOKI (indeed, they would likely be counterproductive, and could eventually prompt a token split)
  • Buybacks, on the other hand, are excellent, since, aside from supporting the token price, the acquired funds can actually be used for something productive (which is why we shouldn’t skip out on using such a large chunk of buyback ETH solely on the basis of dumping concerns)
  • Timing the buybacks to coincide with specific periods of market weakness would likely enhance their efficacy as a DOKI price support mechanism

It is unlikely that implementing token burns would confer much longstanding benefit, given that DOKI is a non-inflationary token with an already low max supply (especially once deep and sizeable token sinks like AMMs, governance staking, and potentially oneDOKI have become better established). Given this, buybacks would instead be the preferable way to support and enhance the value of the token economy, provided the acquired tokens are put to good use—very glad to see these are a central part of the core proposal! (^_^)7

One enhancement I would like to suggest is that the buybacks could be timed to coincide with periods of market weakness, to better support token price. Chromia’s market-maker has been doing an excellent job of this on an ad hoc basis during the recent dips, and SwissBorg have it implemented more systematically for their CHSB token as their “Protect & Burn” program (note, the burn makes sense in their case, since their circulating supply is in the hundreds of millions).

SwissBorg’s model seems a good starting point (obviously leaving aside the burn for the reasons stated above). To summarize, the idea would be that when DOKI-ETH (assuming the buyback funds are in ETH) moves into a bearish zone based on the 20–day moving average, the Doki Doki team would initiate a manual buyback using the funds in the buyback wallet. The reason for doing it manually is that it adds an element of uncertainty which makes it more difficult to game the system, as well as encouraging natural buy pressure from the wider market in anticipation as the price approaches that key level. To achieve this, it is very important to publicize the specific buyback mechanics, as SwissBorg do.

As part of this publicity, we could perhaps rebrand the buyback fund to the “DokiProtect” fund, since I’m sure most of us would want to protecc our precious Doki (not to mention our precious DOKI ^_^).

Well, guess that’s enough for now—I’ll be back some time tomorrow with the last part of my thoughts, where I’ll be developing the idea of a well-structured decentralized liquidity plan as a potential alternative to a CEX listing, which would allow us to remain in full control of our token supply without compromising accessibility.


@shoutora - Thank you for the amazing and thoughtful replies to this. Really appreciate your dedication to the project and willingness to think through all of this. I need time to digest and think about it all, but wanted to quickly say Thank you!


Thanks, @nagi! So, as promised, here is my next batch of thoughts, this time concerning the portion of the funds proposed to be set aside for pursuing an exchange listing. The big question is: do we really need a CEX listing at the current time? Or can we potentially take a different path, and maybe achieve something even greater in the process? I’ll tackle these questions across two separate posts to make discussion a bit easier.

I know some of this might sound unusual, but I ask you to keep an open mind as you consider the opportunities presented. (These posts are inspired by the motto “Blue Ocean” 「見ていますか… 岩田社長」)


  • People need a trusted place to buy and sell DOKI on Ethereum, Polygon, and eventually cross-chain: between the well-established and more cutting-edge DeFi tech currently available, we can probably achieve this while sidestepping a CEX listing entirely by using the right liquidity incentivization model
  • A CEX listing would be associated with permanent, ongoing costs, while NFT projects can go in and out of fashion, with unpredictable money flows dependent on artists’ and users’ personal situations, as well as the broader economy. Given that engaging with Doki Doki and DeGacha already requires users to dive head-first into the world of personal wallets and L2 platforms, it isn’t clear whether these ongoing costs would be worth it in the long run

Now, this is going to run counter to a certain common line of thought in the crypto space, but I don’t think we stand to gain all that much from pursuing a centralized exchange listing at the present time. My view is that they are nowhere near as important as they used to be, and are likely to become increasingly less relevant as time goes by. Indeed, I think that’s a big part of why CZ and SBF are investing so heavily in BSC and Solana respectively, since they have their fingers firmly on the pulse of the exchange business, and a clearer idea than most of where things are headed. The times, they are a-changin’—it’s just most folks haven’t noticed yet.

I reckon it would be preferable to take the funds that would be earmarked for this purpose, and instead use them to establish/reinforce:

  • 1-2 deep liquidity sources on Ethereum—Doki Doki’s Layer 1, and arguably the most important DeFi platform in the world, especially now that the “fee problem” is likely to be substantially resolved within the next couple of months. The aim would be for DokiDokiPool (or something similar) to be the definitive one-stop liquidity source here, with aggregators like 1inch being the best way to tap into it for general trading purposes. When DOKI’s market cap allows for spreading liquidity out a bit further, SushiSwap seems a good backup given its native support for incentivized yield farming (not to mention our existing relationship with them).
  • 1-2 deep liquidity sources on Polygon—our project’s home base for staking and DeGacha. Existing collaborations with Cometh (who have proven themselves staunch allies) and SushiSwap make them the obvious choices here.
  • 1-2 deep cross-chain liquidity sources, making DOKI accessible from any personal wallet, on any major network. This is both the most exciting part but also the most cutting edge, so I’ll leave it for my next post.

[Note: Targeting 1-2 AMM per “platform” is a trade-off between fragmentation of project liquidity given our small market cap, excessive splitting of incentivization yields, and being overly reliant on a single source.]

How are we doing at the moment? Well, the DOKI–ETH Uniswap pool currently holds about $270k of liquidity, and the two Cometh DOKI pools hold about $340k of liquidity combined. That means the equivalent of ~37%* of the entire DOKI market cap is sitting there, readily available, in a couple of key places. That really doesn’t seem too bad at all from a liquidity depth perspective, at least for the moment.

*EDIT: Accidentally overlooked the SushiSwap DOKI-ETH pool on Polygon, so there’s actually the combined equivalent of ~44% of the current market cap available via AMMs. Now that’s what I call liquidity!

How can we do better? Well a few important pairs are missing from a farming/trader perspective, namely DOKI–BTC, DOKI–USD and DOKI–MATIC. Creating a diversified Balancer Smart Pool, like the DokiDokiPool described in my previous posts, would enable BTC and USD (via oneDOKI) cross pairs without further fragmentation of existing liquidity. As far as MATIC goes, a dual-incentivized pool on SushiSwap seems a natural fit. In fact, given how sharp Doki Doki management tends to be, I wouldn’t be surprised if one is already in the works, just waiting for the right moment (^_-).

Leaving aside the matter of potentially being subject to shady business practices when getting involved with centralized exchanges (with even the more reputable ones tending to engage in some sketchy behaviors here and there), one of the main reasons I feel the decentralized approach is better for DOKI is that to even use a DeGacha machine, stake, provide liquidity, or work with NFTs, you need to have a personal wallet and be comfortable with using it.

If that’s already our bar to entry, going after a CEX listing seems a somewhat unnecessary distraction at best, and a waste of time and money at worst—for example, there would definitely be ongoing costs for things like market-making, and we’d have to be paying those regardless of whether NFTs were booming in the market at any given time.

I mean, I hear those of you mentioning AscendEx—it’s certainly a solid exchange. But do we really need to go through all the effort and expense of maintaining a potential centralized DOKI-USDT market when you can already just go ahead and withdraw some USDC or MATIC from there to your personal wallet on Polygon, head over to 1inch or ParaSwap, get the best DOKI rates available on the open market, and then go stake/LP?

With governance rights and a revenue share, the newly envisioned DOKI token is very close in spirit to a microcap equity. At the current market cap, if you want to buy or sell a lot, you’re bound to experience slippage, just like you would when investing in the tiny companies available on the alternative investment markets or on “junior” stock exchanges. That’s nothing unusual.

Due to the tokenomics, as well as the nature of the project itself, DOKI simply isn’t suited to being a high volume “trader’s” token—the kind centralized exchanges like so that they can rake in the fees. The tokenomics are far better suited to mid- to long-term swing trades, or full-on, old-school, buy-and-hold investing.

Of course, holders need a trustworthy place to accumulate and sell as necessary, and swing traders need a reasonable amount of liquidity to enter/exit, but, as long as we can maintain sufficiently deep AMM liquidity, I don’t see much benefit from allowing the kinds of speculative pumps and dumps that a CEX listing would facilitate.

To sum up, a CEX listing doesn’t magically bring liquidity and legitimate trading volume in its own right: there are countless tokens which have suffered a price collapse after the initial trading contests and listing airdrops are over. Is that a game we want to be playing?

Rather, I’d consider a CEX listing as a badge of honor: if a major and reputable exchange wants to list us out of recognition for our achievements, then great! Otherwise, I think we’re in fine company among the many other AMM-reliant BUIDLers on Ethereum and Polygon. Better to be the player than the one being played.

1 Like

OK, final part! We’ve seen how we might be able to do without a CEX listing for the time being by effectively managing liquidity across Ethereum and Polygon. But how can we go one step further; even make DOKI accessible cross-chain? Two words: Orion Protocol.


  • Orion Pool stands to be a fine cross-chain AMM that would offer up many of the benefits of a CEX listing, together with some unique DeFi advantages, all while allowing users to operate directly from their personal wallets
  • This would also come with the opportunity to collaborate with them on a more equal basis, as fellow BUIDLers, in contrast to the asymmetry of power inherent in a typical CEX “business relationship”

For those unfamiliar, Orion Protocol is shaping up to be a top-tier, best-in-class, chain-agnostic liquidity aggregator. They’re already functional on Ethereum and BSC, and will be rolling out to Cardano, HECO, Avalanche and Elrond later this year. They are also secretly working on integrating Polygon (there have been some subtle hints in their community discussion channels), so we might be able to get in on the ground floor if Doki Doki management reaches out.

Looking at what they did for Mist (another microcap NFT project, on BSC), they may be willing to put out a press release and engage in cross-marketing to accompany the Polygon rollout when the time comes, which would showcase Doki Doki to a brand new audience of savvy crypto investors.

The initial aim would be to supplement our existing AMMs by self-listing on Orion Pool, Orion Protocol’s native AMM. In practice, what this would mean is creating a DOKI–ORN Liquidity Pool, which would be accessible via the Orion Terminal (their signature, CEX-like trading interface) from any modern web browser.

Holding DOKI–ORN would involve some additional risk in terms of diversifying into ORN, but the team is one of the finest in the space: they have strong leadership, and have been around for years at this point. As long as they continue executing, the project is likely to eventually become a bona fide DeFi blue chip. So, all in all, exposure to their token is probably more of an asset than a liability.

In fact, the ORN holding in the pool would be entitled to receive a corresponding share of their platform’s profits, which would accrue to liquidity providers. This bonus income could potentially be added to the buyback fund or treasury, or perhaps reinvested in Orion Pool to provide even deeper liquidity there. The built-in incentive also means that community stakers wouldn’t necessarily require additional Doki Doki token incentives to join the pool. In a sense, it would be a bit like them paying us for choosing them as a listing partner—an inversion of the usual relationship.

So, this strategy would hold clear benefits for liquidity providers: but what about Doki Doki users? The biggest is probably that folks would be able to swap DOKI with literally any other currency supported by the platform, at the best possible rates across all aggregated liquidity, including centralized exchange order books, and, eventually, the entire decentralized AMM space—Uniswap, SushiSwap, PancakeSwap, Balancer, you name it.

All trading is conducted via personal wallets—no sign ups required—and aims for best execution at every stage (so if, for example, you would get a better price going Uniswap ETH → DOKI on Ethereum compared with ETH → ORN → DOKI via Orion Pool, they would automatically route the trade through Uniswap). I’d argue that’s superior to anything a CEX can offer at the present time.

If all this sounds too good to be true, I encourage you to check out the terminal for yourself: it’s a real working product. [Due to fees, BSC gives the best experience at the moment, but that will change as more chains get integrated and ETH fees gradually diminish.]

I believe staying decentralized would give us the best chance to fully shape our own future, so using at least some part of the funds planned to be set aside for a potential exchange listing to instead provide deep initial liquidity on Orion Pool would set us on the right path. Once the pool is in place, community members seeking reliable sources of yield are bound to join in as well.

A further potential benefit of collaborating with the Orion team is that they are also working on a cross-chain NFT market and oracle. What that means is if you wanted to, for example, purchase a Doki Lambo Girl NFT, it would check OpenSea on Polygon as well as OpenSea on Ethereum (along with any other relevant NFT markets at the time), then present you with the best price you could get according to the offers available.

Now, it might be a while until this particular tech is fully up and running (they’ve got a lot going on at the moment), but it sounds like it would be a fine addition to the Doki Doki experience when it’s ready. In fact, by getting involved with them early, perhaps we could help shape the development of their cross-chain NFT features.

The last thing I wanted to mention is that Orion seem to be happy to work with any genuine project in the space: their partners page spans the entire range from top 10 market cap projects like Cardano and Polkadot to microcaps even smaller than DOKI (and these are real, confirmed partnerships if you’re an understandably skeptical crypto OG). Looking at the many high-flyers and under-the-radar star projects among their list, it wouldn’t be bad company to be in. Indeed, I could imagine the Doki Doki logo in the clients or NFT list very easily.

So, do we really want to spend all that money and effort on a CEX listing to go swimming in red shark-infested seas when we have the ability to build our very own ocean in collaboration with the other dolphins? Let’s seriously consider seeking out bluer waters and forming our own future!

1 Like

This is a great idea, and I love the concept of having a Stablecoin that supports the DokiDoki ecosystem, but I think perhaps that topic is large enough to be made into its own post? I.E. titled “DokiDoki Stablecoin through ICHI V2 (oneDOKI)”?

1 Like

Thanks! Yeah, a number of the things I covered probably deserve separate topics, if there’s enough interest. This seemed a good opportunity to brainstorm regarding the overall scope though, since coming up with a cohesive vision is essential if we want to have the ecosystem mesh together smoothly. Not much point having our own stablecoin if we don’t have a good plan to make use of it!

Plus, rei and team would probably have to do the initial reaching out in terms of initiating collaborations with some of the other projects, so it would be helpful to know which in particular they think might be worth pursuing.

One of the more interesting/helpful things about Ichi is that they have a deep liquidity (>$2m) Balancer Smart Pool comprising around one-third USDC, together with the various oneTokens already in existence, thereby collectively supporting and reinforcing one another’s value. I’m not sure what we would have to do to get oneDOKI included in that, but if we could, it would provide another strong source of support for the dollar peg besides our own ecosystem integration.

Of course, something that’s readily redeemable and 99%-backed by USDC shouldn’t really need much help maintaining the peg (a few savvy arbitrageurs should be enough), but market psychology can be a funny thing, especially in crypto (^_^;).

1 Like

@shoutora Wow, that was a lot to read through. You have such an amazing grasp on ecosystems. I was saying earlier too, a stable coin would be amazing for people like me. Who just wanna roll, stake stable for passive income and play endlessly.

It just works as a system as a whole, and if done properly with the backing of a trio-coin pool to balance the collateral, in my eyes it would certainly make the platform more “accessible.”

A good thing to always keep in mind for a lot of people is simplicity. Simplicity and clear;concise marketing to guide people to get involved is paramount. And I’m happy to see such ideas coming from DokiDoki’s long time players and investors.

I said this to @MoltarTheGreat privately to further elaborate on this view. I wish to share it…

"A lot of people misunderstand that I’m not in this for investment. I’m in this to have fun. And a lot of platforms make it easily accessible for the average consumer.

I’m the average consumer.

Even though I am starting my own project, the way that Shoutoro has stated in his own post.

I don’t want to have to be a master of the market and investments just to play a little card game and collect gachas.

The average Joe shouldn’t have to worry about that. So the stable coin idea seems perfect for keeping players around.

Personally however, I am a long time investor. And I do understand the market I’d say on a intermediate level.

I’ve been in several high-yield farms and made some amazing returns by arbitrageing.

But 70% of the market isn’t going to know that. Half the people usually just buy the token and expect it to go up or buy it and spend it on something that they believe will have value.

That’s the biggest thing regarding all this is that the majority isn’t the vocal. It’s the people that just want to play behind the scenes."

That’s just some food for thought for you guys.


Great points, @NEGIKUN. That got me thinking a bit more, and I reckon there might be a role for integrating a sort of stablecoin-based farm as part of the Doki Doki Ecosystem where users could, for example:

  • Buy/mint oneDOKI and stake it in a farm (which should allow their initial investment to remain stable relative to USD)
  • Behind the scenes, some part of the collateralized USD in the oneDOKI treasury is invested in comparatively low-risk crypto protocols to generate a solid return (e.g. Terra’s Anchor Protocol, or the Alpaca Finance stablecoin lending and/or farming pools)
  • A portion of the gains from this are periodically used to purchase AZUKI on the open market, with the remainder being returned to the oneDOKI treasury, or potentially the primary project treasury/ecosystem fund
  • The bought AZUKI is distributed to the oneDOKI farmers

This would effectively allow folks to invest in our own-brand, USD-backed stablecoin (building brand value), in exchange for some free spins on future DeGacha machines of their choosing (via the earned AZUKI). It would also allow DOKI market activity (via oneDOKI minting+staking) to indirectly help support the price of AZUKI.

Since people would be opting for this as a lower risk, straightforward, largely set-and-forget approach, the yields wouldn’t need to be especially high in comparison to the rest of DStake (perhaps somewhere in the range of 7-12%), and it would create a constant source of buy pressure for AZUKI, thereby helping maintain the price floor (which would in turn benefit all holders and users of AZUKI, including the artists choosing it for their DeGacha machines). For even greater benefit, the AZUKI purchases could be timed to coincide with periods of relative market weakness, as per the CHSB-style model I described above.

That said, this is verging on going off-topic, so I’ll stop here. Definitely worth further discussion, though! I think we may inadvertently be resurrecting Doki Doki Finance (^_^;).

1 Like