The spillover allocation gets redirected to a wallet controlled by PC that is used for dropping tokens into the Gotchiverse. The tokens aren’t getting burnt.
That spillover alch is not just going to be dumped on the market, the DAO needs to decide what to do with it but seems very likely in my mind it will get burned as there’s already so much alch in circulation.
Live spillover comes from a different wallet I believe? The collected spillover being held is separate and like I said, it’s very likely to get burned imo.
Burning of this alch is not in your proposal. All you’ve stated is that it will be moved to the spillover allocation.
2 Likes
Yeah because it’s the quickest way to achieve a large reduction in issuance, there’s no way that spillover will be released on the market, except maybe a tiny fraction for player rewards, the economy just can’t handle it and likely never will be able to.
To be clear, I actually prefer Dans proposal in terms of economics but it won’t get voted on as it’s too big a nerf to channellers. My proposal is the intersection between: something people are willing to vote for, a big enough reduction in issuance to help the economy, fixing a loophole and giving people a chance to continue their yield by upgrading aaltars if they wish.
@jarrod is right. I don’t know if you didn’t realize it or if you intended to neglect that fact.
This will summon tons of bots in the events and weekends who will only dump the tokens.
The buyers and holders who invest in parcels will have pressure to invest.
This model is just like this: Lands holders buy all days and become the liquidity exit for bots on the weekend
Sound fair?
I would rather allocate Alchemica to PC or the DAO. I would bet on them even if it’s decentralized. PC and the DAO will do the best things for Gotchiverse, right?
So, “Proposed spillover” should become “Proposed PC or DAO allocation”
2 Likes
The extra spillover in the hour it is enabled on Saturday is totally insignificant in terms of the bigger picture of inflation. My proposal cuts 50% of issued alchemica from channelling every single day, in FUD alone that’s 300k less FUD a day, or 2.1M FUD a week. I don’t know how much spillover is collected in the one hour on Saturdays but the number will be tiny compared to this.
Technically it’s going to the RealmDiamond (Great Portal), not our hot wallet.
if (alchemica.balanceOf(address(this)) < s.greatPortalCapacity[i]) {
TransferAmounts memory amounts = calculateTransferAmounts(channelAmounts[i], rate);
alchemica.mint(LibAlchemica.alchemicaRecipient(_gotchiId), amounts.owner);
alchemica.mint(address(this), amounts.spill);
} else {
TransferAmounts memory amounts = calculateTransferAmounts(channelAmounts[i], rate);
alchemica.transfer(LibAlchemica.alchemicaRecipient(_gotchiId), amounts.owner);
}
3 Likes
I don’t see how this is any different to the original proposal. The goalposts have just been moved by 10% uniformly. Lower level aaltars are still nerfed just as hard compared to high level aaltars as the proposal on snapshot.
2 Likes
The difference is that spillover has been doubled for all the altars, previously the level 9 altar had no changes. This means everyone is paying higher spillover and contributing to reducing inflation.
In the original proposal level 1 aaltars were nerfed 80% compared to level 9 aaltars. In your new idea level 1 aaltars are still nerfed 80% compared to level 9 aaltars. This has the same economic impact to the individual as the original proposal.
In fact it would be even more beneficial to the higher levels because inflation would be further reduced by 18%15% but income is reduced by 10%. So really lower level aaltars just become non profitable but higher aaltars get an 8%5% boost to their relative income.
EDIT: Sorry - Inflation further reduced by 15% making higher aaltars get a 5% relative boost
2 Likes
Some thoughts I posted on Dan’s thread… figured I’d share here for visibility… warning I’m not up to date with this entire thread.
I agree that channeling alchemica is much cheaper then harvesting, and with our current set up the rational player should choose to maximize AC strategy opposed to farming.
However, I don’t believe that this is the issue, it is a symptom of our inflationary schedule and still being in the early days of token distribution.
If we disable channeling or limit to 1 day a week, then the only source of new alch would be from harvesters or purchasing on the open market. In theory this would seem like it would incentive actors to invest in their parcels to extract alchemica, and we may see a bump in the short term, however there is still the total supply albatross…Yes, in alch terms 1 alch=1 alch but when everything is liquid to Ghst or usdc then that is what it is ultimately priced in, so I would still know that $1 invested today, without significant $ inflows would probably be akin to $0.001 in the future/ fully diluted.
I get the rationale, prices are established at the margin, we halt emissions to find equilibrium with current demand, then slowly scale up. I just think it’s flawed. Ultimately the market will find equilibrium when supply is not restricted. We should look for a more market responsive price mechanism (bonding curve) for the long term.
Ultimately alch is too expensive right now…rational actors will continue to sell until price drops to equilibrium…these short term measures are akin to a “centrally planned” economy instead of a market based one.
Currently we don’t really have an economy, we have a loyalty rewards program where customers/ players are rewarded with “loyalty points” (alchemica) that can be used to purchase new items from PC… however these loyalty points are liquid and over priced.
In my opinion, one of the major flaws in crypto-economics is the belief that economies are primarily based on scarcity. Scarcity is important, but utility, value add, and free trade are the real pillars of an economy.
NFT displays, FAKE gotchis, and bouce gates are a great start. We now have an advertising mechanism but the creation still takes place outside of the verses.
I think the forge is interesting, but limited. Wearables, installations, etc. should be craft-able, composable, and destroy-able, but these receipts should be primarily composed of alchemica in verying quantities.
If we mapped alch/ combinations of alch to in game traits we could allow creators in the community to design and offer these wearables/ installations to the community for crafting.
For example we decide we want to create more vehicles (Aave boat). We have a mapping of alch to trait, color, size, etc. (more Kek it’s more purple, more Fud it’s faster…idk) whoever wants to submit a design can and then it becomes craft-able. The designs are offered to the market on a bonding curve…this will help with demand/ price discovery… (something missing from our current set up). A portion of the alch goes to PC, the DAO, and the creator… also can be resold in bazaar…
Even without being a wearable and effecting traits/ stats something similar to Minecraft of installations would be cool. Creators in our economy can build custom installations that others can craft (primary market) and sell in the bazaar (secondary market).
I do think we should move away from time limit offerings to bonding curve based, something where price responds to demand. I feel like that is something missing in our economy… we don’t have a pricing mechanism that responds to demand.
It’s early I know, and PC has done an incredible job thus far. I hope we move towards more of a market economy in the future. Truly harnessing the peer to peer, free market that is crypto.
1 Like
Perhaps a non-obvious issues is that PC actually innovates too quickly… the gamified token distribution system that is spillover collection & gotchi rentals are light years ahead of every other project…
I know the lore talks about the great battle and we want to keep the verse closer to gotchi, and now observers… but I think an incredible business development opportunity would be to allow other conforming NFT’s into the gotchi verse… for example something like luchadoors, or other on chain NFT character project.
We could have a cross community event where another community could enter the verse with their character NFT as a way to distribute their tokens to their community in a gamified way. Maybe they are only able to pick up their tokens, and they would rent a gotchi?
Even better, we do establish an interoperable standard crafting wearables and in-verse items. We allow any creator to design wearables/ items that can be worn by any confirming NFT (gotchis, luchadoors, raiders, etc)we put out a standard for wearables that other projects could adopt which require alch to compose. We encourage other projects to enter the verse and in order to collect alch and create new items… we release partner receipts… you need alch + “Xprojects token”.
Just some ideas…
Much lower alch prices may actually help the “game” develop… if they are “worth-less” then people will use them to play and build…they can be distributed in a biz dev capacity to other projects without the temptation to sell…
Let the market work, when the incentive to sell is gone… people will build.
1 Like
Would the plan I suggested not do something along the lines that you are talking about? If we just uniformly reduced how many times each altar lvl was able to channel, we would not have to change any spillover % and would also help in gas fees by reducing the amount of transactions that would be needed.
1 Like
Due to the oversupply of land i think it would be pretty straight forward for people to reorganise their channelling or use the 1000s of spare aaltars in the vault to achieve the same yield they are now. Reduction in issuance would be minimal I think.
The major problem is see with all of this is the “i think” factor. We are talking about massive cuts without any data to try to forecast any of the effects it may have which might be unforeseen minus this data. From what i can gather on the utilization side is that the lvl 1 & 2 altars would get the hardest felt percentage cut, which make up the vast majority of land ownership, but the few lvl 9 altars almost account for both of those altars daily inflation. I agree that there are way more channeling opportunities than there are currently gotchi but also take into consideration that a lot of the available land does not have altars. I am just suggesting that we look at the overall issuance as a first move which should cause a cascade effect that would force more usage at a higher tax on lower lvl altars as opposed to any percentage change that many are focusing on at this time. Heck we could even try using the current collected spillover as channeling rewards instead of minting new tokens 
1 Like
Firstly thank you very much:
via your proposal and the ensuing discussions and proposed Alternatives, the problem came more clearly to my conscience.
Albeit the implementation of your proposed solution would cause me personally less loss of Alchemica-income, I would rather see a solution, that will adress the root-cause, as it was identified by Coderdan.
Indeed, it is your estimate ([the effect of] „the reduction of issuance would be minimal“) versus Coderdans estimate, that the current quota of issuance is an order of magnitude too high.
Not questioning your prowess of estimation, I simply value Coderdans estimation higher.
The solution I myself proposed further above (changing the denominator of the multiplier for UBI-calculation) had the same motivation, as you expressed elsewhere:
„preserving Alchemical Channeling“.
But the more I think about it, the more I tend to lean to any solution that cuts Alchemica-emissions as drastically as possible.
2 Likes
I have a confession to make. I had 6 gotchis. All with 500+ kinship. I had 6 humble lands and level 2 altars in each of them. Channeled everyday. That’s it. Nothing else. This was the best risk reward play.
I didn’t make profits. But I had extremely minimal losses. Got all my land investments back though.
Buying reasonable/spacious.
Or investing in harvesters. Or increasing altar level on humbles never made any sense. Current mechanism just doesn’t work. It punishes whales. They became exit liquidity of tiny investors.
This proposal is very good for the long term economy. Channel inflation should be cut down as much as possible and little of it should be directed to daily spillover. Time to get back in the game I guess.
4 Likes
The lack of Ponzi incentives is what keeps no one building the land. Simply put, the payback period is too long, and it is more appropriate to set the payback period to 2 months or 1 month.
You mean raise inflation? Am I misunderstanding?
On land, we already bought the alch(at yuge losses no matter what if you bought at auction), so we cant reduce it, on gotchis, its unlimited forever and always goes up. It’s pretty clear the level is on the gotchi side there, as for land to be functional it cannot go down more than 50-% from where you built, or its a guaranteed loss(technically 75%, but not if you think of all the gas).