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:
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.