Bubble Ups in the Gotchiverse

Chapter 2 introduced the concept of Bubble Ups. This is different from spillover and bubble ups are constrained to alchemica areas. Below is the text from Chapter 2 dealing with bubble ups. This post is to help tease out the game mechanic of how bubble ups occur in the gotchiverse

The remaining 66.6% (or 10% of total supply) will be vested via the same schedule as the Ecosystem allocation above , and used primarily for Alchemical Bubble Ups, Dungeons, and other in-game rewards that are not distributed via smart contract.

Alchemica Bubble Ups

The Bubble Ups concept grew out of the debated Paatch 0.1c where Increase Boost Amounts failed to pass. Alchemica Bubble Ups provide additional utility to boosts, while still requiring the player to actively harvest the Alchemica that bubbles up.

Alchemica Bubble Ups are sporadic (but not infrequent) events where Alchemica pickups appear on top of deposits of Alchemica in the Gotchiverse, especially near active parcels. Notably, it is Pixelcraft’s Gameplay vested release allocation that will support these Alchemical releases, although AavegotchiDAO can also vote to supplement the amount.

Discussion

Bubble ups come from Pixelcrafts alchemica allocation for bubble ups, dungeons and other rewards. This means more bubble ups then there is less rewards for dungeons and other in-game rewards.

In the beginning of the gotchiverse bubble ups can play an important role in onboarding new players and scholars since the play is limited for non-land owners and non-gotchi owners. As play modes increase bubble ups will become less important. Especially when dungeon and other quests come online and PvP arena is active.

The bubble up amount should not fuel major inflation of alchemic but be a bonus for gotchis in the gotchiverse playing and exploring the citaadel. Also there needs to be allocation left for grid alchemica areas, which is more important for game play that includes lickquidator.

Important to note, there is a 30 year alchemica emission schedule. The allocations below are based on Pixalcrafts’s allocation emitted over 30 years.

Questions to discuss is

  • When should bubble ups occur?
    • I suggest make these bubble ups occur randomly so users will have to keep checking and not be able to anticipate on a set schedule.
  • What should the emission curve be?
    • Initially use 50% of the PC 10% reward allocation for bubble ups in the citaadel, until haarvesters are released then the allocation should drop by 50%. This will give onboarding a little bit of a boost and spur a little more game play as users frequently check large alchemica areas.
  • What should the allocation be for citaadel and the grid?
    • This is an important topic, the grid has not been discussed much in terms of alchemica. It is going to be important to give sufficient incentives for lickquidators and gotchis alike in the grid. Moar allocation should go to quests then bubble ups, but bubble ups can have a good game mechanic when lickquidators and gotchis are fighting for alchemica in alchemica areas. When the grid comes online, citaadel bubble ups should end and the full allocation for bubble goes to the grid. This would be 25% of PC allocation for rewards and 2.5% of total supply.
5 Likes

Everything looks good IMO and I really like the slow whining of the bubble up amount, however I think that the bubble up should always be there. I think we should setup a fund by then to give out at least 1k USD in bubble ups monthly.

I see you are saying a min bubble up value would be advantages to maintain in the citaadel.

One technical challenge with setting up a USD amount equivalent is a price oracle would be needed. PC might already have one but it injects complexity and increases attack surface area. Price oracles have a tendency to be a weak point and usually multiple sources are used to make a TWAP (average over time).

If community thinks always having ongoing bubble ups in the citadeel is important then can keep a small percentage ongoing instead of shifting 100% to grid bubble ups.

1 Like

I was thinking more along the lines of a market buy but a 90/10 or 95/5 split would work also.

This is the Point in the original thread, where bubble ups became a thing.
A bunch of people have weighted in already, so it is important to link these threads.

This proposal should be expanded to include the specifics of what alch deposits do. The tokenomics are intertwined, and this is a 2fer. Actually, it’s a 3fer, because it will surely yield details on spillage mechanics.

so are we going to continue this here or go back to the original thread?

Carry on, I was just making sure late comers knew the history and anyone checking the other thread, ends up here.

1 Like

well i think without the earlier content we will be wasting time asking questions that have already been thoroughly discussed.

You’re right, I’ll collate anything I can find, into a miro board. I’m sure Slick still has his materials from before.

When should bubble ups occur?
I agree random times would be good. There will still be campers but imo randomness will ultimately be more engaging for people exploring in the game. Hopefully the bot controls will deal with any campers who are not real people just idling while doing other things.

What should the emission curve be?
Starting with 50% of what’s coming out of vesting (the PC 10% allocation) for citaadel bubble ups seems extremely high. I’m curious about PC’s budget for this. Have they released anything?

We’ll be getting alchemica through channeling, we just had the playdrop, and it would be fun to have a ‘reserve’ of the bubble up allocation for special events & holidays (like our upcoming 2nd birthday celebration). I think it’s important to keep the long-term in mind. Thus far, PC has done a great job with tokenomics. I’m curious about additional details from their plan.

What should the allocation be for citaadel and the grid?
Gotchi life beyond the citaadel sounds dangerous so it follows that the allocations should be higher. I don’t think citaadel bubble up should stop entirely, but allocations should be significantly greater outside the citaadel.

2 Likes

I’m not averse to the idea of front-loading some of the reward supply for bubble-ups, but I think we need to revise the numbers down. Some napkin math:

PC’s allocation for rewards is 10% of the entire supply
across 30 years, that’s 0.333% annually
per day, that’s ~0.09%
half of that is ~0.0045%
0.0045% supply emitted per day for bubble-ups until harvesters go live:
4,500,000 fud/day ($45,000 @ 1 cent)
2,250,000 fomo/day ($45,000 @ 2 cents)
1,125,000 alpha/day ($168,750 @ 15 cents)
450,000 kek/day ($180,000 @ 40 cents)

I think that’s overpaying. By comparison, the playdrop saw 500,000 fud per day, and 50,000 kek, 9 times lower. Channeling will also be live at the same time, which similarly from day 1 will have a theoretical base floor of 500,000 fud and 50,000 kek per day (assuming no kinship multipliers, and that every single gotchi is used for channeling). It’s a lot! I suppose one question I’m left with is whether we need to heavily incentivize scholars at this time, when inflation is about to kick into higher gear just based on passive gameplay mechanics. We paid scholars to stress-test the alpha release. I’m not sure that paying them to farm bubble-ups makes sense. There will eventually be opportunities for them to do mercenary work.

5 Likes

This is because there were only 2 districts and we will be looking at ~37. A lot of this was covered in the other thread.

Yes, but what is the purpose of paying so much more? What do we get out of it?

“we”? I do not understand.

The DAO. The rate of inflation has a material effect on the value of alchemica, and therefore GHST. If inflation exceeds demand, alchemica will be sold for GHST, and GHST subsequently for DAI. Unless there’s a clear reason to ramp up inflation (which is already about to go up a lot, once channeling and harvesters are live), I think we need to be careful about overspending without any gain.

If you read the earlier thread it was mentioned that the bubble ups would initially be funded by tokens that were already set aside for boosting boosted parcels. I really recommend that you take time out to read through it.

1 Like

I’m more talking about the numbers proposed in the OP, which would give a rate of inflation 9x higher than the playdrop, without factoring in channeling. Is that something we really want to do? That’s a lot of selling pressure right in the beginning, when the only alchemica sink is more structures that only increase the rate of inflation further. The amount of money in the Aavegotchi ecosystem is not infinite, and the more alchemica that gets given away and sold instead of burned is money out of our collective pocket. I’m not necessarily against abundant alchemica, but I want to be clear about what this represents in financial terms.

1 Like

You realize there are 35k plots to build 16 to 128 harvesters on, and probably 3000 lodges and then the rest, right? And then long before we get near locking up Alch in the installations, the grid will be live and that’s even more land to build out.

Those numbers being 5x the playdrop is miniscule in what it will feel like, as it is spread out over 40 or 45 districts(based on probable area being released in June, per Jesse’s numbers)
image
image

I do, which is why I’m averse to dumping so much alchemica early on. Structures at least require the sunk cost of alchemica to upgrade. I’m not suggesting that bubble-ups be eliminated, but that draining liquidity out of the system before those sunk costs are ever implemented is a waste of money.

1 Like

Start here