I can vouch for him… he got involved because of the other proposal, and that fact that last time drastic changes were proposed in this manner, they were pushed through, as is. Coming up with a less drastic execution was the best way to at least tone it down a bit and make it more nuanced.
Now, because he did that, there is a vibrant discussion, and we have many options and ideas to sort through. We went from sledgehammer, to mallet. Yes, we should probably get a rubber mallet, or even figure out a way to not use a hammer at all, but at least we are have some intelligent discussion on the topic.
I am glad the other path/proposal by Coderdan to move channeling to only 1 day a week is now posted.
I think people will now be able to more clearly see my goal has been to try to keep daily channeling alive.
Me too. I’m very curious to see how much sway PC, in particular Dan, has over the community. As founder he is one of (if not the) most knowledgeable person when it comes to Aavegotchi. He also enjoys a well deserved, impeccable reputation. Yet, he proposes a big stick, dare I say sledgehammer solution to this problem. At this point I’m honestly more interested in seeing how this plays out than in the outcome itself. Is Dan’s proposal the ugly (but smart) friend your proposal needed to get that prom invite after all? Or is daddy Dan’s authority still so strongly rooted in Gotchi-Culture that we take that hammer to the face for the good of the project? Or will the DAO just say no to any drastic change? NEXT TIME ON GOTCHI DAO…STAY TUNED
Hmmm. Now you blame it on other people who have a different mindset from you (who are 80% of people in this thread?)
If the general comments showed their disagreement with this proposal, there must be problems. The Signprop was out within 3 days of the thread (with the wrong format), with strong disagreement. However, you put them aside and still let the Sigprop lay on Snapshot (even though you know DAO vote is broken :D, be honest). Maybe I’m wrong but @coderdan please enlighten me.
If this is not whale-planned, this must be because you want to risk the economy for 30 XP each gotchi?
May I ask: in what condition, what stimulation, and what environment, was this solution tested? What was the result? What was the damage? What was affected? Was this also tested on a real economy? Can you describe the success?
Dan’s new proposal is another solution, but it doesn’t rush the governance, which is very suspicious, especially with an OG who has watched the space from the beginning.
In all fairness, this proposal is not the one that has a sigprop listed but they have been rather “combative” and not really laying out their perspective to really sway those that will be most affected to vote for this…
you are just making a fool of yourself drumming up more fear and vitrol especially after today’s DAO call.
Grinding same points and misinfo over and over no matter how times they are addressed in this thread, in Discord, in calls, no matter.
And who are you even?
LMAO. I have not spent the last few days dealing with this ungrateful DAO proposing a better path. No worries, there’s only one perspective acceptable in this DAO and neutrality/consensus isn’t even properly encouraged from the top. Demonizing spenders is so convenient here.
I don’t know how many more times to explain I’m not the owner of the prop and can’t take it down. You have to talk to @Immaterial for that, but this simple lack of critical thought capacity should lay out how deep all of your thinking capacity runs, fren.
Since a handful of loud voices in this thread want to continue to pollute the process in a vote that might pass, and @coderdan has shown support for that- I formally withdraw my participation in this sigprop. Y’all figure it out. I’m not wasting further time on this- I’m out.
If you are going to quote me please use the entire sentence and not a fragment and as i said your combative nature shines with your every post. The forum is where you go to win others to your viewpoint and you in my opinion are doing the exact opposite.
Unfortunately logic hasn’t been listened to, people don’t look past WHO is making the prop in this DAO and unfortunately that has carried over to the top. As such, it really makes little sense for me to continue engaging in this community with such a handicap tied to my name. I’m out as far as DAO props and involvement goes. We all have our personal limits. I notice I keep having to repeat myself so I’ll say it again, as far as I’m concerned consider this prop is dismissed.
Thank you for everyone who has voted for the prop over the last week. It is currently winning by 55% to 45% and the vault is 80% in favour of it so looks almost certain it will pass. I’ve been speaking to a lot of people in the community over the last week gathering feedback, listening to criticism and the main complaints I have heard are:
It’s unfair that level 9 aaltars get no change at all
The change doesn’t do enough to curb inflation (compared to Dans proposal for example)
The sigprop was rushed out
So to address 1 and 2 I would like to propose changing the spillover rates to the following when going to coreprop:
I believe this is a much fairer change by doubling the spillover for everyone across the board. It does more to curb the runaway inflation we’re experiencing and means that everyone is contributing to producing a more stable economy. I also believe it give us more room to look at slowly adding more spillover events as the bot detection gets better and the economy has stabilised.
In terms of point 3 above I’d like to apologise for rushing the sig prop out too soon. In truth I had been planning this sigprop for a long time and was waiting to see what effect the art release would have on the economy. As soon as I saw a huge addition of new sinks made hardly any effect on the sink:issuance ratio I knew without doubt that the economy was in really bad shape and action had to be taken as soon as possible. After @JG1 made this alternative proposal and it was gaining popularity I rushed to make the sig prop too soon and should have waited a few more days before posting it. As it turns out I still think this proposal is the most likely to reach quorum as it strikes the best balance between curbing inflation and incentivising upgrades of altars whilst keeping channelling as a viable source of yield.
Spillover is a core mechanic & temp. disabled. Any of these changes should be for rental gotchis only!!! Ownership should entitle us to sticking with the original plan. we all hope game mechanics can be enabled so that we can share the game with our frens and they can play. it is worth waiting to see what combat & pvp has in store before making changes on a whim… we have hurt numerous players, & borrowers, & owners by disabling spillover. altering channeling for owners this early will be detrimental to buildoors… plz try your changes with the rentals first;)
bible chapter 3 25% of alchemica is for channeling, not to mention guild channelling alotment. do you agree the core of the issue revolves around borrowed gotchis?
I think all the plans to modify supply or slow down emissions artificially will ultimately harm the economy more then help… I believe focusing on demand is our best approach…
Put crafting/ upgrades on a Multi-coin bonding curve would incentive crafting today, as each additional item/installation is crafted and upgraded the price increases… additionally items could be sold back to the curve(burned), for an amount less then it cost to craft.
The bazaar would also functions as a type of arbitrage. Early crafters could potentially sell on the bazaar for a profit, and potentially at a price lower then it would cost to craft.
This is a MUCH better solution than any of the other proposals out there. It would actually incentivize people to use the available sinks.
In the end, it doesn’t matter how much you reduce the emissions, if no one wants to put their earnings into upgrades, they simply won’t, no matter how much of the earnings you take away from them. That is the big flaw in all the other proposals so far.
However, this proposal of increasing the price for everyone after an installation was crafted/upgraded would manage to turn the whole economy around in a seconds. Instead of making people leave, out of frustration that their channeling rewards got cut, this would actually make people play more! I’m almost fomoing into buying alch now, just reading about this! Great idea @Rancho ! Love it!
With spillover currently disabled this is essentially removing the tokens from circulation. “Spillover collectors” only exist for an hour on the weekly hangout so they’re not a significant source of issuance.
I’ve never hid the fact that this is a temporary solution which should improve the economy in terms of sinks:issuance ratio for the next 2-3 months whilst we either come up with a better solution or the combat release introduces a lot more sinks (that people actually use).
You are just deferring emmisions by a matter of days by taking away the UBI from asset owners and redistributing the tokens to spillover collecters. I don’t get the logic of this.
@jarrod is right though. This has merely an indirect impact on issuance (if any) by discouraging smaller altar owners from channeling (themselves). However, issuance for everyone who continues to channel will be exactly the same as before. You’re just moving more of the issued alch into some spillover wallet. In many ways it’s like a garbage island. We keep shoving more and more in there, without the slightest idea of how to deal with those vast amounts that are accumulating in there. The spillover wallet is not supposed to be a permanent storage, but the more alch accumulates in there, the harder it’s going to be to get rid of without reking the economy. We’re just creating a bigger problem for us to deal with in the future.
