Empower the DAO regarding emissions

Proposals by Gotchi Gov'nuhs
1

Hey frens,

Recently there’s been a few expressions of worry in the DAO and the discord regarding the dilution of land, aavegotchis, and wearables. This, combined with the emission of frens, and the heavy front loading of GHST at the expense of deeply invested NFT holders has been a cause of concern for many stakeholders in our ecosystem.

Our hope and mantra has been “the realm and p2earn will fix this, patience fren” and while we are indeed VERY early, it is good to have a plan B and a set of criteria and voting tools to keep things rolling along smoothly. Taking into account the recent delays that have caused a glut of supply and a lack of demand, coupled with the simple fact that game dev is more of an art than a science, we would like to propose a transition of the DAO further away from the COCOON stage, to intersect with this transitionary period.

Simply put, our suggestion is to make every new raffle, GBM auction, and drop something to actively be greenlit by the DAO before implementation, much like we use a similar system for the implementation and dropping of new haunts already. This would include putting the launch of realm sale 3 off until a vote passes to have it.

This would allow for more community input, and would go a long way towards giving all of us with assets on the line a chance to feel heard during the process of adding more assets to our ecosystem.

Looking forward to hearing from you all regarding your thoughts about these matters

20 Likes
2

This has my vote. I would like to see the loyal/core user base increase in numbers before any more dilution. Currently, dilution is following a frens schedule - agnostic of demand or asset pricing- and that is wildly unsustainable.
It’s a personal metric, but I would like to see the number of people in hangouts and event calls double from the current number, before we double the supply of everything yet again.

15 Likes
3

I like this idea in concept, but a few concerns:

  • I think it’s still a bit too early to fully trust our small playerbase with prioritizing attracting more users over preserving value now. If the concerns in discord are any indication, I see many folks block voting against anything new until their assets appreciate… which can’t necessarily happen without new stuff.
  • Requiring a greenlight on everything may unintentionally slow down the ecosystem in medium term. Once the gotchiverse launches, if we see a large influx of new players we aren’t going to want to wait weeks to get a proposal passed to approve a much needed haunt or wearables auction.

I think the move here is to do this, but with an embargo period. That could be “until gotchiverse is live” or "until the end of “april”. Really whatever we want it to be. But there should be a point where we need to re-evaluate the embargo.

6 Likes
4

Right, definitely agree here on all these points.
We need to find a good balance between being nimble, and being effective, and between hoarding value, versus diluting ourselves to a small extent to attract compounded value and onboard more players as a result of hype, marketing pushes, and a general excitement and desire to be part of something great.

The newbie of today can be the power user of tomorrow, but it is key that there is indeed a market of said newbies to tap into, and an ecosystem that guards and fosters the value we have all invested into it, both in a monetary sense and time-wise.

2 Likes
5

with that transition i think it would be important to set specific goals such for example metrics of sucess or expectations , for example having a 30% growth for the dao treasury by EOY .

2 Likes
6

Great summary, Cookie. And already some good inputs from @JG1 and @Thunderfish. I’m hoping we as a community can come up with a good metric for when new things (Haunts, Raffles, GBM, etc.) should be released.

The current rate of wearable dilution is too high for the existing user base and we’re going to start losing some key community members if it doesn’t slow down significantly.

At the very least, making this a DAO Vote is a great first step towards where we want to head. I’m hoping we can expand on that later where we start to look more closely at Total Number of Unique Wallets as well as Daily Active Users (DAU) as key metrics for determining when we need to release new Haunts/Raffles/GBMs.

5 Likes
7

A follow up to this regarding Raffles would be that we could focus on lower rarity items and have more frequent Raffles. There’s no need to continue to release Myths/GLs every raffle when demand for them is clearly low based on Baazaar activity (at least until prices drop significantly). Higher rarity item Raffles should be less frequent than what we’ve endured for the last year.

We could do a raffle every 1-2 months with Com/Unc/Rare items, then do a Legendary raffle every 3 months (4x a year), Myths every 6 months (2x a year), and GL every 12 months (1x a year). This would help keep higher rarity items what they should be.

5 Likes
8

I like the points you made about adressing the supply moving forward, but it’s not enough. We need to think about the utility aspect of NFTs as well.
There is a lot of uncertainty around future utility of the rarest items in the game. Because a lot of the value of gaming NFTs is derived from utility and not only rarity, it is an equally important topic.

I understand the fear of having too OP items and “pay-to-win”. The problem is that there is no play-to-earn without pay-to-win. Why would someone spend 200k$ on a beard if it doesn’t make him win? In the context where pay-to-win players are buying items from play-to-earn players, therefore creating a mutually beneficial relationship; having OP items is positive imo.

Obviously there is some balance to have, and we should not reproduce bad practices of the mobile game industry. I think that for godlike items to be worth X times more than common items, then they need to be close to X times more powerful/profitable than common items.

We need to add utility to the highest rarity items, in terms of gotchiverse “gameplay” revenue and maybe in terms of future NFT distribution. Because by creating most of the value at the bottom, we are creating a risky situation for the long term success of the project.

If a project attracts mostly play-to-earn players at the bottom, then most of your player base don’t care about the game and see it as a job, let’s call them parasites. This fact is aggravated by game devs becoming dependent of the parasites, because parasites are generating most of the metrics used to positively value the project. This makes a pressure on the game devs to squeeze as much as they can from users who add money to the pot and distribute it to the parasitic majority.
Once the host becomes too weak or dies, parasites switch to another one.

Parasites are attracted by having most of the value generated at the bottom. Which has been the case for Aavegotchi since the lower rarity items captured most of the growth. Game devs should focus on creating play-to-have-fun value at the bottom and moving the play-to-earn value upstream. This is how you’ll bring balance in the symbiosis and new money in the system, positively impacting long term success of the project.

Damage has been done, but it is not too late. I believe Aavegotchi has a great community, and obviously a potential bright future. We didn’t suffer too much from the issue above because of our relatively slow growth. But we have to be very mindful on what we base our future growth on, what type of users we want to attract, and designing game mechanics and economies accordingly.

12 Likes
9

Fantastic idea fren! i dont know of any fantasy world flooded with mythical and godlike items every couple of months. its about time we move on from sticking to the same ratio of items… when the market clearly wants more common/unc wearables, and not much anything else at this juncture.
If we don’t manage the matters of supply and demand properly before the game goes live, how do we expect a healthy game economy after launch?
I think things wont get simpler with alchemica! There will be 5 extra tokens to throw into the equation, and endless sales has only one guarantee: endlessly lower prices. Renting vs. selling etc will be another thing to decide.

4 Likes
10

Fantastic write up fren. This is also what would incentivize people who come in at entry level to want to “move up” in the ecosystem. What reason does someone have to aim for higher tiers if your “reward” for it is lower returns from incessant dilution?

5 Likes
11

I think you make some great points fren and you have my support.

As I’ve stated before, from my perspective, onboarding more users is not a price or supply issue. It’s a user experience issue. Once we have clean landing pages and information flow, our users should double without the addition of anything else asset wise.

I’ve also been thinking about Yanik’s post and awarding frens for aavegotchis. The more I think about it, the more it doesn’t make sense to me that the most liquid, least committed money (GHST staking) benefits from the biggest rewards.

I think before we move into any more item drops we need to overhaul the awards & frens system.

9 Likes
12

Absolutely agree that we need discussions about that and votes for dicigeons, but Wow, why do we need to bring raffles so often for the affordable category of items?
I thought everyone was talking about dilution, because 1-2 months for even just common items is already a knife stab in the neck.

3 Likes
13

Guys
After a lil talk with a good friend, I got to the point, that all of us stuffed with the same shit, and not really much different from each other, except myths godl etc, real rares.

Lets cut the tottal future emmisions of items in half, or even 3 times, for EACH group, other wise, it will be so many of the same items in every hand.

500 250 125 etc
Or
350 175 90 45 etc

1 Like
14

With a current game economy model, the assets (gotchis, wearables, land) holders have lowest liquidity and paying for the party via heavy inflation. In the other hand, GHST holders are highly liquid thx to curve and can leave as they wish to. There is no need for them to even participate in game and DAO. This creates asymmetric risk/reward between different kind of players.

In the end model can be summarised as roughly +40% yearly for GHST holders and -40% in form of inflation for game assets holders. One side is paying for party and taking all the risk (due to low liquidity) and the another side is capturing most of the growth.

With such a model we will have really hard time convincing people to join. It actually reward bears and shillers, but not long-term asset investors.

Let me be clear, we need all kind of players, and I’m not discouraged because of people played a game in most profitable way, but:

  1. holding GHST
  2. playing marketing games, shilling whatever it make sense or not
  3. selling most of items to the newcomers and people who do not understand the model as well.
  4. assets holders left with high risk bag and bad taste and probably won’t increase their participation in game and DAO
  5. repeat on each event

But thats why each event is not bringing a lot of new users. And marketing is only increasing the amount of fooled people (check land sale #1)

The solution is to make gotchis, wearables and land the same level of citizen as GHST is. And I think the easiest way is to distribute 1 FREN /day per 1 GHST, according to their base value.

I think we can fix this since many OG’s are actually in support. But of cause another side are okay with current model and will fight changes and try hold on this change as long as the can.

19 Likes
15

I support this idea in theory. But is there a limit to how much dev resources we are willing to give to this idea? Are you familiar with how the staking contract works? Would like to hear from @coderdan regarding how technically feasible this is. My understanding is that this would essentially require a complete overhaul of the staking contract. In your opinion would owners be required to stake their gotchis to the contract to get frens directly? If not, we would need off-chain resources to track the movement of gotchis.

16

im just not sure what you mean about this, is this relative ‘live market feed’ ? or mall prices ? or how would you establish the base value , the ghst spent on them (this wouldnt work since one could buy a parcel for 10k and now have a 10k fren yielding parcel ) ?
but i do agree with that need of frens for assets

17

@Umami the good starting point here is same way how voting power is currently implemented, meaning:

  • fixed for wearable and land, according to rarity/size
  • BRS-based for aavegotchi
18

I agree that currently there feels like an imbalance between rewards earned by holding GHST vs spending it on the ecosystems NFTs. There’s been a few times I held back from buying something as I knew I would be inhibiting myself for future rewards, in terms of profits earned from Auctions and Raffles.

However, staking GHST of course should be rewarded as it’s important.

Earning frens for NFTs is one idea, but one that will require a lot of balancing and dev work.

I suggest that maybe this is an issue that can be fixed with more frequent Rarity Farming events?

2 Likes
19

I have a bad feeling about endless frens inflation.
GHST circulation is almost stable, so frens is stable.
NFTs will come one after another then.
And the frens valuation will be more and more and more.
It’ll badly hurt the odds for raffles + will bring on impact to stake ghst at all.
Staking ghst holding the line for frens.
Frens for NFTs bring frens to the hell gate deeply and deeply after each nft mint. Frens making frens.
We are about to jump to the endless pit with frens for nfts.
Another solution needs to be found.

3 Likes
20

Couple of (short term) ideas to address the dilution of Aavegotchi NFTs:

  1. Increase the frequency of rarity farming (1 per quarter?)
  2. Airdrop raffle tickets to gotchi hodlers (could be funded by treasury if agreed on by the community)
  3. Airdrop raffle tickets to land hodlers (could be funded by treasury if agreed on by the community)
  4. Wearable auctions/raffles to be subject to a DAO vote on when they can happen, DAO can also vote on the number of each rarity of wearables that could be introduced. I am guessing this will reduce the number of wearables that will be created into the future until the demand is there like what we have with Haaunts.

Longer term solutions:

  1. Minigames/NPCs as Dapps that give specific wearables and Aavegotchi utility and allow for earning of rewards that could be airdropped to gotchis whether that is GHST or NFTs
5 Likes