I understand the origin and purpose of bubble-ups as an alternative to boosts, and believe that bubble-ups as a gameplay mechanic can persist for the 30 year lifespan of the token supply. I want to focus specifically on the proposal in the OP, which represents a material, sudden increase in the rate of inflation before any structures are ever built or developed, for which I don’t believe there is enough demand to support initially, which would cause capital flight from the ecosystem before there is even a playable game. What I am proposing is a reduction in the OP’s proposed emission curve, instead of frontloading it with what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of minted tokens, when there is not yet infrastructure to absorb that level of supply.
I think bubble up start date is one factor that can be decided independently. Maybe if we pick a relative date for that, like “when we get harvesters”, when the first maker is built," when the first lodge hits level 5", and then decide what the specifics are; we will avoid getting stuck, and avoid using inaccurate numbers.
To clarify my original statement. The 50% of PC 10% would only be until haarvesters and reservoirs are ready, which would be a month or two, we still need official release dates. Then the allocation would be cut in half to 25% of PC 10%. I see this as a promotion and wont cause hyper inflation since its a short time frame.
Interesting idea about lodge leveling. Could start with 30% of PCs 10% and cut it down by a factor of 10% for each lodge level.
No lodges or level 1, keep 30%
Level 3 lodge 25%
Level 5 lodge 20%
Level 7 lodge 15%
Level 9 lodge 10%
After thinking it over, I believe my position can be distilled into a few points:
Bubble-ups should primarily be used to incentivize the Grid. The idea should be to incentivize player activity in dangerous areas. Optimally, bubble-ups would coincide with the release of Lickquidators. While the Citaadel would also have bubble-ups, it should have a much smaller share of the overall rate.
As for the rate of inflation itself, a decision needs to be made based on two periods of time: the first 2-3 years, during which the Citaadel and the Grid will be released, and the subsequent 27-28 years.
From the gameplay reward budget, there should be a separate bubble-up allocation for these first 3 years, with inflation ramping up progressively over the release of the Grid, and a larger reserve allocation intended for the remainder of the 30 year span, for which the inflation schedule can be worked out in more detail later. If after 3 years there is an excess of allocated alchemica, it can be rolled over into the reserve.
I agree that inflation should increase as the number of parcels increases. Therefore, I would suggest setting a base bubble-up rate per alchemica deposit, so that yields per deposit remain stable over time, instead of decreasing with each new land release. The overall inflation rate therefore would start low, and increase proportionately with the number of parcels released into the game. A multiplier would be applied to the base rate depending on whether it is a Citaadel deposit or a Grid deposit.
I’ll add that, in line with Point #1, if foregoing Citaadel bubble-ups entirely is an option, I’d prefer that. The Citaadel is completely safe from attack (outside of events) and I don’t see a reason to incentivize activity there with additional alchemica, when there will already be plenty of incentive provided from channeling and harvesting. Let’s put it all in the Grid.
It might be good to simply decide for round 1 now, rebalance at round 2, and leave act 2 open for a do over.
This still seems to put extra alchemica into the system before we’re able to really use it. I can see that driving the price down over time.
Part of the challenge is keeping engagement high while the game evolves and develops. The scholar system introduced a new dynamic but at this time, continuing to pay scholars on a daily basis just doesn’t seem sustainable. Building and stress-testing are a cycle. This is all new. I think keeping the long-term in mind is important. Things will look very different May 18 and then later in June and then on our second birthday in July.
Still wondering about PC’s plan for this. Was that specifically outlined in the original thread or has it not been released yet?
we have no official data yet. We should hammer out two ideas here, and present them this sunday for Dan to rip apart
Sounds good. I’ll think on this and come up with some questions that might be helpful. I’ve seen too many projects with promise fail because of bad tokenomics. Definitely don’t want to see that happen here.
I’ll set up a Miro for it when I get off work. Pull in all the various stats and arguments people made, and make sure that people who put some time into this know its “final battle mode” time
Ideally, you want your idea to be able to fit into an infographic that is readable on a laptop screen, and doesn’t confuse the punters.
Here are some bullet points that will hopefully fit nicely:
1% of total alchemica supply set aside for first three years of bubble-ups, to allow a flexible inflation rate
Bubble-ups begin with the release of Lickquidators into the Grid
100% of bubble-ups will happen in the Grid
Overall inflation rate will be adjusted progressively upward with each new Grid release, with the aim of keeping yield per alchemica deposit stable over time
Because the inflation rate will depend on the number of Grid parcels that exist, it is not possible to determine the initial rate without knowing the Grid release schedule. There is an upper bound: 1% of the token supply could sustain a maximal rate of approximately 900,000 fud/90,000 kek per day for 3 years. We should not reach this rate until the full release of the Grid. There is wiggle room for (brief) special events
After three years and the full rollout of the Grid, any remaining allocated alchemica will be rolled over into the reward reserve, and a new bubble-up plan determined for the rollout of the Beyond
Second thought, I think PC should direct their own allocation for bubble ups. My preference would be for them to concentrate on quests and the grid but ultimately its their decision.
We can concentrate on DAO alchemica for citaadel bubble ups. In chapter 2 the DAO gets 30% of alchemica spent for crafting.
AavegotchiDAO , the governing body of the Aavegotchi Protocol, receives 30% of the crafted Alchemica split. This Alchemica balance represents a powerful opportunity for the community to have a direct stake in treasury management and put these tokens to work on the protocol’s behalf.
Using a portion of this alchemica will have the effect of growing and shirking based on users crafting.
I propose 10% (needs discussion, just a starting place) be used for bubble ups in the citaadel. The dao can vote to increase or decrease in the future as game play matures.
This will allow PC to concentrate alchemica to quests and any bubble ups in the grid.
I propose we leave it to them to decide, and we just make them tell us exactly what the alch deposits do, in trade.
PC are absolutely great at creating fomo and doing tokenomics. What we REALLY need, is transparency on what we are buying.
I like this idea of using part of the crafting split to help fund bubble ups in the citaadel.
By using a percentage of the DAO’s crafting split the amount of alchemica will be flexible based amount of alchemica used to craft. As aalters level up there will be less spillage from channeling and farming but more alchemica will be spent to level up aalters and farming installations. This bring more alchemica to the DAO which can be used for bubble ups.
More bubble ups will help to maintain the playdrop game mech and encourage more wondering around the citaadel. The playdrop is very easy for new players to understand and is a good entry into the gotchiverse. new players can expand to learning about more complex and cooperative aspects of the gotchiverse.
I’m cool with any distribution schedule as long as we call any random larger bubble up events “shakeouts” and the screen shakes intermittently while it happens
I’m partial to “Bubbs”, because they fill up my kitty.
We also need to figure out what the Alch deposits do, so having the bubble ups focus on these, will help us value land properly. People are currently just speculating, and a lot of what they are thinking, is definitely wrong. Lots of what people think is prime land, is the worst, because of the type of traffic it will get. You don’t want to be on the paths into the Citaadel, when the great battle happens. You don’t want D1 during channeling only, with no walls, as the great portal is a default spawn point. Those back corner plots are the best, with what we know right now.
We need to straight up say that the pools are definitely where you want to be if you are looking for that type of alchemica. This wont hurt the floor, as the floor is what we are valuing land at, with nothing in the alch pools. IT WILL move the market, though, as people will be able to clearly see how this, is different from that, and make informed decisions.
Maybe we could make a starter proposition, where all we are doing is agreeing on the general idea of what is happening, and then we can go deeper once we get that out of the way. Let PC distribute 5% of it during the channeling phase, and they can try two ways of doing it in that 2 week period. As we are doing weekly meetings, we can give them immediate feedback, and iterate like this until we find something that is both fun, and true to the spirit of what we agree on.
Here is what Im thinking. Let PC handle bubble ups in the grid.
DAO handles the citaadel, Allocate a percentage (5%, 10% ??) of dao crafting alchemica proceeds to alchemica bubble ups.
One weeks DAO crafting alchemica will be used for the next weeks bubbles ups. So the amount of alchemica is known and can be emitted randomly over a weeks time.
Each type of alchemica will be sprinkled on its alchemica area in the citaadel. Kek on kek deposit, alpha on alpha deposit, …
This will encourage estaates to enclose alchemica deposits, can be an additional perk for spending large amounts of alchemica to level up lodges to get a larger estaate.
Percentage can be voted on my DAO and updated by vote as the game evolves.
I put it all into a Miro and sorted things by how, why, when, where, and general ideas, and put all of the ‘hard facts’ together.
I made workspaces for Marvin, Slick, and Lululute, as they had they most fleshed out ideas so far. Anyone may use the additional spaces and I’ll gladly add more if needed.
This is the link that gets you edit access. Please don’t delete things, and if you do, try CTRL-Z once, it usually works.
If you keep the left sidebar open, you can flip between the sections quickly, and there is a chat on the right. You don’t have to use the posts it note, those are just simple to start with. I have found it easy to put individual pieces on them, arrange those, link them with lines, and then go back and make it pretty by using other shapes in layers, to make a document that is easier to read than a wall of text.
EDIT: Updated Miro with Umami and Marvins recent ideas.
After reading the suggestions in this topic i feel we are ignoring the fact that boosts are irrelevant in current game mechanics (even nerfed since parcels surrounded by boosts just have a slower speed to collect any spillover)
That this bubble up event was intended to bring some gameplay and/or value to boosted parcels (maybe according to their rarity [since boosted parcels are the ONLY ASSET in the Aavegotchi Protocol where rarity isnt taken into account, even tho it was valued in both auctions and secondary market] )
These events should be much more valuable inside the Citadeel than outside, since boosted parcels are much less frequent inside than in the grid (at least predicted as we dont have a detailed grid map)