I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s impossible to be that rigid with something like this. What if we say 3 months, and after that 3 months things aren’t bad, but at 4 months things start getting bad. Even if we want to get things changed, we need to decide on a change, get a sigprop going, get a coreprop going, then get the actual thing changed. Those steps can take multiple months on their own.
At first glance it looks like you might have forgotten to deduct the gas cost? If not, how much GWEI did you assume? It surprises to me that in your Model Lvl1 New Spillover 90% with a 500 Kinship Gotchi is still profitable by 8 cents.
No gas cost was used because OP did not include gas fee in his chart.
So I kept it as is for easier comparison
Edit: Sorry, busy channeling my expiring gotchi from the vault. Will check back later
It’s not realistic they’d build 3 level 7s in 3 humble parecels- possible yes, but not realistic, they’d more likely spend on 3 spacious or reasonables. The thing with higher level parcels/installations is that it incentivizes upgrading everything, getting all 4 types of harvesters, etc etc. - This would be the desired behavior we have failed to spark.
Assuming they do invest the same amount GHST as in your example, just for argument’s sake, there is still the issue that while they may be spending near similar amounts in GHST terms, the low level strategy is way safer and liquid. try selling one level 7 parcel after extraction at fair price, vs a level 1 humble.
Because of this, the low level strategy is used and preferred over the other, and it happens to be a strategy that emphasizes ZERO use of alchemica in order to maximize extraction. the issue is then clear: if we make the safest and smartest play to spend ZERO alchemica and dump it all, well, we are going to end up exactly where we find ourselves currently: people aren’t building , they’re dumping to no end. In Economics 101 they teach you to analyze humans as having a “rational self-interest”. You have to assume that they will do what nets them the most personal benefit, you can’t make policy around what people 'ought" or “should” do.
True, I will make another one assuming one is farming with spacious for lvl 7+ aaltar
I own a lvl 7 humble. Kind of in efficeint but too late lol
1 Like
However, we still have an issue from level 1 - 6 where the level 1 user is being punished more for owning more land just because they didn’t upgrade
Another thing to consider is that you can easily channel 24 gotchis using 24 level 1 altars, where as with 3 level 7s you either need someone to help you or you need to not sleep.
But yes, this will overall reduce alchemica being generated if you don’t upgrade your altars. That’s the point of this, to reduce alchemica being generated.
So we are really going penalize people for owning more land in this case?
utopian/idealistic outcome, which of course nobody can guarantee would happen, is that the changes generate an actual demand for alchemica- enough that you actually see benefits to taking your humbles to level 4,5 and farm them. Nobody is “penalized” if we enjoy a working economy moving forward instead of continuing to drive towards a cliff. It’s like saying you wont use lifeboats in the titanic if they wont rescue every single passenger, why penalize the violin players etc etc.
1 Like
So what does Economics say about reducing people’s pay by about 80% for the same work? From 49cents to 10cents. Will that solve the problem or will it create even worse problems? Because the game is not fun, it’s really not worth the time for only 20% pay. And while you assume these people might invest into higher level aalters, a large portion of them might just be fed up with the constant nerfing, and stop playing altogether. Not to mention that the more high-level farming equipment is bought, the worse this whole problem is gonna get in the future. We (well, I at least) don’t actually want people to sink their alch into farming because that will generate a lot more alch…
IMO the better solution would be a really attractive sink that people are happy to pour their alch in (one that doesn’t generate alch for them).
1 Like
I cannot argue*with your logic as you pose it fren.
I can only repeat that considering our main dev showed tentative support for a disastrous nerf, I am proposing a better path than that one.
If it were up to me, and I had the power to manifest them: then yes… sink would be my preferred path too. 1000%
1 Like
No one is going to argue this, the issue is that we have no idea how far away this is from happening, it will certainly be months.
I think in general we should be incentivizing people to upgrade their parcels, and this solution is a way to do that.
I am just going to enjoy the Saturday hangout later this week with the hallowen event. Looking forward to see the parcel contest entries and the PvE.
I will check out the forum after that. This is a bit too stressful
Thank you all for your comments on my calcuations
I 100% agree Lvl 7 + should had been modeled after spacious instead of humble. My mistake
That is were we fundamentally disagree. By telling people “hey, I only give you 20% of what you used to make, unless you spend 62 GHST worth of alch per Aaltar to upgrade to Lvl 5”, you don’t incentivize them to upgrade to level 5 or beyond, you’re incentivizing them to stop playing and move on.
1 Like
But why is this the line? Why wasn’t turning off the spillover the line? Or the 98%+ decline in alch prices? The goal of this change would be to buoy/sustain alch prices, I don’t see it being anymore harmful than things that have already happened. If we do nothing, there’s a good chance that the market will naturally “give” everyone 20% of what they used to make, not just people who don’t upgrade their altars.
3 Likes
Yes, it would not be the line as much as the next line. We turned off spillover because we thought that stopping bots from collecting and selling all that spillover would stop the decline…it didn’t. We can’t even say for sure by how much the decline was slowed down from that intervention. What we do know is that that intervention tanked Gotchi lending prices. Gotchi lending is also probably one of the bigger causes for the alch price decline. As long as it’s profitable and someone is willing to channel your Gotchi for a couple cents, it’s passive income.
Whether it’s boosting boosts or not, turning spillover on or off, having Gotchi lending or not, at the end of the day, alch is a token that investors get for free, yet can sell for money. So none of these interventions will prevent us from the inevitability of prices going down until it’s no longer profitable, or until there is a sink that people actually wanna spend money on.
That is likely to happen regardless. This proposal, even if implemented immediately, will likely not stop the decline by itself. Sure, it might delay it a bit, like previous interventions, but at the cost of upsetting even more people.
1 Like
The purpose of stopping spillover wasn’t to stop the decline of alchemica prices, the purpose was to stop value extraction by bots. I don’t care if X owner or Y owner wants to sell, the issue was that someone could rent dozens of gotchis for next to nothing and extract tons of value without having any stake in the ecosystem.
You could be right, although I feel like the alternative is doing nothing and everyone being upset.
What if you start at 69% and see if/how the market reacts to a nudge. Get a nice calibration reading, then see where to go from there.
3 Likes
This is the best idea I’ve heard so far. We could increase spillover (starting at the current 50% for L1) by 5% for L1 (and lesser, proportional percentages for higher levels) every two weeks until we reach 70% at L1. That would give us 4 datapoints of how much the price-changes change. This way we can interpolate a non-linear curve through the data and get a pretty decent estimate of how much spillover we’d need to stabilize the price (or whether that is even possible at all by adjusting spillover-rates for channeling).
To sell this to the DAO (especially to the low levelooors), it should be advertised as a temporary measure to get us through the bear, which is to be re-evaluated after the battle system shipped.
3 Likes
Trying to keep up with all this…thanks for posting every1.
My .02 here is that low leveling channelers wouldn’t find the activity worth it anymore if spillover rates were pushed so high initially – especially if this gameplay activity is kept off for now and we have no certainty to when that will come back online.
I think the hard thing we are having to cope with as a community is that there is no savior for alchemica outside of consistent, high-demand sinks that offer some element of gameplay alteration. Until we get to this point there will be no Economic plan that can save the economy, and I’m hesitant as a DAO voter to embrace anything that shifts around value, recipes, etc.
It’s unfortunate that we have this problem right now, but I think we may have been a little naive that Gotchi UBI would just magically work itself out. It was a good idea but in practice it clearly isn’t sustainable. Hell, the #s are even higher than farming output, which at least serves a clear progression path with incentives to level up. I like the reframing you are trying to do here with that in mind (trying to provide another progression path to hopefully eat up some more of that issuance), but I just don’t see it working out in practice and it only adds more problems than it gets rid of.
the only viable solutions to me are either a) sinks that I had mentioned, or b) shut off channeling rewards altogether. One is incredibly unpopular (for valid reasons) and the other is an unknown as to when we will get the functionality that zaps up all this issuance. TANSTAAFL can be a powerful acronym
3 Likes