Burn locked spillover

Hi frens,

This is really a follow on of AGIP-49 but I thought warranted a separate discussion. Meant to put this out sooner but just been busy IRL.

My proposal is to change the locked spillover policy to one of the following options:

Option 1

  • Burn all currently locked spillover
  • Burn all spillover going forward unless an event is happening (e.g. Saturday hangout) or the DAO votes to turn spillover back on

Option 2

  • The same as option 1 but exclude spillover that has come from reservoirs (land)

The reason for doing this is that the economy has been inflating too much and could not handle this amount of tokens being distributed. Either option is OK, the argument for option 2 would be that reservoir spillover has come from someones land that they paid for. Personally I think option 1 is better though as with the originally designed spillover you were never going to be able to collect any of that spillover that came from reservoirs anyway and it avoids the future headache of how to distribute that huge deposit of token later down the line.

Any way lets start the discussion.

LOL i love that we are discussing spillover. I am leaning more towards #1 out of the 2 options. What would be your thoughts on making channeling the only thing that has spillover in the future?

I am clearly for option 2. The spillover from land should go back to their owners while still being careful to not inflate the supply suddenly in doing so. What I suggest is that owners could tap in their accumulated spillover as a discount when upgrading. This would incentivize upgrading to get back some of your spillover and might compensate for the lack of influx from channeling for those who depended on it for upgrades


Is the spillover from parcels going to a different wallet than channeling does, or is it all going to the same wallet?

Same place, to the realm contract. coderdan mentioned a few times that they still can tell them appart since it’s all onchain.

Ok but it seems like alot of work to seperate them since its mostly channeling

Lame idea.

Better plan: use that to fund the district daos. DDs can have theur own crafting and we can burn it all, but we have a nice way to let districts compete for cook stuff.

Just be honest and treat it as taxes levied by the local govt during construction of the city.

You dont have to burn it if its sent to entities that are in their own economy.

1 Like

The DAO voted for hotzones to be enabled. Option 1 would just be another tokenomics rug for land owners taking away reservoir spillover. Option 2 is my preferred approach.

Tokenomics rugs so far:

  1. Disable spillover
  2. Double spillover on all Aaltars

The reason for doing this is that the economy has been inflating too much and could not handle this amount of tokens being distributed

Is this an admission AGIP49 was ineffective? Many people were saying throughout these discussions that we needed more token sinks to result in higher demand for alchemica.


With all of these tokenomics nerfs we are doing right now, what does the future for the great battle, guild channeling, quests/dungeons look like?

Are they going to be allowed to happen as per the Gotchiverse game bible/litepaper which people used as a guideline to purchase Aavegotchi NFTs, or should we plan for all of these to be nerfed aswell?


Plan for the worse and hope for the best :man_shrugging:

We’re probably going to have to rebalance as we go. You cant totally predict what the effects of adding legs to the economic table will do. Hopefully we do better on the lodges, estates, and grid.

Doesnt PC have a plan for the spillover? Per the lore we need to send X amount of alchemica to the great portal before the great battles to be used for something or another. Cant remember off hand.

Whenever projects start talking about burns I feel like it’s an excuse for bad tokenomics in the first place. Perhaps we can be more creative? I like the idea of sending some to the district dao for sole use in crafting district upgrades. That removes it from the market but still gives utility


Hey fren, the great portal gets 40% of all crafting alchemica. This locked spillover is just all the alchemica that would of been released as spillover if spillover was enabled. Burning it will not affect intended gameplay in any way.

1 Like

A counter proposal, ser :slight_smile:


Is it not better to just leave the spill account alone until we come up with interesting ideas on how it may be used to gamify the economy and gotchiverse?

Its currently locked away so as good as being burnt right?

Really like the idea of treating it as a public tax that goes towards district DAO infrastructure (if and when that happens). Once its burnt though any interesting ideas like that are gone.

If we do burn it though 100% my vote would be for option 2.


I agree with this. Where is the urgency? If we don’t find an opportune way or time to redistribute it till then we could just let it fill the great portal until it reaches capacity and starts getting redistributed instead of minting new tokens.

I am against burning. I would like to see the locked spillover being used to incentivice Gotchiverse players. For example we could mint a certain amount of decorations (NFT displays at the moment) and raffle them to active players, maybe using the gotchiverse leaderboard as some kind of indicator regarding player activity.


This action cannot be reserved. You can’t make another sigprop to unburn it.

There doesn’t seem to be any justification to burn it at the moment it since it is locked away and doesn’t affect the economy in any shape or form.

Please let me know what is you reasoning to take such non-reversible action.

What exactly prompted you to take such quick action and put up sigprop already after few days of discussion on this thread.

Is this going to balance the game even tho it is already locked away?

Or will this help the price even tho its locked away already?

What exactly is the benefit in burning something that is locked away from the economy already?

On the other hand, what is the disadvantage to burn it away when there could be possible future use for it?


Burning the locked spillover gives clarity to the community.

It was pretty normal, 1 week of discussion followed by sigprop. A sig prop is just that, a signal as to what the community wants to do. Not much was being discussed here, a few arguments for the different options which is normal. Engagement in a topic always goes way up once a sigprop is posted.

Alchemica inflation is already extremely high, we’ve seen that our economy with the current number of players and level of investment cannot handle this level of inflation which is why we’re having to pull economic levers to balance it out (disable spillover and reduce channeling issuance). In the future we hope for more players and more spending to level this out but we will never be able to handle the huge amount of locked spillover being brought into circulation. The DAO already controls a large amount of alchemica and receives 30% of all crafting revenue which can be used for player rewards or whatever else we choose. We don’t need this locked spillover so better to burn and give clarity that it’s never going to be brought into circulation and risk the economy.