Alternative Alchemica Economic Plan

This thread is being made as an alternative to the path suggested by fren @Mark under the “alchemica economic plan” at:

I wish to propose an alternative for the community to explore, which @Mark has agreed he would accept instead of his own proposal.
Building on a growing consensus that nerfing gotchis (core product) is probably more harmful that helpful for our economy at this juncture, an exploration has been made into achieving similar results, without all the trauma and harm to the community.

It’s been identified that the bulk of channeling rewards can be had by a mediocre/floor gotchi on a level 1 altar. The risk and costs of upgrading to higher level altars/parcel or higher kinship/BRS gotchi do not justify the added risk and expenditure. As such, we have engineered a value trap in our economy during a bear market, and it becomes no surprise that assets like spacious parcels, wearables, rare gotchis- they’ve all tanked in value, because all value has now coalesced around floor gotchis and level 1 humble parcels- that has been the absolute best risk/reward ratio that our platform offers.

Why would users spend any more than the cost of a floor gotchi and parcel if that will already yield the most rewards per unit of risk? you can buy a floor gotchi and level 1 humble parcel, channel them daily, then sell them at break-even or profit a few months later.

Based on above, it should be no surprise that other assets continue to agonize- users sell these assets to buy more floor gotchi and parcels - leading to the imbalances we see in our economy.

Make no mistake, I hate nerfs to the bone, and I am creating this suggestion because I believe it is not a nerf, rather a very obvious fix to a problem we have surrounding values and incentives in our economy. I ask the community to consider this fix instead of continuing discussions around nerfing gotchis and core supporters- that’s a very risky and depressing proposition.

I propose we explore increasing spillover for lower level altars, starting at 90 percent for level 1 and increasing 10% for each level altar, until 10 % spillover for level 9 altars. The images below compare, at today’s prices, what gotchis at different kinship and altar levels recieve in USD terms from a single channel (net of spillover)

current channeling yields net of spillover:

proposed new spillover ratios:

Looking forward to others comments and thoughts.

EDIT: upload better image of first table

8 Likes

Your first image’s % row is cut off making it a little harder to compare the 2 chart

1 Like

The current numbers decrease by 5% per level starting at 50% for level 1.

fixed fren! ive made them more congruent, better resolution

1 Like

they now both have same $ value

1 Like

third time’s the charm

1 Like

Edit: Never mind. I come back later and try re-read it.

I understand the reasoning behind this, but I think this will create a problem inside the community. A couple month ago there was a lot of discussion about different play-styles and how to balance them. There were 4 archetypes if I remember correctly:
Upgradooor / Expandooor / Low Levelooor / FUD Maxi Low Levelooor
People made projections, charts, tweets etc. Any sort of change to the channeling percentages should have occurred at that time (July). Now that people made their investment decisions and chose their play style, you propose to tell them: Hey…remember these two of the four play styles that we discussed extensively? Well…you’re playing the game wrong and so we’re slashing your rewards by 80%. That is a much bigger nerf than the suggested 48h channeling.

3 Likes

sure! i definitely see that.

think we are dealing with a matter of trade-offs here rather than there being a right answer or perfect path.

given the three choices between changing nothing, nerfing all gotchis or this alternative, which do you prefer? mind sharing your take on the other two options?

edit: i do think that the latest change to harvesting recipes right before launch pretty much nullified the low level expandoors etc. but i could be wrong

That was in regards to farming, not to channeling.

The change being proposed here incentivizes leveling altars whereas the original proposed changes punished owners. At least this gives people the option to level their altars and not be punished.

3 Likes

I’m definitely team change nothing:

  • The people who care most about short term token prices are probably those who want to sell. If someone intends to just use their alch for upgrades and to buy stuff for their parcels, then low alch prices actually work for them, as they should (unfortunately this is not really felt by the users as PC seems to inflate prices to combat alch price dump) have an easier time affording high alch deco / upgrades.

  • The more alch dumps, the more of a buying opportunity it will become, as eventually there will be better sinks as more game-play comes out. If you manage to time your buy-in correctly, this could be a VERY lucrative trade (not financial advise).

  • Changing the rules that were decided on isn’t the best look. How can there be investor confidence if things keep changing based on what (sometimes even who’s) opinions are “in” at the moment.

  • Given the tiny amount of liquidity for alch, why even care about token prices at all?

  • By letting it play out, we the DAO, as well as PC gain valuable experience.

  • Every change that is made retrospectively actively messes with people’s strategies, hence creating further division in the community. Some people will take it personally, and blame it one the people who suggested these changes, even though they might just have the best intentions. If we instead do nothing and just let the price continue naturally, their decreased UBI is only their own responsibility for not predicting that this was always one of the possible outcomes. So they can’t blame this other part of the community.

  • For a very long time, alch was EXTREMLY overpriced. Especially considering the cost of a parcel vs. how much alch is in there. The dump could just be a move towards a price that more closely resembles it’s actual underlying value.

Where is the difference? Aaltar level is very much a farming thing. Besides, channeling was already happening for some time when that discussion took place, so when people made their decisions, channeling spill-over percentages were priced into these archetypes.

Maybe we shouldn’t punish anyone then? :man_shrugging:t2:

11 Likes

awesome response fren, agree on majority of points which is why i prefer doing nothing over the route of nerfing gotchis.

I like this option with altars because it is a tweak towards a MUCH more sensical economy, but I’m not going to die on the hill of this proposal, I mainly hope it gets deeply and thoroughly considered over option nerf-every-gotchi

I don’t see these proposed changes as a punishment to anyone. Everyone still has the option of building up their altars. The initial proposed changes I saw as a nerf to gotchi owners as a buoy to farmers.

If everything that’s decided on at one place and time is set in stone and can’t later be changed, then we’re fucked. I think the original spillover levels were far too generous at low levels compared to higher levels and how much investment is required to get there. I think that some change is needed, whether the proposed changes here are exactly right or not is up for debate though.

I agree with you here, but it’s moving closer and closer to a point where channeling isn’t even profitable.

1 Like

By slashing 80% of the low levelooors earnings, you actively push them into unprofitability (for most Gotchis). At that point it will take them a lot longer to upgrade their way back into profitability (because they get less alch from channeling and farming had already become unprofitable for them weeks ago) unless they buy alch and GLMR from the pool. So you’re forcing these players to buy alch (in a bear market were people might already be struggling financially) and use it to upgrade their aaltar, with the alternatives being taking a loss on channeling, or stop playing altogether. Some people might consider that a punishment for the play-style archetype that they chose.

Sure, but again, I’m referring specifically to the two low level archetypes, and if those people wanted to upgrade their aaltars, they probably wouldn’t have chosen the low levelooor archetype play-style. And forcing them into a different playstyle is kinda…

You gotta stop saying this lol. As I said above, the low levelors were for farming setups, not for channeling. Also, that strategy was basically killed when the harvester change happened.

We should be trying to incentivize people spending alchemica. I thought that turning off channeling rewards all together was far too harsh to gotchi owners. At least with this compromise, gotchi owners still have the opportunity to earn as much as they were before if they build up their parcels, which should be the goal. It’s a poorly designed system if the optimal strategy for channeling is to leave everything at level 1 and just extract from the get go.

Edit: My one issue with this change is that it completely kills humbles. Humbles were already bad for farming, and channeling was all they had. If this change goes into effect, humbles will be rekt.

3 Likes

As I insinuated above, channeling is part of farming. People don’t just ignore this major part when planning their strategy.

If it’s poorly designed, then why was it implemented this way? Also, the low leveloor might have been a good short term strategy, but upgrading was always the better strategy for the long term. It’s just that a lot of people didn’t wanna invest that much in a full blown bear market. If we were in a bull market, I bet we would have seen a lot more high level farming parcels and the discussion would be exactly the opposite…namely about nerfing farming which is a far bigger viscous cycle than channeling. Upgrading IS the better strategy; essentially forcing people to do it is not.

1 Like

The aadepts cheat sheet says the optimal farm level for a humble is between level 4-5. I had made a version of the numbers that is more redux to level 3 and below, and more generous to levels 4 and 5. The idea being that if you’re a humble farmer, you are still more than effective. Also spillover is not a 100% loss in the longer term design…50 or 60% spillover is better than it seems after the humble farmer engages in collecting their own spillover. But as I imply above, no need to stick to any specific numbers or ratios at this stage over determining to acknowledge or ignore the larger imbalance (if we care to fix or meddle with anything at all, let’s be conscious of the backdrop: our main dev has shown support for the nerf option)

I disagree with this. You lose money if you bring your humbles to level 5.

The harvester/reservoirs were also poorly designed before being changed. I didn’t design them.

I know what you’re referring to, I just disagree with the suggested levels.