all this does is increase the wealth gap. Whales remain unphased while the smaller players get nerfed into oblivion.
If the goal is truly to ‘stabilize the economy’ then all aaltars should be nerfed uniformly to encourage ALL players to invest more in installations.
This proposal, as is, smells like a low effort play by the whales to trick small hands into bringing in new money so the whales can continue dumping uninterrupted.
This plan and previous both had 0 reduction on farmers too who are more likely to be on higher level aaltar / spacious
So at best for lvl 7+ farmers they lose 0-10% on their channelling side
This plan is even more specific targeting bulk of reduction on lower level aaltar which are more likely not farming and involve more smaller players (which has lower voting power)
It is a “Alchemica” Echonomic Plan that only involved 1 sided reduction from channelling while there is two asset that generate Alchemica
I am done reading this thread
I will not be upgrading even if you do 99% reduction on all my aaltar. I rather channel at a loss and dump it than to support you
what do you suggest then. adjusting farming (where people have invested alch) and keeping the freebie on?
I thought you already said that many posts ago. 
Aaltar doesn’t cost Alchemica to upgrade?
Anyways, looks like your sigprop will pass anyways so it doesn’t really matter.
ok, sorry, I go away now
How does this solution incentivise players to upgrade?
I must be missing something
all I can see is less time spent channeling less gas but same return .
This proposal was created 3 days ago, strongly opposed by many which means it needs more discussion but it’s still receiving a lot of votes.
It’s not even written in the outlined format by the team and the risks are not mentioned clearly. However, it’s still on the Snapshot. The information is even worse on Snapshot.
I’m not an economist but I know this will not fix the price, new and smallholders won’t upgrade their altar, new players won’t come because of low ROI, and the game is for the whales to dump on each other. The winners are those who have their proposals (that serve their purposes) approved.
This must be planned by the whales who already upgraded all their aaltars.
This proposal that actually kills laandlords. We have to buy lands, buy/rent gotchis, spend money to upgrade aaltars/other installations. Now the proposal cut the alchemica that we receive and “encourage laandlords to upgrade aaltars”. To me this means we have to spend more money and get back less, lol.
Why don’t have a cut/tax on players with no lands only? They are the one that almost rent gotchis and channel parcels in the Vault then sell all alchemica to take profits every single day.
With that cut/tax money, the team can buy back or burn alchemica to reduce the inflation, is it better than just cut everything from laandlords?
You know, you can read the thread, look at the data, contemplate the options, and see exactly who “planned” it, why they did it, what the alternatives are if any, etc.
The person(s) /wallets submitting is also publicly visible, and since this is web3 you can see what parcels are had, how many are upgraded, etc.
Of course, it is much easier to come and drop generalistic “whale” accusations and fearmongering- much easier. Our platform is full of participants willing to extract, not reinvest, and are happy to see the platform wither and fail, out of social resentments that must originate from before/outside this ecosystem.
We can decide to have a working game and economy, or we can keep driving off a cliff to “stick it to the whales” while collecting UBI above gas costs.
This earlier comment reflects the general spirit, and its actually why our economy is broken:
alchemica channeling represents 25% of the total supplys, what i think your data is showing is that there isnt a need for such big supplies of each alchemica, at least not while the price pressure isnt relevant enough to increase the supply.
i dont think this is the adequate “bandage” for the problem you are describing, and didnt like to see that you promoted a sig prop after only 3 days of this thread being open .
Anyway i believe the solution to the problem you indentify relates to the total supply of alchemica, dont forget to take into account that the citadeel isnt fully released yet. removing the small profitability of low lvl aaltars also pushes people away from ever touching lands and related assets.
Or it might just reflects the simple fact that people don’t like to get nerfed; even less so, when one group (low level aaltars) is nerfed harsher than another group (high level altars). I called this before the proposal went up:
I know you, and even though we don’t always agree on things, I have no doubt that you have nothing but the best intentions for the whole project. That doesn’t mean that people who have much less honorable intentions can’t vote for your proposal for very different, very self-serving reasons.
That is quite gloomy fren.
Look at what’s happening right now on snapshot. Many of the highest VP wallets voted yes on your proposal and yes on extracting 1.5M GHST from the DAO. According to coin gecko, that is more than the entire alch market cap. So of course people will question people’s motives. If their reason to support your proposal was really about “the good of the project”, they’d vote “Yes, but with different parameters” on the RF5 proposal. Maybe take only 0.75M GHST, and use the other 0.75M GHST for a contract that keeps alch prices on quickswap constant until the battle upgrade. Whatever GHST is left after the battle mechanics shipped could even flow back into the treasury.
That way,
But instead they vote just “yes” to extract the whole 1.5M, which makes it rather difficult not to think that their reasons to vote yes on your proposal might simply be to further the gap between them and the low level folks, and much less about token prices or the economy.
I find it unfortunate, that there is no Third Option to the sig-prop:
it‘s either „do nothing“
or
the exact proposed numbers.
As I think and as this thread shows, this issue motivates a lot of good deliberations.
The actual spill-over numbers are indeed discussion-worthy.
But I have to vote „No“ because the proposed number-changes are way too steep imo.
I would have loved to vote on a third option for further discussing the exact numbers.
The percent-change of spillover for a Lvl1-Aaltar is 80% (from 50% to 90%)
for a Lvl6-Aaltar its still 60% more spill, 50% for a Lvl7.
for a Lvl9-Aaltar its 0% (why?)
What if we just double the altar recharge times?
Thank you fren, I appreciate that, and you are right, there’s all different kind of motives and intentions here… and if we generalize, or get too defensive at this, nobody is actually served by that.
it’s not only you who has interpreted this as messed up or ill intentioned, so I’ll try better at addressing that concern. I proposed the numbers in the initial post and that’s what went in the prop. I admitted on discord this proposal was submitted by partner too soon and could have used more debate before a prop. With that said, the intention behind the numbers is a single one: after an inevitable alch emmissions reduction - provide users a path to upgrade towards earning that UBI again. The original plan in the initial forum post was to nerf or suspend emmissions entirely, or to a point that it wouldnt make sense for most after gas costs. Indeed to that idea, many came forward with the logic “I don’t mind extracting until it costs more gas to do so.” or “We knew alchemica was going to zero and that farming makes no sense, just let it die”.
This is where I disagree because I think that the gotchiverse deserves a chance to work- if UBI emissions are being too much and that’s killed users ambition to farm- we need to fix that formula or at least try it, rather than give up entirely on our tokenomics.
So again, the idea of not reducing the % for level 9 has nothing to do with class warfare or anything like that- it’s simply trying to create a pure capitalist reason for people to upgrade, appeal to their greed/ambiotion or whatnot. Currently- the outlet we provide for ambitious players is to get as many as possible floor gotchis and low level altars, without upgrading or building in any meaningful way. If this paradigm of max extraction at lower level continues, and nobody sees the point to upgrade, the economy is pretty much doomed.
I could indeed imagine, that doubling the Aaltar-recharge-times as @HARDKOR proposes could incentivize Aaltar-Upgrading for all pocket-sizes while also decreasing inflation
I would tend to see that option as a fine way to achieve what @JG1 intended:
I also wouldnt want to see UBI-emissions suspended.
Tweaking via time seems elegant.
But you get why its being interpreted that way, right? In your proposal you provided absolutely zero data as to WHY this is the best path forward. What percentage of extraction is coming from low level aaltars? Do you even know how to look this up? WHY are alternative solutions inferior to the one proposed? WHY WAS THIS TAKEN TO PROPOSAL MERE DAYS AFTER THIS POST? 99% of things pass so eff it, why not throw up a half baked proposal that benefits you and just brute force it through a vote with no option to abstain?
The answer is in your own words -
Which leads me to believe that you are not TRYING to find consensus… What it leads me to believe is you are either A.) Trying to make a power play or B.) Enthusiastic about the game but woefully unequipped to be researching or proposing economic changes.
Everyone is tearing each other apart in this plan because you did nothing to convince us WHY this is the best path forward. It was proposed then pushed through to vote without a second thought for community consensus and support.
You are unfortunately full of assumptions fren, and all of them with a deliberate and intentional pointing towards the worst/ most evil intention possible.
I can somewhat understand trying to find villains when something isn’t exactly going our way, but what you are doing here is not very constructive. You see, actually most accusations you are doling out here are things that have been covered, discussed in other channels like Discord DAO channel and ideation channels, and even already addressed in this very same thread, but clearly your expectation here is that you accuse, and the onus is on me to take additional time to prove to you and other readers otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent in this DAO, eh?
I could go likewise your same route and make the most accusations and generalizations possible. For instance, I could assume that you believe in free beer just by your name, and therefore accuse you of being ignorant to the concept of TINSTAAFL, or that you simply believe in free-loading at the expense of others. I could then assume you are a low level farmer that believes in draining the system for personal gains, a few daily cents, even if it means the death of the platform and everyone else in the long run.
Nonetheless, I’ll be a bit better and take time to respond to your accusations.
This is @Immaterial’s proposal, I am in there and getting XP credit for my contributions WITH DATA.
wrong, my posts have data and Marks snapshot submission have data
Do you know how to discord or read full threads before coming here gun slinging, brah?
What makes you decidor of what is inferior, and what isn’t?
Why do you not read couple of posts above yours, where I am already apologizing on behalf of the other person that submitted the post to soon, and as I clearly stated, had already apologized in discord as well?
Funny and sad to get this when I had devoted time of my weekend precisely to doing just that, before receiving this lovely post of yours
I’m brimming with new power from suggesting this, I feel the love from the DAO. lol.
This is fair, you are entitled to your opinions surrounding economics and free beer.
Maybe is mostly you with the hostile intentions. I’ll wish you a happy weekend, and assure you I won’t be replying further as long as its misinformed hostilities.
Eh you’re right. I am vehemently against this proposal and let my temper get the better of me. I apologize.
I made my points - though not eloquently - and will be bowing out of the conversation.
What % of channeling emissions is done by vault scholars using vault parcels?
Looks like there are enough high-level altars in the vault so the nerf from this proposal will be felt less by vault scholars compared to the general community.
I also don’t get the benefit of adding more to the spillover allocation if the goal is to stabilise Alchemica prices.
Who are the top collectors of spillover? I am guessing bots and players without Gotchiverse assets.
And we expect these 2 groups to dump Alchemica less than asset owners in the community?
