I’m afraid we can not separate those two topics simply because they are unseparable and have to be voted on on the same vote if need be.
We must also think what are we going to do with the future spillover, becasue if we only change aaltar spillover rate (same applies to harvesters and reservoirs) we are not changing total alchemica emissions just a share that active investors get. And they are more sensible ones imho cause they have vested interest when compared to spillover farmers.
And honestly right now i do not see how we could ballance those two out in a sensible way that would not break other things.
So with spillover currently turned off, increasing the spillover rate will cut emissions to circulating alchemica which as far as the market is concerned is the same as cutting emissions.
I believe this proposal will go to core prop any day now as it passed sigprop 1 week ago but I will definitely start the discussion of burning locked spillover alongside it. My hope is that spillover either gets emitted straight away (like on saturday hangouts) or it will just get sent straight to the burn address.
In terms of spillover being turned back on. I can’t see it happening until we have way more sinks. Remember, we’re trying to bring the ratio of issuance:spending to 1:1 and until spending starts to outweigh issuance I don’t think we can consider adding more issuance. That being said, I could see some more promotional events like saturday hangouts and more Pumpkin smashing being held with spillover on but only for a limited time so as to not effect the economy too much.
"Remember, we’re trying to bring the ratio of issuance:spending to 1:1 and until spending starts to outweigh issuance"
The problem with that is that i do not see people spending more expensive alchemica to upgrade. Period. Those that were serious about doing that already did it and with current alchemica prices resumed upgrading on cheaper prices.
If we vote for this proposal the only thing we will (provided spillover is burned which i highly doubt will happen) see is reduced alchemica prices, possibly price increase and more dump of alchemica at those increased prices because majority of ppl will not be spending more to upgrade just to get nerfed again by changing rules in the future.
This is my take and i am 95% sure that is the thing that will happen and we will not save value of alchemica just bu cutting it’s supply but would rather kill economy faster in this manner by completely destroying investors trust.
My fren, if we change nothing then channeling will disappear below gas prices anyway. We’re in a dire situation, your take is we should ride alchemica prices to gas prices, let the market take it’s course and this will end up being better than introducing some interventions as investor confidence won’t be hit by making economics changes. It’s a totally reasonable take but I disagree with it for the reason I outlined here:
Also, I’ve said a bunch of times in replies to you before. We can also start initiatives to increase spending such as leaderboards for alchemica spending in a Rarity Farming style competition. Both Pixelcraft and the DAO have expressed interest in supplying GHST to fund this type of competition and the DTF have given me funding to build a web app for it which will be finished in the next 2 weeks.
First of all you well know it will not below gas prices because people will not be channeling at that point.
Secondly, i was never saying we should do nothing. I am simply arguing your proposition and providing more than obvious arguments why reducing spillover on one side and acruing it on the other will not change anything because your proposal as it stands does not reduce alchemica inflation rate.
Such proposition must take into account how such spillover will be handled in the future and must be put into one vote.
Further, you are only adressing aaltar spillover rates for chanelling but not talking about farming side of it reservoir spillover rate etc. It’s a complex system, pulling one thread from a blanked and dabling with it WILL NOT HAVE the result you are talking about. Especially considering current market sentiment. Is it so hard to see really?
Lastly, now let’s say your vote goes through and spillover for aaltars gets adjusted. Just for the aaltars cause nothing else is in this current proposal. No proposals how to deal with spillover in general and it does not talk about reservoirs and other part of inflation apart from chaneling. So you will raise those spillover rates in hope people will be spending alchemica to upgrade aaltars for that spillover reduction?
It will never work because. Now lat’s say markets are back, alchemica price goes back too. 5% upgrade per level now will be so expensive that it will not be justifiable to invest into for chanelling purposes. People will invest into farming then leaving chanelling more absolete. Unless they upgrade aaltars for the sake of building higher level instalations on it, but that is a totally different topic altogether.
Bottom line. This particular proposal AS IT IS does not reduce alchemica inflation at all. It just takes income income from people that invested in aavegotchis and laand, took a hit and now that alchemica is simply being store elsewhere. By further reducing their yield you are simply forcing then to sell their assets loose confidence and quit game altogether.
It is the market and current sentiment that pushes price downwards not the tokenomics that i believe are pretty decent and strong.
I welcome your initiative though but i will vote “strong NO” when the time comes. Because proposal is incomplete and it will not affect inflation and/or prices of alchemica if general market continues to tank but rather break investor confidence further and will keep pushing them out of the ecosystem.
I don’t know if this would actually reduce the issuance unless you changed the percentages somewhere in there. I do like the way that this is going as it would reduce the amount of gas required to get the same output. We could always re-introduce more channeling apy when the lodge goes live and we can channel is groups.
Overall, I do not agree with nerfing channeling as hard as the coreprop proposes, especially with spillover turned off. It doesn’t make sense to take 100% of the players profits after setting an expectation. There is also talk of reducing channeling to once a week. Is that also going to get proposed after this were to pass?? I feel that given the current state of the market, a reduction in price of alchemica is not unusual. Lower prices alone incentivizes re-investing in the game to increase yield. Why not let the ecosystem work itself out naturally and have devs focus on creating sinks as opposed to changing/nerfing the current payout structure?
I am definitely team do nothing in terms of changing spillover rates (especially with spillover turned off.) I would be more inclined to consider a solution of reducing channeling frequency as this would solve two problems:
Rising gas fees (fewer transactions needed to receive yield)
Am I missing something here? Doesn’t this proposal really hurt humble and reasonable holders alot since its not recommended to upgrade aaltars like above lvl 5 or 6? So why punish them serverly with new proposed ratios? Also in my opinion it looks bad that we are adjusting spillover rates and punishing parcel owners before adjusting the dao’s alchemica ownership of alchemica of 30% when users craft or upgrade.
I don’t see how increasing spillover cuts the amount of alchemica unless the plan is never to turn spillover into the gochiverse back on.
When I voted along with others to turn off spillover it was to implement console/cartridge to vet quality players instead of bots and extractors. It was supposed to be temporary and was not supposed to take a lot of work. I see the main problem for the project is the low number of regular users, not the low price of alchemica. I also thought all that alchemica that wasn’t getting spilled during the week would all spillover during the weekly hangout time.
What happens to the spillover I harvest that doesn’t spill into the gotchiverse? Can we get an accounting of where it went, and how much has NOT been spilled since it was turned off; I see that alchemica is being subtracted from what is under my parcel, but the spillover from during the rest of the week doesn’t seem to go into the gotchiverse. I’d be much more amenable to this proposal if spillover that doesn’t go into the gotchiverse would go back under my parcels. I’m starting to think of this as “stolen alchemica”.
