Alternate Economic Proposal – Temporarily Disable Channeling

Hello,

AS PixelCraft, you need to decide what is the desired direction with Aavegotchi in the future: you want a crypto game where you want people to invest, have ROI, speculate on the price, commit large resources of money into the game assets – basically to have a functional crypto economy.

OR you, want a game where everyone can join and there is zero investment required to play. YOU cannot have them both (if the entry for the game is zero or close to zero, the value of the investment is basically nullified).

The point where we are now is this: people invested money, time and brains into the ecosystem, and the alchemica price going down is basic ROI from the ones that invested money. RF is the same. Investors would be stupid not to extract some ROI if during the last weeks and months was: how to nerf this, how to nerf that, how to make the game more accessible to everyone.

Slashing RF / alchemica is messing up big time with the ones that are most invested - and their original investment keeps lights up at PixelCraft.

You did not want VC, but getting the funding from the above is same as VC, just another version of VC with less VC control, as the VC is the DAO (anyways, I digress).

Please make up your mind about what is direction with the game. Because I don t see a clear direction where items / gotchies and other assets are anyway meaningful in the future, from the perspective of the investment (making a gotchi run faster in the verse is not helping “return of investment” wise. making a gotchi run faster in the verse and there are more chances to gather more alchemica because of that, that is helping).

Getting back to the discussion at hand, slashing alchemica won’t help with the prices, it will just kill the economy even more by slowing it down and there s gonna be the side-effect of dumping (alot of it), gotchies and lands become more and more worthless with this move because less utility. If you try to better an indicator without any underlying support, you ll mess up other indicator. Imagine slashing down inflation, like Jerome tries to do and you end up slashing the economy, leading to a recession and huge unemployment.

At this moment, I 'd focus more on the carrots sitting in the basket, like Forge + RF + PvP (and maybe, if gods are good, no more bears and we can have more Item Releases | Gotchies | etc, to replenish the basket.) Sitting with an idle huge basket of carrots is the worst move from the possible moves ever. what are you waiting, another bull market to put more things in the basket? The carrots need to be used in harsh times.

Lots of discussions nowadays on symptoms and how to fix them, but nobody wants to attack the real cause. Like I said above, lack of clarity on where things are going is the worst cause for where we are now. And maybe bearz, bearz always bad.

Thank you for reading this, here is a carrot for you :slight_smile:

14 Likes

Love the idea !
Just want to bring a Quick alternative prop :
Create an IG monthly event ;

  • players keep channeling but without ALCH airdrop
  • Alch airdrop are stocked in DAO treasury to create LP token
  • LP token bring more stability on ALCH Price and then poolen token cannot be dropped by investors (now or After 3 months)
  • Players will be rewarded by small LE decoration assets/tiles if they are channeling every days during one month
  • Repeat the event during 3 months.
  • Build a lore with this temporary economy patch

=> This allow to keep players rewarded for channeling, incentive this quickbreak Alch airdrop without dump it. The weekness in this Idea Is that scholars are forgoten.

Just share an idea

2 Likes

While I agree the supply v demand need some serious rebalancing, I think this proposal will create massive FUD in the economy and the resulting dumping of Alchemica from burnt Altars will be something we won’t ever recover from as people rush for the exits, magnified in this Bear Market.

Is it not possible to tune channeling by:

  • doubling or tripling the time to channel per parcel,
  • alternatively and my preferred solution - upgrading all altars to a new (level 10), at level 10 channeling is reduced to once daily at the current rate of a Level 4 Altar, on upgrade a 50% refund would be provided for any current altars at levels 5 through 9, for their upgrade costs of levels 5 through 9 (not a refund for the entire altar cost)

In respect to increasing the sink (demand):

  • can we not add more sink opportunities, some have been listed in other posts i.e. Forge
  • alternatively my preferred solution - initiate a vesting period for Alchemica (harvested or channeled, unless spent on upgrades). Enable distribution to a users wallet at the users discretion post a short vesting period (i.e. 1 month)? In addition for those that opt to vest for longer periods a benefit like a KIN accelerator (1.5x for 6mths, 2x for 1year, 4x for 2years) could be applied to the Gotchis in the users wallet. Alternatively a multiplier could be applied to the Alchemica harvestable by the parcel for longer locking periods.

These solutions in part address the issue today while pushing the majority of the problem further into the future when their is expected to be greater takeup and other utility that will naturally offset the supply issue.

I’m in favour of a carrot approach here as a stick could do significant damage to the narrative around the project and the ecosystem.

Thanks for listening and here is a visualisation of my carrots.

3 Likes

Actually, why not just modify the channelling contract so that it lp’s all spillage, and just let that run like that forever, while we sort out other solutions to layer on top.

1 Like

Or we could just stop minting new tokens and put in to use all those stored tokens that are being held in the spillover wallet :man_shrugging: It could at least carry us for a while without further inflating the circulating supply. I could see a little push back being that it came partly from parcels but imo once it becomes designated “spillage” it was no longer “owned” :grinning: so we should be good.

I don’t understand what minting tokens has to do with people dumping them.

Because that would either eat away at the DAO’s GHST reserves, or if you intend to design it in a way that it swaps half the alch for GHST, and then adds the LP, it would have a strong negative price impact on alch as that would be the same as adding just the alch to the pool without any (new) GHST.

This whole discussion is based on the minting or inflation of alchemica without matching/near matching sinks to use them on. Without anything to spend the newly minted tokens on, dumping will always be the first move.

I think it would be nice to consume Alchemica to increase kinship.

1 Like

Massive fail that this proposal needs to be here. Calculations on inflation should have been done before the mechanic was released.
We already disabled spillover which was supposed to be temporary. Now we will disable even more since our calculations were even worse than we thought.

1 Like

During 2021, I’ve seen projects introducing their own ways to fix tokenomics but all failed. From my points of view, it was never about how good the designs are.

We are in gameFi so we have to accept that people will dump their bags to secure their investment.

Instead of this, liquidity and community should be focused on:

We can take USD as an example of liquidity. USD is not just the currency of the US. It’s used in different countries’ treasuries and it’s also the medium for many international businesses. If we can create enough utilities for them, in Gotchiverse or outside it, it will create more demands. Imagine if players are paid in ETH, BTC, or USDC, there will be no big dump after the payout.

The other issues are creating gameplay, connecting community members, public awareness, etc. You can see how people reacted to Pumpkin event. Axie is now unearnable but the community still stays around. Big games like MU want people to pay hundred thousand USD for virtual items that will vanish if they rug. However, people are willing to pay, willing to have fun with it.

And about tokenomics of Alchemica, I thought we want to let the free market decide from the beginning.

That’s my 2 VND lol

3 Likes

@coderdan, all reasons you provided are only about the alchemica price. How does the low price of alchemica affect the gameplay or plans? Why does the price of alchemica matter? Would you make this proposal if we don’t have a secondary market for alchemica?

3 Likes

Even in a theoretical economy, we can easily escape from the Metaverse, so we need a mechanism to prevent it. Mainly accounts such as SNS can be a lifetime thing. So the metaverse economy that Facebook is trying to do might work. I don’t know.

  1. Optics. Next bull the first thing people will look at when entering the project is price, if they can see alchemica as fallen straight to gas prices you’d be insane to invest in the ecosystem.
  2. Sustainability. We’re trying to build a sustainable economy, where demand and supply are somewhat balanced. If not, it’ll break the game. If alchemica is totally insignificant in the game as it’s so cheap then they’ll be no economy and it’ll just be a web2 game.
  3. Farming. Everyone that actually invested into the alchemica economy has been completely rekt. This hasn’t even been in the conversation when people are trying to cling onto every last cent of their channelling yield which shows you where peoples head is at.
1 Like

No, as I clearly state at the beginning of this post, my goal is to balance sources and sinks in our game economy. Currently we have far more sources (inflation) than sinks (consumption). Farming was supposed to be one of the largest initial sinks in the economy until more full-bodied gameplay arrives. But the data clearly shows that the farming sector is depressed, due to excess supply coming from Alchemical Channeling. Hence, my proposal to temporarily disable channeling.

Would you make this proposal if we don’t have a secondary market for alchemica?

Yes, even if Alchemica were not liquid, the oversupply is still very apparent to anyone who looks at the data.

There are plenty of videos on youtube that discuss basic game economics. Here are a few:

1 Like

This discussion is not about people dumping. It’s about trying to find balance between how much Alchemica is generated every day, and how much is consumed every day. The number is 10:1 right now (even higher without decoration sinks), so the question becomes, should we take action to help correct the imbalance?

The free market is always deciding. That’s what price is. But all economies need to be managed. Like I said in the call yesterday, Pixelcraft Studios will not do this management unilaterally. This is Web3, not Web2. All major decisions that affect tokenholders’ interests will be made with the buy-in of the DAO.

bonsai

Since Alchemical Channeling is the root-cause of our problem…
… let‘s „prune the root“.
By adding a single digit (changing one single variable).
If 1:10 is the offset, so lets factor exactly that in:

root_cause

examples:
kinship 1200:
multiplier from 4.9 → 1.55
kinship 500:
multiplier from 3.2 → 1.0
kinship 100:
multiplier from 1.4 → 0.45

All levels of Kinship are equally affected by a reduction of UBI by approx 69% :slight_smile:
With a pruning on that order, what would speak against the re-introduction of Aaltar-Spills?

Furthermore with this – maybe even dynamically changing – adjustable variable we‘d have a single lever(indicator) for inflation. Without changing any other game-mechanics.
Still, #2 and #4 of the proposal could – and as I think should – be implemented.

Alternatively we could change the root-variable to 420, with a reduction of emissions by ~66%…

11 Likes

But at some price, the ratio will become close to 1:1 because players will stop channeling due to low USD/hr and gas fees. The only thing we solve by turning off channeling is making alchemica charts prettier.

Why don’t let the market to balance it?

2 Likes

I was thinking of a same mechanic, but replace 50 with the mean / median / average of kinship (for simplicity). I think at this moment, the average of kinship is around 400-500. With a monthly update to the number (as kinship goes up).

BUT this change favors mediocre kinship (which is a problem with the current formula too). There is marginal reward in having a 1400 kinship gotchi vs a 800 kinship one.

I think a better approach is to use the same larger tail present in the RF rewards for kinship (we can use the same formula).

3 Likes

Simple, Effective, & Fair :heart:

1 Like