I like this idea very much, and I voted Yes.
We buy only couple of weeks, and then alchemica price will start dropping again, but still, better than nothing. Overall this provides better economy loop, and i do not think there are downsides to this.
1 Like
I don’t see this option in the sig prop
Anyways … Halloween Time
2 Likes
How much will this actually stabilise Alchemica prices and for how long? Is it even worth doing it or let Alchemica fall naturally for the time being until we have sufficient token sinks?
We also need to do proper analysis on who is dumping Alchemica, and who is spending it on inflation-generating installations and non-inflation generating installations.
This proposal is rugging people that have bought Aavegotchis, and land, and have spent Alchemica upgrading their Aaltars (unless they managed to hit L9).
10 Likes
Haha. Alchemica prices will keep dropping despite of this prop.
No more new wearables.
No more new land.
No more new auctions.
No more spillover collecting (except 2h a week)
No more channelling (well Vault probably has enough of L5+ altars so it’s business as usual for them)
Let’s just close Gotchiverse to save on server fees too.
7 Likes
I share your skepticism too fren. Gotchi UBI/channeling as a mechanic is probably the bigger unsustainability problem more than just the specific amounts that are being issued.
That being said, either turn it off completely or keep as-is and work towards more consistently used alchemica sinks, rewarding competition and victory (PvP/PvE), etc.
Editing the altar recipes with spillover is not the move at all, and I can’t believe that this is in sigprop already. It just feels like last-ditch efforts and in doing things like this, makes me think that alchemica is just that much closer to potentially being labeled a security.
1 Like
I don’t even think just turning off Gotchi channeling altogether will stabilise Alch prices. It will just lead to people exiting I think. Fewer users in the Gotchiverse will have a negative impact on the Alch prices.
5 Likes
I channel to upgrade, not the other way around. Higher level aaltars are so expensive I can’t see a huge business case to upgrade if alchemica keeps sinking and I don’t think this will be sufficient to stop it. I sink my channeling alchemica in farming equipment, decorations and stuff and I pool the rest, now I will have to spend the same time and gas for half the revenue. My farming income in itself is not sufficient to upgrade continually and I am probably not the only one reticent to put new money in right now. I like the idea of making it interesting to hold higher value assets but I think it should be done as carrot when conditions allow for it eventually, right now it would feel like a stick even if I have good gotchis and leveled my aaltars.
4 Likes
This is exactly the issue fren, and i think from there the argument becomes a “chicken before the egg” discussion. Does alchemica dump by itself or are there users dumping it? Are users maybe dumping it because we are giving the most alch per $ spent to those that don’t farm with alchemica at all?
The design is just wrong when you have a “farming” game where a floor gotchi on a level 1 parcel is the very best and most efficient farm. Everything else is additional risk and/or a gimmick.
If we are going to oppose fixing this core/root issue, the game is doomed, nobody is going to farm precisely for the reasons you state, as long as the farming tree makes no sense whatsoever.
Should we issue a massive haunt 3 where all gotchis cost same and have same attributes? make next land auction only humbles? Maybe we could sell them with a level 1 altar included and eliminate the option to upgrade.
Please fren, do not take any of these these comments personal or directly or explicitly aimed at you. I am just catching up to many developments and opinions around this forum thread and am responding with my thoughts in generalistic way. Overall, I am somewhat disappointed that the basic issue of riskless extraction is being ignored by many for the sake of arguing against changes. I question if there is some willful blindness because in the end, many smart people realized the gotchiverse economy was modeled with good intentions- yet it underestimated the amount of dumping without reinvesting that our community at large would engage in. In other words, gotchiverse failure, temporary or permanent, is the investment thesis for some and they do not wish the community to engage in fixing that- as we honestly know sinks wont appear in a matter of a week or two or maybe even 30.
I question if people are making a calculated decision to extract before an expiration date they see to this project -such strong advocacy for extracting without putting anything in! I think we can do a bit better… and I’m not saying support this initiative blindly or even vote yes- I just think it’s a very complicated conversation and dogmatic rejections of any change will only keep us in the bleak state we’re already in.
I think the best we can do is engage in realistic conversations of what is wrong, what we can fix, etc.
I am not seeing the heresy in making the farming paradigm reward its native tokens to those willing to farm , engage, reinvest vs. prioritizing UBI from level 1 extraction above all else, and I say above all else because our economy is clearly not in a good condition at present, nor has it been for a long time.
4 Likes
I agree with most of your points and appreciate all the thoughts you put into this.
I was referring mostly to upgrading for channeling purpose. I think the incentive to upgrade for farming is good enough and we adjusted the recipes for that already, but it also had the side effect of making it optimal to farm one parcel at a time. I feel there should be a path to slowly ROI on what I invested in land and to me that is channeling. Upgrading an altaar without farming feels wasteful.
The chicken and egg problem is basically how to bootstrap an economy and I feel it does exist in all aspects of this game, but I see what you mean with the floor gotchis being the best investment right now and that is problematic. It explains what we have been seeing with the price of higher brs gotchis and rarer wearables falling. I know you are trying to solve the issue and I am with you regarding the nerfing but I am just not confident this will help. For me, at least, it will be more discouraging than movtivating and I consider myself mid-level.
5 Likes
thanks fren, as always, appreciate your ability to step back and discuss things in a neutral, factual way.
1 Like
I find all this tokenomics stuff is just getting stuck in the weeds too much.
At the end of the day if we want this ecosystem to grow and our bags to gain in value, new players are needed. Building out fun/low cost entryways is needed for that to happen. Obviously building the PVP/P2E/MMORG ideas will take time, but we need simple things to start…
Honestly I think turning back on spillover would be a good move… but that’s another discussion
2 Likes
As usual without too much thought:
I suspect only the higher level players with higher yields have the capacity (volume) to drive down alch prices through dumping, not the little guys we’re proposing to penalise here.
I suspect nerfing lower level channellers will drive them away altogether rather than incentivise them to spend more to build more to channel more.
3 Likes
I can understand the reasons for such a proposal but in my view it will be counter productive as we’ll loose attractivity for small wallets and new comers.
Taking into account the recent increase in gas cost, which can reach $0.09, the proposal just makes useless altaars channeling if you don’t have the right altaar level and/or the right kinship lvl.
How do we attract new users if we add too many steps before they can foresee potential ROI?
How do we keep current users in the ecosystem if we impose a “pay more or leave” by changing such a rule?
I don’t speak for myself, I’ve already invested too much. 
What would people think of a solution that did the following:
- Patch all level of Altars so they can only channel once every 24hrs
- Significantly increase the yield of each channeling based on Altar level. Exact amounts would need to be calculated out, maybe just a multiple of the base rate * the original times they could be channeled (so for lvl 9, base rate * 24)
This solution wouldn’t nerf lower level altars in that nothing would really change for them. It also wouldn’t nerf higher level altars because the overall yield output would be the same, it just wouldn’t be spread over 24 channelings.
This proposal would aim to incentivize upgrading of Altars (spending Alchemica and GLTR), while not actually reducing the overall yield of the Altar itself.
2 Likes
The name of the game here is reducing issuance. Would need to see some numbers on this as unclear whether it would decrease or increase issuance.
I expect this would likely have the unintended effect of INCREASING issuance. Thinking of my own very anecdotal experience here. I have a level 9 and ~ 24 gotchis (I actually have 28). So currently, I channel all 24 on my L9 alter. Under this new change I’d still get the same yield from my L9, but then I’d ALSO get yield from channeling all my other gotchis on other alters I either already have, or the massive surplus of alters sitting in the Vault
1 Like
yeah thats one issue, another one is that it incentivizes builders to spend/build more, but it validates the decision of those that stay at level 1 forever.
I know no one wants to hear this. But the core issue here is farmers wants their investment protected by reducing issuance from channelling. Which I think is a reasonable request.
However, I am not sure how this can be done fairly without a specific group of player taking a significant loss.
Hi all and i hope your day has been/will be good. I have an idea…could we not look at increasing the time on intervals a lvl 9 altar to every two hours and making lvl 8 three hours down the the point where you would need a higher lvl altar to channel more than once a day. Honestly the higher lvl altars are allowing “base lvl” gotchis to even channel given the fact that the higher kinship ones would channel first. IMO this would have a very clear impact on alchemica issuance.
EDIT Was thinking that that every 2 would be kind of drastic. I think 1.5 is a better figure 
We could had stayed in the previous plan’s thread instead of changing the numbers around which has the same goal