Empower the DAO regarding emissions

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.


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 .


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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
350 175 90 45 etc

1 Like

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.


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.

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

@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

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?


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.


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

Yes, I think active user base is a good metric. Maybe one of many, but this is a good one.

Whales with bad intentions can inflate the implied base by having lots of wallets, but it’s much harder to fake engagement.

I think a nice DAO taskforce or group to form, would be a TA group, that mostly brainstorms ways to quantify the real trajectories of things so that when we talk about ideas, we’re speaking about actual math instead of anecdotal observations.

Obviously, I’d love to participate in that. I’m sure every guild has one or more people like me, that wake up every morning and bust out the calculator and charts and lose their day to analysis.

We need a higher stakes gambling option for frens. Let the degens run wild. Portal openers are our best deflationary userbase, so far, as sacrificers are mostly a thing of the past.

The arena is the answer, IMHO. It’s the poker table at the casino. Users playing users, no inputs from the house, and a house charge that burns frens, would drive the markets, burn frens, and dilute the asset pool not at all.

People need a thing to do when there is nothing to do. Human nature will solve the problem, as the bored and the risk averse do themselves dirty all on their own.

Metrics that could be used for determining a wallets value… (I would set emissions to half or less of the number our stat is giving us, as you are speculating, not staking)

a ratio of the weekly VWAP of each items floor - this is my initial guess for best way. this would encourage raising floors

using the monday mean sale price - this could drive some cool market cycle dynamics, creating some cyclical action that would be outside of the triangular motion we currently see

take the difference between purchase price and floor price and divide that by the vix of the asset(probably need a modifier in here to make it play nice) - this would cause items that have low volatility to become more desirable, thereby raising their volatility, and creating internal market cycles

This is easy for wearables, as they are fungible amongst themselves. Land, before launch… also fungible, as even amongst boosted parcels, you have peers. Gotchis… I’d say do rarity bands per collateral, for running the calculation.

For best effect and minimal overhead, I would do this on a weekly basis, and do it on a day that rarely has releases or events, as a predictable market is a happy market. If you know anything about TA, you know that patterns that are clean are trends. New people need to be able to see the trends or they wont want in. This is exactly why you have bull markets and bear markets. We go down, until it becomes obvious that we are not. If you create a system where there is a weekly cycle, and yes, it might go up or down a range, but is mostly trading in channels, you have something that new blood can see and say “Oh, i see where I should jump in, this is a good market for me to participate in”

1 Like