Yup, that’s how broken our tokenomics were. Without intervention, channeling yield would have been below gas prices right now and the project would be deemed a failure. We had to to massively cut issuance and now we need to incentivise spending.
Any alchemica spent on farming takes 100-300 days to be returned. Over issuance from channeling has caused a huge amount of circulating alchemica and GLTR to be sat on the sidelines. We need to remove this over supply before PvP so that the new sinks introduced can do their job of balancing the economy.
We need to incentivise big spending so the rewards are top heavy. In October there was only 50 addresses per week spending >$100 so the prize structure is striking a balance to incentivise many level 9 farms getting built (where the sinks are greatest) and not requiring too much funding. You compare to Rarity Farming but that cost the DAO $1.5M which is 27x more than what I’m asking for and I’d argue this could have a greater benefit to the ecosystem than RFS5. Also, this is using the Gotchiverse player rewards not the DAO treasury, this money was literally earmarked for rewarding players in the gotchiverse. Do farmers not deserve rewards and competition?
What benefit would that bring?
How much alchemica did these cost to enter? People will spend $1000s worth of alchemica/gltr to win these prizes whereas the decoration contests were $50 for a decent entry/prize?
The competition was advertised alongside with AGIP 49.
The website for it is already made.
PC also seem to have put aside funding for it.
I think due to the advertisements/website there were already a certain degree of expectation built up that this competition will happen among some users.
So before voting against it please take that into consideration
Maybe next time make a sigprop for funding before advertising it. Just a friendly suggestion
The parcel contests was skill/art based not based on amount spent. It is possible to win a higher prize with less amount spent (I know someone who won)
So I don’t think its good to compare those contest and this competition
I predict that the reality is, its really less than ten people winning the top 50% of the prizes, as the rules only say one per address, and we all know that will be gamed and circumvented.
I reckon it would be pretty easy to spot if someone tries to win the whole leaderboard with multiple wallets. If that’s not what we want to happen, then this should be expressly stated as cheating and grounds for dq on all wallets.
EDIT:
I think I jumped into this conversation mid-way without reading the rules myself. It seems the one entry per wallet only applies to the raffle and not the leaderboard.
So at the moment, according to the rules, sybiling the leaderboard is allowed, right?
Is there any intention of changing this @Immaterial ?
Seems like this will make it extremely difficult for anyone that is not a whale to have a chance of ranking in the leaderboard.
So the player rewards GHST pool was funded through land auctions, so this is basically a wealth transfer from land OGs to whales with the capital and the risk appetite to make a long-term investment into Alch through farming equipment with their risk mitigated through a GHST stimmy.
Is this still a good investment of 80K in GHST from player rewards? I’m not convinced. How about we cut the rewards pool by 1/4 and put the other 60K GHST into player rewards into leaderboards for the Aarena?
According to what was posted in Discord, there would be no real need to have multiple wallets since all wallets can participate in all rounds regardless if they have won in any preceding rounds. So top 20 ~25 could possibly win it all
It would be great if you create a sigprop that clarifies the details you brought up. a.) dq’ing sybilers. b.) having only 20 spots, and c.) the $80k ghst #.
Also, the rationale behind the multipliers is jenky and is a tad more consistent with enabling sybilers given that round 1 for example slides as the week progresses so it looks like whales can more easily defend their positions. There’s no come-back mechanism for any of the rounds. For an ecosystem with the token FOMO, none of the proposed multipliers induce FOMO. Even a “lazy” design of flipping the round 1 multipliers around would make things more interesting.
If you had $10k of Alchemica to enter the competition, what would your strategy be?
The reason the rewards are top heavy is to incentivise going after 1st place. Why would someone spread their alchemica over multiple rounds or attempt to sybil a single round?
Happy to take suggestions for round structures, Round 2 and 4 have “come-back mechanisms”. Remember, this is the first of it’s kind, I wanted to test different round structures to see what works best going forward. What structure has the most engagement? Does the ordering of different round structures matter? There’s tonnes to figure out and learn from.
GLTR is implicit, you’re not going to win anything without using max GLTR on every mint.
You mean if one person had 10k, 10 ppl with 1k or 100 ppl with $100 because it all comes out the same in the end. I agree that it would really look nice to see all that potential alchemica bought/burnt but it would be IMO more sustainable if the prizes were more “reasonable”. Look i understand the rationale behind getting the biggest spenders to spend the most with a top heavy payout and it probably would not get looked at twice if the DAO was not funding it. Unfortunately since the DAO is funding this, the need to have a longer payout structure is paramount since the DAO is made up of more than just those that are able to use 10k to participate in the competition plus it would get more ppl to participate since there is a better chance at placing on the leaderboard.
This is a small prize pool, not the $1.5M people are used to for RF. This is the prize structure I believe will get the most alchemica spent per GHST invested which is what I’m getting judged on. Remember though, Gotchiboard is a DAO project, after this season there’s absolutely nothing stopping someone creating a prop for season 2 with completely different prize pool and structure.
But again this is not RF ,or to my knowledge, ever been compared to it plus RF has a much longer tail. Maybe its just me but 80K is not a “small” prize pool when the funds could be going to fund other ,IMO, more beneficial things for the project. Have you thought about just using the PC portion to fund your prize structure? Then maybe you could came back with the data to show this would be more preferable to one with a longer tail.
There’s 3.5M GHST sat there for Player rewards, this is NOT the DAO treasury. Of course we want most of this to go to support the aarena but why can’t some of that go to builders and help support the economy?
If you want to build a competition with a long tail then go ahead but my theory is the ROI in terms of alchemica spent will be far lower.
More like top 10-15… the top wallets are so out of scale with the rest, that they could break off a second wallet to win one of the lower prizes as a bonus.
Explain why you would do this? If you have enough alchemica to win #1 rank and have some left over on a round why would you sybil and try to win more that round rather than go for a higher rank in a subsequent round?
LOL never said that this was the DAO treasury but I am saying that the DAO has control of these funds. Yes, this is one way to motivate a minority of builders to buy/burn a potentially large amount of alchemical for a short timeframe hoping to maybe offset cost by placing on the leaderboard and I am not arguing against that fact. I am saying that by extending the payout you will get more players included thereby incentivizing more builders to participate and perhaps increasing the DAO’s ROI.
