Can we just wait until there is something attractive to burn our alchemica on before we break out the hatchets? IMHO gotchi kinship is not so dire an emergency that we need to start burning it now. We cut altars output by ~40% (heck lvl. 1 gives you 0% now), which in turn forced farmers to lvl their altars higher. Yes it “helped” in the short term but now we are almost where we were before the cuts due to higher altars. We are currently spending 50K ghst to get people to burn more. The major problem with this IMO is that after the competition, we will have a MAJOR SPIKE in alchemica output do to so many high output installations coming online coupled with the impending rerolls. Yes this may have bought us some time but until we find a sustainable way to burn alchemica, we are caught in a loop where we may have no choice but to fund these leaderboard comps to burn alchemica with no attractive sinks on the horizon 
. Hate to say it but we may have to start looking at the frequency of reservoir emptying moving to every 12 hours instead of every 8 hours.
(EDIT) I can see this as a way to introduce a GLTR sink. If you wanted to “speed up” your cool down could use gltr once every 24 hours. We would have to come up with a reasonable tax to do this.
Indeed that after altars spillover update alchemica inflation dynamics were changed. I realised that after reviewing the data yesterday.
the competition part is also reasonable, but I would not touch anything to estimate the aftermath of such competitions on economy. I mean beyond a planned features release that are now in development
Giving the current economy conditions I think it is more reasonable to burn -1 KIN per channeling
Ok, so you are confirming that the major increases to altar spillover percentages did not have the proposed lasting effect on alchemica issuance? We should not pretend that only channeling is adding to token issuance and be adults and address the fact that with increasing reservoir levels are starting to really affect this. By moving from an 8 hour cooldown to a 12 hour cooldown, we would have a greater affect on issuance than -1 kinship per channel would ever make. We would not affect how much each reservoir would hold, just how often they would be able to claim them. As you have stated, we do not know what effect the competition will have on the economy but i do have a strong feeling that token issuance will be higher. Yes burning -1 kinship per channeling would be easier but it really would not address the issuance problem.
AGIP-49 was always proposed as a temporary solution to emissions until more sinks are introduced, not sure why you thought otherwise? The other thing it solved was the loophole that a lot of very large gotchi holders were exploiting of a tonne of level 1 aalters that could yield a huge amount of alchemica with no alchemica investment. There was no incentive to upgrade before, that’s fixed now and has allowed us to run the spending competition which has been a huge success.
In terms of reducing farming emission emissions, it’s not an option. Farming is a limited return (from the alch in your parcel) in return for a huge investment. Channeling on the other hand is unlimited return (30 years) for a tiny alch investment. It sucks it was introduced in the first place and people have invested into it but with the current level of players we just can’t support it. However! It’s clearly unfair to just rug people that have invested into it so the kinship burn giving people an option is a really nice way to fairly reduce emissions and give people a choice. Add a further combat incentive for people to choose kinship over channeling and you’ve got a really nice option for people that should reduce channeling emissions by a lot.
If by temporary you mean 2 to 3 months, yes it did its job but the way that you framed it as if channeling was somehow going to kill the economy within the next 6 months was definitely a reach and a little “straw manning” imho 
. Yes i do agree that lvl 1 should be at 0% and lvl 2 should have been at 50% to star with because of the ability to game them with no/little investment. I do like the idea of a leaderboard competition because players will always spend more to place higher but i do not want us to get into a situation where we need to do it to support our economy.
I do not understand why reducing the claiming period from every 8 hours to every 12 hours, with the option to spend for example $0.20 usd in gltr to drop the cooldown 8 hours once every 24 hours could not be seen as a valid option to help reduce the growing issuance problem and become a sustainable gltr sink at the same time. Channeling itself imho is low cost parcel owner secondary income and its issuance will become a very small factor once more parcels come online and spillover is resumed. As i have stated before, why don’t we just make a cap for kinship because i do not see this being an important part of rarity farming more than 10 to 15 years from now. With a set cap, we would have a better reference to gauge and monitor gotchi related issuance.
I said that if channeling yield fell below gas prices the project would be deemed a failure, which could very well of killed the ecosystem. You can clearly see where AGIP-49 prevented that from happening in November.
Changing the claiming period would be a nerf to farmers, which is not the issue as they’ve invested a lot of alchemica and they’re drawing from a limited supply (their parcels).
Well actually AGIP-49 hastened when this would happen because the non-yield channelers were either building higher lvl altars, finding higher one’s or simply channeling at a loss/not channeling but what’s done is done at this point.
No you could still claim as normal but there would be a small .20 usd tax if you so choose to. In reality, there are a vast majority of parcel owners that only claim maybe 2x in the 24 hour window. Nothing that i am proposing nerfs how much each reservoir can hold and the .20 usd tax is not alot when compared to the amount of tokens in usd prices that are coming out every 8 hours. Everyone wants a good way to help meditate issuance but not willing to look at the whole ecosystem to do this. Cutting kinship will not make that much of a difference while more parcels are starting to come online. If we are good with parcels we should be good with channeling
The topic of this thread is burning kinship for channeling, there’s a tonne of reasons the same shouldn’t be applied for farming as they’re totally different mechanics. Let’s focus on the topic and not misdirect the conversation.
I totally agree that KIN burn and farming update are a very different updates yet at the time were proposed to battle the same inflation
If I do a sigprop today, it will be:
- set a current channeling cost to
-1 KIN - set a maximum channeling cost to
-5 KIN(during the deepest bear market) - a channeling cost will be set to
0if we (A) have deflationary problems or (B) the market is in bull stage
what do you think about such framework?
mentioned already in discord, but I believe -2 kin is the ideal starting amount, because 2 kin is accrued in a day of petting twice.
It will be be easier for people to interpret the change as “you either gain in kinship or you channel” any given day.
True and i was just saying that there should be a balanced approach if issuance is really the motivating factor when considering that most parcels in the cathedral will be empty/or close to empty in the next 3 to 4 years.
Based on Yanik’s suggestion, I would like to present some simulation results that can help us understand the potential impact of this proposal. Here are the details:
A dataset of 50,000 transactions was analyzed. The first and last days were excluded because not all the transactions from those days were available. These are the number of channelings from the last weekend:
For the sake of simplicity, we used a single day as a reference for the rest of the results. February 5th was selected as the reference day because it contains the most information. By sorting the gotchis that channeled that day and highlighting some leaderboard positions, we obtained the following population distribution:
In cumulative term, we have the following:
Let’s assume that we introduced an alchemica burning mechanism on February 6th, where the top 1,000 gotchis stop channeling to maintain their position in the kinship leaderboard and preserve their rarity farming rewards. We can then calculate the evolution of FUD emission over the next year. The following figures show the potential new trends compared to the current situation:
Introducing a kinship burning mechanism appears to have a significant effect on overall emission. The most moderate option (-1 KIN) would reduce current emission by over 10% and it would take at least 300 days to reach the current emission level. As expected, -2 KIN would freeze emission growth and more severe measures would have a deflationary effect on channeling emission.
So, what do you think frens, should we move forward with this proposal?
PS1: Thanks to @9STX6 and @yanik from orderGG/fireball for providing the Dune dashboards used to query the initial data.
PS2: The code used to produce these results can be found on GitHub at the following link: GitHub - gotchinomics/kinshipBurn: Basic simulation to account for the effects of burning kinship every time a gotchi channels.
I do realize that this is considered “off topic” but what would the emissions numbers look like if reservoirs went to a 2x a day emptying rather than 3x per day?
Amazing work fren, thank you so much for researching this. My vote would be start with -4 and then increase later once more alchemica sinks are introduced.
Also worth noting that each alchemica has very different splits between channeling and reservoirs. Kek emissions for example are 75% channeling so this would have a much greater effect.
This is the kind of data we need. Thank you for putting this together, Im sure it took quite a bit of effort.
You have a yes vote from me for any number proposed but I prefer 4
well said @FreeBeer
With the data I have become a supporter of -4 instead of -2
chad contribution by @gotchinomics 
Notice the data etc assumes that people will stop channeling in order to maintain/raise their kinship.
All at the same time PC is endorsing the end of RF and campaigning against my 25% proposal for the curve DAI.
There is a LOT of “wanting our cake and eating it too” in this project. If we do nothing to protect the future of protocol rewards, people will still channel even if they have 1500 kin. If channeling is the only use of kinship, we are just going to create a nightmare scenario where people must choose between a “speculative number” aka their KIN and some yield via channeling.
Because of this, I do urge anybody whose thinking kinship burn is a good idea, to vote against the proposed % by PC and vote for competing proposals that do allocate funds for protocol rewards in the future.
PS: The same dilemma affects plans to drop kinship potions in the aarena/dungeons etc. If there’s no protocol rewards, major kinship potions are just worth less than 3 channelings if this prop goes through 
thanks for the data @gotchinomics
now its less of a guessing and we better prospective what to expect
the real choice between -1,-2 or -4 and what do you want to achieve with an update
for example:
(1) -2 if we want to have UBI and farming alchemica inflow about 1:1 in 4-6 month
(2) -4 if we want to reduce inflation during bad times (long term market downtrend, game release cycle)
(3) -1 if we want to start a game and start accumulating the real data
I would prefer if we go for least disrupting option, start with -1
And then see what is the real data:
(a) how many gotchis stopped channeling
(b) what effect it had on alchemica supply and prices
it is shame we can’t analyse the effect of such update with a RF, because it is already ongoing …
If you drop the prop now, with the code included, it could hit before RF ends.