gotcha… i think humbles overall have larger issues that reside beyond the scope of this initiative, wouldn’t you agree?
maybe they can be explored more deeply for value/utility if we manage to stabilize the economy better, whatever comes from this recent push to review our economy with nerf bat in hand
Yes I do, I don’t think it’s worth harvesting a humble regardless of what level you bring the altar to. If you bring it too high (higher than 3) you lose money because you spent more on the installations than you’ll get back out. If you do 3 or less, you lose money because gas costs more than you get from emptying your reservoirs.
So channeling was all they had left because there’s no difference between a humble and a spacious for channeling. So this kills humbles imo. Idk if that’s a cost we’re willing to pay or not.
Honestly I wouldn’t level anything at this point regardless of how this plays out as tomorrow someone might propose another change and make the upgrades useless
It’s a very good point/con to this idea, thank you for pointing it out.
“kill” might be heavy handed though, in the sense that humbles have enjoyed what…1-2 month payback periods from channeling (perhaps even rented) gotchis… leading us up to this point. If they’ve already paid for themselves 4 or 5 times over in channeling, we’d be “killing” their current imbalanced channeling paradigm, but it doesn’t mean they’d have no value if they’ll still be channeling for 30 years into the future for the lowest possible investment. Basically they would have to look at altar expenses holistically(with a much longer payback period) than now.
They’ve essentially been too effective at channeling and useless for farming- do we want to address that or leave as is? I think a case has been made that their low risk, low investment utopia (channeling-wise) is hurting the value proposition of the entire platform.
This is the kind of mindset that will kill Web3 gaming. If changes can’t be made for the better of the ecosystem just because people have invested in something, then web3 games will never be as good as web2 games.
Web 3 , Web 2, Web 1. People have feelings you know
Yes, but in web2 the players weren’t the investors. If we want to be successful we need to make decisions that benefit the ecosystem as a whole. We need to be able to make changes if things aren’t going well.
I’m not saying what was proposed is perfect, since I think humbles are an X factor, but I think this is on the right track.
You yourself said this system was poorly designed. The DAO keeps forcing PC to make adjustments for problems that could occur. Then someone comes along and says something along the lines of: "you know what…this is too volatile for me, I’m not investing my money to upgrade at this point. ". And you generalize this to all of web3 gaming? So many of these proposed changes are fueled by nothing more than FUD over token prices. This very specific - implementation dependent - FUD over token prices has nothing to do with the success of web3 gaming in general.
Where are the models and statistics that led to the initial (or current) implementation of the alch tokenomics? Are we still in a range supported by those models? If not, which parameter caused us to deviate? If these fundamentals never existed, then maybe we should pay someone to create them instead of creating proposals based on what we feel might help. If they do exist, then this might be a good time to write a very in-depth blog post about them, so that people can calm their…
The problem IS occurring that alchemica prices keep dropping without an end in sight and we don’t have any good sinks, other than installations. We don’t know when combat or any other consistent sink will be realized. The proposed solution would incentivize people to spend alchemica on increasing their altar levels.
The issue wasn’t that something is too volatile, the issue was that something was changing. Change is good if it’s well thought out and discussed. Channeling was released 5 months ago. Since then we have seen what has happened to alchemica prices, we’ve been told that combat is still an unknown amount of time away. We should be looking at making changes once we’ve received new information.
I believe the devs had thought that more people would be building out their parcels as Dan said today in discord that they expected more alchemica to have been generated by now.
You can ask the PC team. They’re the ones who created these designs. I was very confused by the initial harvester designs. With that being said, spillover was supposed to be happening and the spillover rate is more consequential now with spillover turned off.
100% agree. But we should make them before shipping, or at least declare something temporary and give people a clear timeline like e.g. “We start off with X for 3 months, after which we’ll reevaluate and iterate. All parameters are subject to change”. Then everyone knows exactly what to expect and when.
Why is that a problem? ( asking about the price drop; the missing sinks, I understand). Maybe we should talk about what sinks could be added that are attractive enough to counteract some of the token issuance instead of talking about rugging people by slashing the token issuance via channeling.
Oh…okay. My bad.
Sorry to quote a half sentence but that is what I meant. Maybe we shouldn’t make decisions on what people believe or think, but hire an economist or at least statistician to give us something with strong fundamentals that we can vote on.
I was addressing the PC team with that paragraph, but I also thought you were part of PC. Sorry, must have gotten that mixed up.
I will try go over the numbers as objectively as I can and put a proper response because I remember at one point I did the numbers on L1 vs L6 etc before I did my upgrades
When he first brought up this idea in the original thread.
I pointed out a few issues. He acknowledged it and then he went ahead and posted this regardless.
So I wasn’t quite in the mood repeat my response again.
permissions or schoolyard consensus shouldn’t be required to post topics.
I am not ignoring your point, which I don’t mind repeating for you, which was that vault and other factors will make the initiative moot, because according to you everyone can easily channel with their buddies or vaults L6, right? We agreed we could use more granular data on that front, and I don’t see how creating a thread while respecting the OP and their own proposal is an issue? This would be the place to discuss my alternative proposal and post data, not the other thread.
I don’t see it mention anywhere until now.
Anyways, I am sorry, I might had worded it poorly. I will come back and post if I find anything useful to this topic
Fair, well now it’s here, and I had actually started research/requests to get that data, I just hadn’t made mention of that yet.
No worries fren! appreciate your maturity and manners. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
it is a bit extreme to start at 90% maybe but i like this concept, good thinking… however we dont know if this is viable and well-working on a longer term… but i guess that goes for both models
welcome to the forums fren!
Okay, hopefully I didn’t make any mistake.
So here what I think (I might be wrong):
Assumption, Current Alch price, 500 kinship, land price 40ghst ($45.6 USD)
Result 1:
Problem 1: Lower level aaltar would lose the most % in this new plan. However USDC wise they lose less than higher level since someone would need to invesst in additional capital to acquire additional gotchi to fully utilize all possible channel within 24 hours
Result 2:
Assume everyone has 24 gotchi and one choose to use level 1 vs higher level
Problem 2:
The level 1 aatlar fren actually spent as much as someone using level 7 because if you take into account the additional land cost required:
In this new plan, even tho they spent the same, they are being punished by almost 2000$ in difference in output
Alot of number was involved. I might be wrong. Please correct me if you find any mistake
How about we say this now once and for all, because it’s true. All parameters of every single thing are subject to change, if that’s what the majority of the community agrees on.
It’s impossible to foresee every single circumstance ahead of time. We don’t know how things will react. We didn’t know we’d have to wait so long for non-alchemica generating sinks, we didn’t know we’d be in a bear market right now, etc, etc. If someone in given new information and don’t change the way they think/act, then that’s the definition of being stubborn.
Of course. And in the same way the community can agree to not change something for a certain amount of time. So if PC or the DAO isn’t entirely sure about some parameters of their implementation, or there isn’t enough data to create a reliable model, you can start with a guess and collect data for a certain known period of time, before proposing a change. Having the DAO and PC commit to the amount of time that those chosen parameters will stay locked, would be a major improvement over “anything can change at any time”. If everyone agrees on a schedule, people can make more informed decisions, because they know the minimum amount of time that the parameters, that are known to them, will stay valid.
Ok I update my calculations above. Please help me double check
