I’m actually a strong proponent of modifying the base rate (or in this case, the denominator of the modifier). When times are good (source-sink ratio is balanced or even in favor of sinks) we can increase the base rate. When times are bad (too many sources, not enough sinks) we can modulate the base rate down.
If there is support for that proposal vs. this current one, happy to make a thread to explore that as well.
So you’d prefer to wait until Channeling as a mechanism has been completely obliterated by becoming unprofitable due to gas fees for the DAO to take any action? If we have identified the problem and have ideas on how to improve the situation before it gets that drastic, why not take action now?
i agree with these points and am so glad you’re here fren! $GHST SHIP gaang!
I support all of these changes. BUT, with the alchemica rate change combined, i would suggest having 2 days for channeling to be fair to moar frens. i mean, this is technically in the middle of a spiritual day of rest for many faiths in the world, for one rando reason to have moar than one day available for channeling.
I definitely agree with making the changes, whatever they may be, slowly rather than quickly. seems best for most things in life.
Hi fren, welcome to the forums and thanks for your feedback! Let me address your points:
This could definitely be worked into the change. Saturdays are optimal for hangout time, but it would also be nice quality of life to be able to set a time for channeling.
I believe this change is out of the scope of this proposal. We have an entire game world to fill and plans to fill it, so this would need to be discussed separately.
That is an interesting idea, but seems like it would be abused by people lending out high BRS gotchis for an hour to setup their installations for the cheapest rate possible.
Buyback rate as an issue has been raised in the past and again I believe is out of the scope of this proposal, but definitely worth discussing more. I only adjusted the Altar buyback rate in this proposal to allow existing Altar-channeling-strategy players to reshuffle their strategy without a significant cost.
Again, out of the scope of what this proposal is trying to do, but an interesting idea.
Thanks for your contribution and look forward to seeing your participation more in Gotchigang governance!
This proposal was a counterproposal to the current plan that will likely reach quorum, which is to adjust the spillover rates of Altars with no other adjustments. Since you already have land and already have Altars, why not just farm all the land? Or, if you want to focus on farming a few specific plots first, you could refund your Altars and spend that Alchemica to build farming equipment.
This game is governed by a DAO because it’s a game, and games require balance patches. If the DAO is going to be strictly against any sort of economic management, then it’s going to be very difficult to balance our economy over the next thirty years.
I came here to say that we should just tweak the modifier on the multiplier, stop light style
Right now… red light = -69% to modifier
Yellow is -42% to modifier
Green is -0% to modifer
69,42,0
Wonder if we had the idea at exact same moment 
Addition to the idea…
We just add a monthly vote with a guage, for Red, Green, Yellow. Allocate your VP as you wish, and the community will decide how fast they want the economy to go.
Ultimate force multiplier - Add a filter on the front of the channeling UI that doesn’t let you channel if the gas is more than 50% of the value of the alchemica you will receive.
Alternate implementation… turn days of the week on and off. That gives you 7 levels of control, and the gas scales with the changes. This doesn’t play nice with medium length rentals, though.
I also agree that the modifier is the simplest and cleanest solution that affects all parties equally (except for low kinship gotchis). We could easily down-modulate the rate to hit our target inflation rate without nerfing anyone’s installations or turning off channeling.
Edit: I re-read the original proposal discussion here Alchemica economic plan - #68 by Quincy1971 which aimed to down-modulate the base rate. If the community strongly believes that changing spillover rate is a better idea than changing the base rate at this time, then we’ll let that preference stand.
I still believe that limiting channeling to once a week, while more extreme, would help us actually address the structural issue of too much inflation from AC and help get farming back in balance, but if there is no appetite from the voters to make that move yet, then we I agree with @Immaterial that we should take the win.
We are prepping some dashboards that will continue giving more visibility into the sources-sinks ratio so that everyone can clearly see the health of the economy.
Overall, I think has been a productive discussion and want to thank @Immaterial and @JG1 for kicking off the discussion on game economy, which is a vital part of a thriving Gotchiconomy.
When will this prop go to vote?
I’ve seen many wanting to vote for this option , ESPECIALLY if the other option is to see the Marks reduction inflation act pass …
What if there was?
The idea here would be to tie the channeling to the farming. If there is farming, then there would be somwthing to channel if not then there would be nothing to channel.
is it possible to apply channeling changes to rental gotchis only?
Rather than continuing to reduce emissions via short term stop gaps - first spillover and now channeling.
What if we focus on changing the incentives to build? Currently we have an inflationary token economy with a stagnate crafting economy…
In my opinion there is little incentive to craft/ build & upgrade now. I know that alchecmia will be cheaper in the future but the costs to build/upgrade will be the same.
Would it be possible to put crafting/ upgrading on a type of bonding curve? If crafting/ upgrading becomes more expensive with each additional aggregate craft then hopefully the market would find equilibrium.
Multi-token bonding curve that functions similar to that of the dai/ghst curve? If the curve was such that it was close to the alchemcia inflation rate we might find a consistent equilibrium over time.
Yes, this could potentially be botted, and might benefit whales, plus it would give an advantage to early adopters as the price to craft would be much lower then in the future, but maybe an approach like this would help, and token inflation would actually be a good thing… the relative price of items might find equilibrium over time in terms of fully diluted market caps…
If we can’t get VAlch implemented for Gotchi UBI, I prefer this proposal over Mark’s current proposal. I would appreciate it if you could put this forward to a snapshot proposal @coderdan.
At least it is somewhat fair about giving Aaltar investors the chance to fix their strategy as a result of changing tokenomics.
Another positive is it has a pre-defined review period where the changes will be re-evaluated to see if they are working so there is a chance the channeling will be enabled again.
This one, Fifoos entropy/repair system, and simply having a monthly vote on emission rates are all solid. dust alch/valch/bonding ideas are great too. Autobalancing channeling emmisions to total harvester emmisions is also solid and can then be left alone to do its thing.
The first prop up… needs a better curve, and I like all these other ideas better. Hopefully we see at least five good props up there before the weekend.
Well according to this, the spillover will be reinstated so there will not be a wallet that would hold the spillover that is made from emptying reservoirs to fund channeling BUT if we kept spillover off and used the spillover to fund channeling it would indeed be a nice loop.
Without reducing channeling emissions significantly, this would have little impact on the issue we’re addressing, which is excess supply of Alchemica due to too much channeling.
Let Kinship grow in the verse, free it from the isolation and boring status of the autopetters we all use n’sync. Tie it to gotchiverse activity (farming, crafting, activating bounce gates et al), make channeling the reward for activity, not a free handout. Then you would have real incentive to be and build in the verse and more spending of alchemica in the verse.
That response surprised me. You showed how there is an imbalance between alch issuance and alch removal. You further convinced the majority (not just in VP, but I believe also in number of people) that this imbalance is large enough that it warrants intervention. While (in terms of proposals) people have been picking what each of them consider the smallest evil for their respective strategies, the majority seems to prefer to tackle this problem not from the emissions side, but from the removal side, if possible.
You said that you expected people to sink a lot more alch into farming. In fact, you expected that the farming sinks would fully suffice until further sinks are ready to ship. So the sinks are there, and they would suffice…the only issue is, people aren’t interested in using them. There is an argument to be made that even if you set the channeling emissions to 0 for everyone, people would still not sink alch into farming, because its an inflationary vicious cycle.
By using installation recipes as a base price and applying a multiplier (>1) to each of the 4 alchemica prices of an installation via a bonding-curve like mechanism, prices (in alchemica denomination) would increase as more and more installations are being build. This would give people a large incentive to start investing into farming upgrades because they know, prices will increase. Not just the prices of the installations, but as a result also the price of alchemica, as more and more people would swap back to get their farming up and running before prices get too high.
Of course this mechanism needs to be be balanced in some way, so that prices can’t get completely out of hand. Also you shouldn’t be able to sell the installation back to the curve at full (current curve) price, but instead suffer a percentage in demolition cost (that is just going to be burned by the curve) similar to how it is right now. So in many ways, it wouldn’t really be a bonding curve so much as just share some key features with it.
In my mind, this would have not only a major impact, but the potential to solve the whole issue once and for all, without the need to nerf anyone. It would bring deflationary pressure to a system dominated by inflation. It could rescue the economy, get people into the verse, and keep your customers happy, all at the same time. Hence my surprise that you think this would have little impact on the issue. Would you please consider elaborating further, why you think this would have little impact on the issue? What am I missing?
How is raising the price of installations going to make people who wont build now interested in building?
As of right now, the only benefit I’m getting from my farm is that it’s growing really fast in 1 alch is 1 alch world. If installations become more expensive, there goes that benefit, as well.