It will not cause inflation. In fact, only after a round of digging can earn about 50% of the alchemy. After one or two months, the company will continue to develop a new land, or two, which is actually deflation.
This is exactly what I’ve been doing. Had 2 spacious and a reasonable and a humble, sold one spacious and the humble to build, then bought another spacious, doubled down, added some reasonables, and now those are paying for wearables when the build cue is full. Not sure how we make that the normal behavior.
This is what everyone wanna know: DATA.
Lemme tell you the next plan: farming emissions will also be cut, nothing solved
1 Like
Even though i see reasoning in the suggestion it is acting like hated governments do. They either bailout or print money to solve the problem that only makes it deeper and legislation becomes untrustworthy because it is constantly changing and no long decission can not be made with confidence.
- The problem is not spillover rates it’s just the current state of the market. A few month ago, even with the same spillover rates we had alchemica prices surge and go up in value significantly and simply because sentiment was positive. Decreasing inflation of the asset without increase in demand will do nothing. Just selling the reduced amount of alchemica for the same sub total.
2, We must focus on building additional sinks and making game more fun and attractive to pay. I honestly think that alchemica is approaching it’s fair value where players start thinking of upgrading a parcell instead of selling alchemica coz it is worth do little now whereás previously it was a no brainer to simply sell it for profits coz upgrading was so damn expensive.
- " they’ve all tanked in value, because all value has now coalesced around floor gotchis and level 1 humble parcels" these assets also have tanked down in value despite “all value concentrating around them”.
Let’s stop fidgeting making those micro changes and changing isolated changes in the economy coz it will have repricusions once the market changes sentiment and will bloat alchemica prices to the level where we will be voting to increase inflation back simply because noone will be spending such big amounts of alchemica for upgrades.
2 Likes
We’re doing the opposite of printing money, with this proposal we’re recognizing we’ve been printing too much money going to UBI and we’re taking steps to recover from that. The intention was for spending and issuance to be at a 1:1 ratio, it is currently 1:10 on a good day. If we can’t fix obviously broken mechanics and tokenomics this ecosystem is doomed.
The problem is the issuance to spending ratio. When the verse first launched a lot more alch was being spent on farming. Decreased issuance will slow the drop of alchemica prices and further initiatives, like leaderboards paying GHST prizes, that I will be launching will increase spending. These initiatives are pointless at current levels of issuance though.
Additional sinks will be coming in the combat release 3-6 months away. We need something to bridge the gap until then.
1 Like
Quick visualization to see the disparity between channeling & harvesting for each alch type. I will work on updating to include break down by alter & harvester levels, etc. This is aggregate daily emissions, does not exclude spillover.
Let me know what else you would like to see and I’ll work on putting it together.
5 Likes
We’re doing the opposite of printing money, with this proposal we’re recognizing we’ve been printing too much money going to UBI and we’re taking steps to recover from that. The intention was for spending and issuance to be at a 1:1 ratio, it is currently 1:10 on a good day. If we can’t fix obviously broken mechanics and tokenomics this ecosystem is doomed.
It does not solve absolutely anything imho. What is the difference if 1000 FUD costs 10 USD of 100 FUD costs 10 USD. It’s just denominating currency. The only ones benefiting will be those that hold large amounts already that will be able to sell it at a higher price once issuance is reduced. If there is no demand or sink for the token perceived value will still only go lower because none is willing to reinvest without a positive gameplay loop.
We’re doing the opposite of printing money, with this proposal we’re recognizing we’ve been printing too much money going to UBI and we’re taking steps to recover from that. The intention was for spending and issuance to be at a 1:1 ratio, it is currently 1:10 on a good day. If we can’t fix obviously broken mechanics and tokenomics this ecosystem is doomed.
You can not increase spending by reducing inflation. You can increase spending when there is an incentive to spend. At the end of the day it does not matter how much 1000 FUD is in USD (and that will be the only change that will be affected if the rest is status quo with the proposed implementation). We simply need to increase utility (or entertainment value) and meaningful sinks to increase the demand.
The problem is the issuance to spending ratio. When the verse first launched a lot more alch was being spent on farming. Decreased issuance will slow the drop of alchemica prices and further initiatives, like leaderboards paying GHST prizes, that I will be launching will increase spending. These initiatives are pointless at current levels of issuance though.
And that is exactly my point. We will not change issuance to spending ratio if the only thing to change is the emission rate and we will be forcing players to spend more to compensate for reduced inflation. Which i doubt people will do at all considering how unstable rules are and it’s impossible to make any kind of longer term calculations with ever changing rules. Token (or any goods services for that matter) will always try to find fair value and even with a reduced inflation it does not make any difference if there is no positive gameplay loop on a large scale.
Also. WE must consider alchemica that is already in circulation, one sitting in liquidity pools, held by private investors and alchemica in pixelcraft account etc. i.e. all available circulating alchemica that has been priced in by the market allready and this action will only increase it’s value artificially.
And the only thing will happen as it usually does. It will make rich richer and people who already invested alchemica poorer provided they do not hold liquid alchemica.
Bottom line. It is not about the rate of inflation if it is constant, It is about the economy and how currency is being consumed, used, burned etc i.e. general utility. If we keep changing inflation depending on demand, market conditions etc it will not make any sense and will make it impossible to plan, calculate and invest accordingly. In other words there is no political stability in the system. And money always exit such systems completely in time and gravitate towards the systems with relative cetrainty.
I hope it makes sense.
6 Likes
Also, please keep in mind that this is only affecting alchemica spillover, total amount of alchemica is not changed and once the floodgates will open and all the spilled alchemica that is now stored will be released it will create the huge sell pressure and the price will dump hard with no relevant sink mechanics. By implementing this proposal we will only discourage spending alchemica to upgrade current aaltars even further and result wil be the opposite of the intended.
2 Likes
There’s 3 issues that runaway inflation causes:
-
The drop in value of USD has rekt anyone who has invested USD into the game so far. You talk about people leaving, what about those who have invested USD into the gotchiverse so far and watched their USD value go to zero whilst the DAO does nothing but carries on collecting their UBI?
-
If alchemica is worth nothing then the game is totally broken. When PC release new sinks for combat in a few months what will they have to price it at if 1 FUD = $0.0000001? They will have to charge 1M FUD for a potion or if they want to award Alchemica as a prize for PvP the prize would have to be 100M FUD for 1st place to make it worth playing.
-
Channelling and farming rewards will drop below gas prices and everyone will stop playing. Who’s interest is this in?
If you reread my post you’ll see that I mentioned other initiatives to incentivise farming and spending. I’m currently building alchemica spending leaderboards that the DAO and PC have shown interest in supply GHST prizes for. There’s no point doing this when inflation is so high though, it would just be pissing into the wind my fren. Once the economy is under control it opens up other avenues for us to incentivise spending using GHST.
There’s 3 choices here frens:
-
Go with this solution. Spillover doubles for everyone which cuts channeling by 50%, unless you upgrade your aaltars.
-
Go with Pixelcrafts and Dan’s solution. Channeling goes to 1 day a week which cuts channeling rewards 85%.
-
Do nothing, drive Alchemica prices to 0, break the game and end up with nothing in 1-2 months.
OR
4. We can change the issuance rate on all altars like I have mentioned before. 
Also where is the data that says we will end up with nothing in 1-2 months 
3 months of weekly -20% drops, it’s remarkably consistent.
Thanks for the summary, I think that pretty much sums it up.
A lesser cutting of channeling emission is yanik’s proposal with kinship burning, to add to the list. I agree with the call of swift action as the issue has been diagnosed and clear, channeling produces way more alchemica then farming which requires much more investment and is a slower extraction.
Just like interest rates or weakening liquidity mining rewards over time, channeling should be tuned down if conditions require. As an emergency act it could be simply done via changing the existing formula which I’d be in favor of too.
I also like Dan’s idea and probably lean towards this the most but with a condition, time constraint would be then just really too tight for people considering only on ‘gotchi holy day’ channeling is possible. This would lead to cutting emissions way more than projected and frustrate people further. If altars were given charges instead of timely cooldowns they would be way more attractive and convenient to plan around for channeling on a single day. So I’d propose the change from timer cooldown to charges if Dan’s solution to be implemented but not sure how challenging this would be to realize.
1 Like
The reason I prefer my proposal is that it predictably cuts issuance. We know exactly how much inflation is going to be reduced by, which is a minimum of 48% and could be higher in the short term if people sink alchemica into aaltar upgrades. With Yaniks kinship proposal or adjusting cooldown times it’s very hard to model how much inflation will be reduced by, in both cases it could be far less than we need to make an impact. I believe my proposal is therefore the safest (as it’s most predictable) and also shown it will pass Quorum with 12M VP voting for it whereas Dan’s proposal I don’t believe would pass quorum as it’s too big a nerf all at once to channelers.
There’s actually more like seven solutions, with this being the lowest effort and least nuanced. It was a nice start. but we should probably do something more well thought out, or at least update this one to be better.
6 Likes
This is still the only solution that has all the following properties :
- Will meet Quorum
- Has predictable and sufficient issuance reduction
- Requires hardly any dev time
It certainly isn’t the most sophisticated and it’s not even my favorite solution, but it’s the only way forward for now.
Mark, everybody is rekt across the board no matter (almost) what project they are in. Ppl are rekt that are sitting in USD because of inflation too. Alchemica will not be worth nothing, it’s simple denomination. Like SHIB or whatever coin out there that has insanely huge supply and at the same time huge marketcap.
If chanelling rewards will drop below gas prices few will be claiming it hence it will cut the supply and will have upwards pressure for price and alchemica price will establish it’s lowest possible low at gas prices 
Look, you probably get me wrong or take it too personal. I value your input and suggestions, that’s why i’'m in aavegotchi, because this community is constantly making suggestions how to make it better and ship. And things will get better. But…
This proposal regarding spillover rates simply will not work for two main reasons:
-
It’s just spillover - if people will not upgrade alltars to accomodate rate changes you’re suggesting (which they won’t in majority) it will only transfer yield to locked spillover account. It does not change overall emissions of alchemica.
-
Locked spillover account will have to be released some day or in some form (unless we vote to burn it completely) and it will simply have HUGE downside sell pressure.
If we do any of the changes to it we first have to deal with the locked alchemica. Other than that if i see such a proposal becoming CORE and passing i will be buying all available alchemica from the market at these prices because it will be creating free money for those that hold large amounts of it.
I have also invested some into farming, and chanelling etc, hence i am also rekt by tanking alchemica prices yield wise. But then it’s a game for me, and it’s obvious that any inflationary yield coin will go drastically down at some point until it reaches fair value. It’s simply inevitable no matter what you do.
And yes i was selling all of my yield up until last week, but at these price levels i simply reinvest it into farming because i find it fun and also believe that it is in a good position now and at a fair price for risk/reward ratio.
It was supposed to be 1.2. comment but got carried away as usual. So sorry for walls of text
2 Likes
What are you proposing to do with the locked spillover?
No it is not. And it does not reduce issuance. It only redirects it into locked spillover account.
2 Likes
Hey fren, so first of all, of course I don’t take anything personal and, likewise, I hope no-one would take anything I said personal either. We’re all trying to figure out what is best for the community/ecosystem here and even though we may have different opinions we’re all on the same team!
To your question about spillover, I would propose to burn all locked spillover. Maybe I should of included it in this vote but I thought it warranted a separate discussion.
1 Like