I'm not too concerned about Goko's monetization, honestly. They are positioning themselves as a platform for making HTML5 games, which means they can make both real games (e.g. Dominion) and lame "social" games (e.g. Catan World). Even if these run on the same platform, the monetization can be completely different.
The pricing they've chosen for Dominion seems pretty close to what I'd expect (I estimated $5 per pack, instead it's $6). It's a good pricing for serious players, because they can make enough money off fairly-serious players to afford to not do ridiculous Zynga-like schemes.
The only thing that bothers me are the Gokoins, which is a bit insulting.
1) Have they posted the monetization system somewhere or is that info just relayed by people that were in the Goko beta?
2) Zynga is hated for a lot of reasons. Most of them are fair (massive spam, blatant copying), but some are not. Not everyone likes free-to-play games, but they are here to stay and are going to be a bigger part of gaming as time goes on.
1) The beta doesn't tell you anything about monetization. What's known is from people who managed to register and login during the launch attempt, at least for expansion pricing. As for zaps, I think that's mostly speculation (zaps will exist, but no one knows for sure how you get them).
2) There are lots of different varieties of free-to-play models, some I like and some I don't.
My favourite kind is essentially the same as the old shareware model: you get a substantial portion of the game for free, then seamlessly pay money to unlock the other portions. That's what Goko is doing for multiplayer Dominion. I like this model because it has no impact on gameplay and you get to try out a game before dropping money on it.
It's also fine if you pay money for cosmetic changes. This is what Valve is doing for TF2, right? (I don't play TF2.) Again, there is no impact on gameplay. I doubt there are many games that can make enough money this way, but if it works, sure, go for it.
I also have no issue with showing ads that can be disabled by paying money. I'll try it, and if I like it, I'll pay the money to turn ads off. People who don't want to pay can still play, and the creator will still make money from the ads. Everybody wins.
Where I start finding issue with FTP is when it becomes pay-to-win, for two reasons. In a multiplayer game, it puts one player at an advantage for spending more money, which seems obviously bad (although there are enough people who enjoy MtG that clearly not everyone agrees!). In a singleplayer game, it encourages the game developer to make progress too slow if you don't spend money, so that you are encouraged to spend money just to get a decent experience in the game--the opposite of good game design.