2023 Kinship Burn Initiative

Proposals by Gotchi Gov'nuhs
1

Many in the community are eager to see a kinship burn, mostly for introducing trade-offs and gamifying the elements of kinship accrual, rarity farming dynamism, etc.

This post seeks to explore and receive feedback on moving forward with 3 different options scenarios:

Option 1) [Endorsed by author] - Reformulate channeling cooldown from very 24h to once a week ( 168 hours or 302,400 polygon blocks). This cooldown can be reset once every 24 H, for the difference in GLTR by a factor of 20%.
Let’s dig in to how this looks like:

Gotchi channels at 12 noon Monday- it will be free to channel again 7 days later- i.e. next Monday at noon once again, for no cost at all.
At 12 noon on Tuesday, Gotchi may decide he wants to channel again and roll forward his channeling to Tuesdays at noon. In order to do this, Gotchi must complete a transaction where it burns:
*1 kinship point
*GLTR equivalent of time distance to next channel

So in this example, the gotchi must be willing to lose 1 KIN and the equivalent of 20% of the amount of GLTR blocks distance to their next channeling ( 51,840 GLTR, roughly 33 cents at current prices).

Many, but not all gotchi/altar combinations would find it profitable to continue channeling daily. Those that do, would now act as important consumers of GLTR, while assuming the risk of price volatility.

The main drawback to this option is complexity, and having to adjust the ratio of GLTR (20% in this example) in the future to respond to different market realities.
The main advantages of this option are: introducing a pathway for ecosystem participants to continue channeling daily, instead of closing shop and perhaps leaving the protocol. If they dont want the complexity, they can just channel for free once a week- this is very friendly to casual users. Finally, a new and much needed GLTR sink is introduced.

Option 2: (simple burn option): This is the KISS (keep it simple silly) option. Gotchi can channel once every 24H, just like today, but every time will cost 1 (or more) KIN.
This options offers the advantages of simplicity and maximum reduction in emissions, but as drawbacks, it greatly nerfs investment strategies of some in the community, and does away with elements of our community such as scholars or daily players in public rental markets.

Option 3: Do nothing.

Frens, your participation on this topic with feedback and suggestions will be greatly appreciated

  • Option 1 (GLTR)
  • Option 2 (KISS)
  • Option 3 ( No Changes)

0 voters

6 Likes
2

Could we not just “cap” kinship? We could just come up with a set number for all gotchi to max out at so we would have a some way predictive emissions. I understand that it is a RF leaderboard (for now) but it could be eventually phased out once a majority of gotchis have hit the cap. My questions are with the once per week channeling, will it still count as +14 kin? What are you proposed ideas on actually being able to add kinship that will be in place if this gets legs?

3

thanks for sharong your thoughts.

I havent formulated anything too specific, because it is pretty much confirmed kinship potions will re-enter the game, via lootboxes, arena drops/rewards, etc.

A mix of diligently petting, not channeling and winning a potion sounds like a reasonable strategy for someone wanting to play kinship leaderboard.

QUESTS, definitely a natural and obvious source of kinship in the future. Imagine completing a very long and difficult quest and having your kinship go up a few points as part of the final reward. Also, if forge team expands with certain ideas like charm/new wearable slots, imagine people having to choose between charms that give BRS/XP/KIN bonuses

4

I’d like to see this split up into different proposals that work hand in hand, kinda like how it was done with the Forge. I feel we can’t discuss any of the following in isolation:

  1. Implement a generic KIN burn mechanic that a user has to approve for any contract who want’s to use it. This way, not only the Gotchiverse will be able to reward users for KIN burn but other dapps as well. And cautious users can rest assured that no KIN will be spend by anyone (including scholars) if they didn’t approve it first.

  2. KIN potions always come up in this discussion. I personally am a very big opponent of KIN potions as I have witnessed how it ruined the early RF seasons beyond what any petting bot was able to do. While XP potions are really common in any RPG game, I see no reason for KIN potions, especially coupled with this proposal, since it’s goal seems to be to get people to spend GLTR and KIN instead of farming even more KIN via KIN potion drops in the Gotchiverse. However, there will be people who will keep asking for KIN potions and so we should make sure it will be a benign potion that doesn’t rek the economy. The problem with KIN potions is that it value is dependent on the user. It is worthless to a 50 KIN Gotchi and as you go up the KIN leaderboard it becomes increasingly more valuable. If it makes the difference between number 1 and 2, then it’s value is immense! I brought up a cap before…that a potion that is dropped in the Gotchiverse can’t raise KIN beyond 1000 KIN. This way, it can be dropped to regain some of the lost KIN without interfering with the economy. However, the cap is kind of arbitrary and would maybe need to be adjusted every now and then, so it is a less elegant solution. Someone (was it you Fantasma?) brought up a different solution once, where the potion would give fractional KIN, and the higher the Gotchis KIN is already, the less it would increase. That would imo be the most elegant implementation of a KIN potion.

  3. Specifically for the Gotchiverse channeling, I believe that any kind of KIN burn needs also a change in the alch channeling formula. Having the square root there disincentives channeling with high KIN Gotchis. Basically, low KIN Gotchis need to get less than they are getting now and higher KIN Gotchis need to be getting more than they’re getting now. So that overall, issuance doesn’t change much, but higher KIN Gotchis are rewarded more. Otherwise we could also introduce fractionalized KIN here, and deduct less KIN when high KIN Gotchis channel. This would be an alternative to messing with the channeling formula to incentivize channeling with high KIN Gotchis.

1 Like
5

I tend to disagree. Kinship Potions would be valuable for low KIN gotchis as well because of the channeling boost that would come with it.

6

Haven´t thought this all the way through but I think I would like to have a Kinship installation. Gotchis only can level up KIN interacting with it. Only one gotchi per Kinship installation per 24h. Level of Kinship installation determines gain in Kinship.

7

Under proposal #1 , a ~565 kin gotchi channeling on a lvl 5 altar would be negative ~ $0.02 USD per channel with gltr cost not including gas fees at the time of channeling. To me this would further hurt low kin gotchi owners by having them basically “pay” to increase their gotchi’s kinship since they will be getting no income for channeling.

1 Like
8

How about gotchi can only channel if they kill a gotchi in the arena.

A gotchi that dies in the arena cannot channel for that day.

2 Likes
9

that’s a totally valid and real drawback. on the flip side, this gotchi can look forward to still channel weekly, or become a profitable gltr burner as their kin gets higher (or if it can access a free L9 altar etc, - it happens!). There’s also strats people can do channeling every 2,3,4 days etc for much less gltr. The owner of a high kinship gotchi, can instead complain they’ve been largely shut out of the channeling paradigm when all along gotchiverse channeling had been supposed to reward high kin, long committed users the most.

I’d reaaaaaally hope this topic doesn’t get derailed into silly adversarial politics like other props, as I voted against a kinship burn initially, and probably stand more to lose from option A than C if being completely selfish.

I am truly creating this topic out of frustration at how eager people are to see this topic/vote be revisited, but nobody is stepping forward.

1 Like
10

I hope so too. What might help would be some kind of modelling when we try to change the economy to see potential outcomes. I don´t know if you are familiar with https://machinations.io/ but it seems to be a great tool to model game (economy) mechanics. Maybe the DAO could hire someone to model changes we think about or a DAO member invests time to learn it and gets hired by the DAO as well. I think we desperately need a game economist.

1 Like
11

I am not familiar with this platform (machinations) but I’ll definitely take the learning opportunity!

I am extremely hesitant to be the one championing this prop. Leaning on it won’t be me. I am not passionate enough about it to deal with the insinuations, accusations that tend to follow tokenomics props.

As has been from day 1, my contributions to the DAO are 100% unpaid, and in this case I have contributed my idea that GLTR is the ideal compromise between options 2 and 3. I think someone else can iterate on it and do something positive for the economy by making it a successful prop.

12

Ok gotcha, so what is the goal for reducing channeling? Is it for emissions (channeling itself) or to curb rising kinship numbers? Because the once a week channeling would (if i remember correctly) would still give you a weekly total or were you proposing to have that one channel be a “one channel” total?

13

ill break down the different reasons that are out there, that lead to this initiative being felt as “needed” by many:

*Alch emissions- This is debatable but we still emit about as much alch from channeling as we do from farming. It’s not my passionate take- im gotchi maxi- but some people feel this is unfair to land owners/farmers.

*Alch emissions #2 - The economy simply doesn’t have enough sinks. If you must cut channeling (free) or farming (investment)- which one to cut here is not even a question.

*Gotchi population/economy - As confirmed by PC- “forgenomics” is the only realistic way forward towards an H3- there’s just too many gotchis and portals vs. users. Nobody wants to sacrifice gotchis as they are cute lil cash-cows that farm more and more alch each day with no drawbacks. The essence market wont be as optimal as it could be, as long as nobody is sacrificing. You can easily envision more sacrifices happening with kinship burn- people will drain gotchi kinship then sacrifice for essence, which is a good traction for the economy.

*RF leaderboards - very soft and indirect, but it is seen as part of the equation to introduce upward mobility in kinship leaderboards.

1 Like
14

great question! thanks! I envisioned it all along to make it so that one channel gives you once per week what you currently get daily- so its a 7x cut in emissions if nobody burns gltr

15

I really do not want to seem like i am derailing you but could not we just submit a sigprop to cap kinship at a certain amount and reduce channeling to once a week per gotchi being that the issuance would be the same? Well :thinking: it would actually save on gas now that I am thinking about it. Admittedly this would affect the need for rentals and make the Gotchiverse more of a ghost town (pun intended :grin:) than it currently is since the weekend hangout is the only reason so people actually login.

16

measuring kinship is the most central protocol-level dynamic we have. Trivializing kinship for gotchis is like saying lets take all the water out of Sea World.
The problem of alchemica emissions is arguably just tied to a single game, not the protocol.

that’s the main reason i’d see for this idea not making it out of the gate

17

I voted option 3 but I prefer the KISS option. This is less of a nerf imo and more acceptable. I’d love if we had the Aarcade up with leaderboards/prizes but you need to use kinship to enter those tournaments (KIN points being the pay in fee). That would be pretty cool although it doesn’t help us here.

1 Like
18

I strongly prefer the once a week, spillage on version. It turns a key part of the game back on, makes it worthwhile for owners to do their own gotchis, and most importantly, cuts the ridiculous amount of gas we waste on the daily channeling.

1 Like
19

Ok playing Devil’s Advocate here, you want to further nerf channeling by penalizing gotchi owners by taking away a kinship point for using the altars that they built? Channeling rewards were drastically cut because it would have crashed the economy in 10 to 15 years according to some unseen data (slight exaggeration :sweat_smile:) but we did it anyway. We are currently paying 10’s of thousands of dollars to players to “burn” alchemica just to kick the can down the road when all these new installations start pumping out more alchemica. It would be ~7 years before a gotchi born today would hit 5000 kin and by that time (hopefully :pray:) majority if not all Citaadel parcels would be empty.

I share the same views, so why can we not make such calls when there is not even a game/quest/arena/mini game out that would deal with this better?

20

it’s definitely an option. I think the no-changes route works best for me and my asset composition. I endorsed the option that I think might have the best results for the ecosystem at large. I thought there was less opposition to kinship burn than I am seeing. In other words I thought it was inevitable for the prop to come and people to vote it in. I am ok with no kinship burn happening.

I don’t want to nerf or penalize anybody, that’s either straw-manning or simply a miscategorization of what I have said here thus far.

I’ll probably refrain from more comments on this thread to let others express their opinions and/or new ideas.

1 Like