[COREPROP] Whitelist-Only Rentals, or Temporarily Disable Spillover?

Authors: Cookiethief (#1998), Kokusho (#6447), Xeko (#12300)

Discourse threads:

Disable Spillover: https://dao.aavegotchi.com/t/keeping-the-status-quo-of-disabled-spillover-for-a-while/3845/193 Whitelist-Only: https://dao.aavegotchi.com/t/whitelist-only-rentals/4043/2

Voting period: 3 days

Proposal

Hey frens, after much discussion about various ideas to restrict botting in the Gotchiverse, I believe we have settled on two options that are ready for voting.

Option A: Temporarily Disable Spillover

This would see all Alchemica spillover in the Gotchiverse halted, except for during weekly community events like the Saturday Haangout, where we could unload a sizeable portion to all those present.

Pros: Would immediately stop the majority of botting in the Gotchiverse. Could add extra hype for our weekly events. Cons: Players that have already been onboarded would be sitting around twiddling their thumbs until we add spillover back in. Dev time: Basically none

Option B: Restrict Gotchi Lending to a Whitelist-only system

Right now, Gotchi Lending is available to literally anyone with 0.1 GHST and some MATIC. Enabling a Whitelist-only system would restrict which addresses can borrow Gotchis to a specific set of addresses determined by the whitelist specified during the listing creation.

Pros: Would likely restrict botters’ ability to easily gain access to Gotchis, meaning less Gotchi-bots in the Verse. Cons: Adds more complexity to the borrowing process. New players will have to join Guilds or converse with players to gain access to their Whitelist. Dev time: Basically none

My thoughts

I believe the onboarding challenges could be overcome with some frontend portals that show which Guilds are currently active and onboarding new players into their whitelists.

Leaderboards could also be a fun way to show the performance of the players on each Whitelist.

Ideally, Guilds should do due diligence on players they whitelist, to ensure they are not adding potential botter addresses. There are currently no repercussions for this, but it could be something we as a community begin tracking in the future.

If, after a few weeks of review we do not believe that Option B is doing enough to reduce the problem, we can continue discussing stricter options.

Conclusion

So what do you say frens? We are bumping this directly to a Coreprop, and it will only be open for three days, to ensure we have a quick turnaround on this issue. Let’s blast through quorum and turn the tide in the war on botters!