Hi frens, we’re not very far away from the fair launch of the Gotchus Alchemica tokens during the initial Citaadel limited release. We have the option of seeding some liquidity pools to facilitate trading of Gotchus Alchemica (probably on Quickswap, until the GAX is ready) but we need to know the ratio of Alchemica-to-GHST to do so.
We’re working internally on a few valuation models for Gotchus Alchemica, but I think it’d be great if we could have a spirited discussion here in the DAO as well about how to value these tokens, based on public information released in Chapter 2, and elsewhere. I will deliberately hold off on releasing our own internal valuation model for a few days to see what kind of conclusions you guys reach.
Has the team ever shared the updated average alchemica per parcel since Patch v0.1 passed?
Using the original avg alchemica per parcel and assuming 80 ghst for the price of a Humble parcel – and also assuming only 1 harvester is built on the parcel (which isn’t likely) – then this is how the market is currently valuing the price per alchemica:
I think that the DAO should phase its support of Gotchus Alchemica.
Phase 1 (first 1 to 3 months): Encourage the broader community to stake by offering a sweetener in staking rewards in GHST. It could be a vested rebate of the GHST (say 3 months). Ex. If community adds a net 1,000 ghst and the rewards are 250 ghst, then 6 months later = 25% rebate.
Phase 2: Stabilize the LPs by staking the DAO Alchemica (from DAO plots, do we get those?) along with Treasury GHST. Do this at a prescribed rate.
Just fill up the lp early, overpriced, make sure everyone knows it’s overpriced, and let the degens duke it out till its game time. I guarantee someone will buy it, even if you tell them its not a good price, because they want to just build their stuff instantly. If you don’t replenish it… the situation will handle itself
i think the best way to approach this is to set a price for a base installation in ghst and go from there. So for example ,assuming a price of 50ghst for a gotchi altar lvl2 that would equate to
300 FUD+150FOMO+ 75 ALPHA +10 KEK =50g
and if we consider each independent alchemica value affected by their total supply , the relations are 2FUD=1FOMO
4FUD=1ALPHA
10FUD=1KEK
making the altar cost in FUD 1000. or the price of 1 FUD 0.05ghst
so 1FOMO 0.1ghst
1ALPHA 0.2ghst
1 KEK 0.5ghst
Below is my suggestion for the initial valuation of alchemica. First, I will present my basic assumptions that led me to this valuation:
Current market floor prices of parcels can be used to determine how the market values alchemica emissions.
Floor parcel prices for my model are in GHST: 80 (H), 160 (RS), 925 (S)
The unadjusted token price by market valuation is the average the valuation given by the market to each parcel type
Valuation is determined by full 100% return on investment after completion of Act 1
It requires a minimum of 15% of a parcel’s Act 1 total alchemica emissions to build the installations required to extract all alchemica underneath the parcel each round
Each round is assumed to be 3 months (1 quarter)
o Bonus info: it takes 28% of the alchemica produced in Round 1 to build all harvesters for Act 1 (assuming complete extraction of an average parcel) and it takes 34% of Round 1 alchemica for the necessary reservoirs (assuming daily collection). This took a lot of math.
The unadjusted token price is multiplied by 1.15 to account for the 15% of alchemica required to build the installations to extract full alchemica each round
We should set a price target at 50% below break-even valuation to allow upward price discovery
Using the assumptions above, the final numbers are nice and even with the following initial prices:
FUD: 0.00025 GHST
FOMO: 0.00050 GHST
ALPHA: 0.00100 GHST
KEK: 0.00250 GHST
The proposed initial fully diluted valuation (FDV) is not ridiculously above GHST’s FDV as it would be using models assuming full 100% ROI after Round 1. Given the high risk of the asset class, a goal of 100% return after 2.5-3 years is very reasonable, especially given GHST’s return of 30-40% falls in a similar range.
One of the larger assumptions given is to set an initial price at 50% below the break-even valuation. If a price is set too high, we risk damaging natural price discovery with strong sale pressure. This would waste a valuable opportunity to garner attention to the ecosystem and project by debuting 4 tokens that perform strongly out of the gate. One of the risks to a low initial valuation is impermanent loss to the DAO which will provide seed liquidity. This IL is less damaging to the overall ecosystem as both tokens are within the ecosystem (vs using ETH or DAI when setting prices). impermanent loss due to alchemica doubling, that does no damage to the community and is an acceptable risk.
I look forward to other community member’s proposed valuations as well as PC’s expert analysis.
In gathering the data some other things became clear to me:
You simply have to build installations and the sooner the better, early alchemica demand will be adequately high to drive interest and speculation
We must have additional alchemica sinks as the current proposals are not enough to take us even beyond Round 1 before a likely slow decline from for-profit-only farmers
ALPHA has almost no use case. Most people won’t build lodges, so the only way to even spend it is Aaltars. Even if tiles have high ALPHA requirement, I am concerned about ALPHA demand
Alchemica utility should be tied into the other native assets so that gotchis and wearables both “need” alchemica. There are lots of fun, innovative ways to do this like imbuing wearables with alchemica to activate their realm ability, etc.
There needs to be modifications to the installation system that push farmers towards purchasing higher level installations instead of spamming low level installations for cheap. An installation cap by aaltar level could be one way to accomplish this. The Aaltar is the “source of energy” for installations, so unless you have a super-upgraded Aaltar, you can’t have 28 of each Level 4 harvesters on your spacious which is currently the most cost-effective strategy.
Some ideas that pop up in my head for alchemica sinks:
in-game potions
in-game consumables
npc teleporting stations to get around the map that cost alchemica to use
we can also introduce limited quantity cosmetic installations for our laands. for 1m FUD you can buy a golden gotchi statue, etc.
we could also introduce “wonder” level installations that offer bonuses to the land. increased move speed, alchemica, etc. are just a few ideas.
some ideas on how to charge alchemica to the value extractors would also be great as they’re the ones we’re mostly wanting to mitigate the losses from
They can be used but i think its dangerous (and unfair?) , specially taking in account only the floors, we want the game, not the defi returns, imho if you dont make the initial installations expensive and alchemica attractive and let the market decide and evolve , the game wont be very interesting…
Meaning the initial LPs would probably take a hit while the actual price of an altar is set by the market , and while the number of LP grows ,in mid-long term they would be very well rewarded with the extensive need to trade (volume) and the GLMR rewards .
i understand the mkcaps should be “controlled” somehow but not taking into account all the ghst that was spent above mkt prices makes that model not very rookie-friendly
what are the actual numbers for available supply on day1 of the gotchiverse? shouldnt that establish the price of the tokens ? and not the expected returns (dont the returns come from a different pool?)
can we even think of a number for expected “parcels surveyed” on day 1?
I honestly believe that setting up the initial prices of alchemica so low could be very dangerous. As you mentioned, installations should be built the sooner the better. Having a very low initial pricing would create a great opportunity for players with high liquidity to just dry the LP pool and capture as much cheap alchemica as possible. That would translate into a great head start when the gotchiverse is launched, being able to create high-yield installations quickly, dominating the GAX pools, and obtaining a large amount of GLMR to speed up even more parcel improvements. Once the target size is reached, then such players would just farm resources and short the market, basically leaving the majority of gotchis with a very poor ROI by the time they manage to catch up and start farming rewards.
On the other hand, the pricing proposed would mean that the average total yield of parcels during the entire Act I (about 3 years AFAIK) would be:
humble ~ 28 GHST
reasonable ~ 114 GHST
spacious ~ 911 GHST
And that’s assuming that all the alchemica is sold without investing anything into building installations. Such projected ROI would be terrible IMHO, nobody would like to lock their capital for 3 years and have to spend a considerable amount of time involved in the project to recover only a part of their investment.
Evaluating the problem from the opposite perspective, i.e. setting the initial price rather high (x5 to 10x your current estimation), we could suffer from a continuous price decline, since many people would try to profit as soon as possible from the juicy rewards, but at the same time, you would prevent large investors to monopolize the entire game.
In addition, I think that the different alchemica total supply should be accounted for. Since the total supply of KEK is 10 times smaller than FUD, that should also be a factor to consider when establishing the initial value of each token.
I think of it this way: do we want to explore the heights, or the depths? The initial price will determine this. (Of course, explosive success would mean that all bets are off.)
A bit offtopic, but I would take into consideration that renting out assets to scholars will have a big impact on the success of the game as well.
Scholars need to earn at least 5$/day to drive players as well as investors into the Aavegotchi ecosystem.
With a profit share of 80/20, the owner would earn 20$/day by renting out a Gotchi and realm (set at around 600 GHST atm).
I am aware that here do count in many variables due to the endless possibilities in Aavegotchi to invest/harvest/play.
But the aim has to be to set the initial price for Gotchus Alchemica high enough to provide an appealing renting system to attract players.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree that there is a risk to highly liquid entities betting big on alchemica immediately. We need to be very thoughtful with how we seed liquidity, perhaps in tranches, to allow the most healthy price action. This is a really big decision with lots of risks, many of which are difficult to anticipate. That’s why this discussion is so important. Please consider submitting a thorough analysis and alternative set of numbers that you believe would best set the gotchiverse up for success.
Can Pixelcraft please confirm if you are allowed to have more than 1 of each type of harvester on the same land parcel? @coderdan@Jesse_gldnXross
Same question for reservoirs.
If you can have more than 1 of each type of harvester/reservoir, can 2 KEK harvesters share 1 KEK reservoir or do you need one reservoir per harvester?
Things not covered yet that I need to know before I can think correctly on this -
1.a What is the rate that one can accrue alchemica at by playing the game with just a gotchi? Is this inconsequential and mostly for purposes of buying consumables and other gaming perks, or can you grind your way to an installation? This is hard to quantify, but what is the expected time to build an L1 installation, with an average gotchi?(like, a 500 brs)
1.b What is the ratio to the answer for 1.a that liquidators can earn
Where is the 15% cost to extract coming from? Was this a calculation we can use as a constant or is it guesswork?
Is there a reason we cant use a curve, where you input ghst and it creates alch? This wopuld make it so all alch is either paid for upfront, or is mined/earned.
Some things I think we should consider -
Definitely let people multi build and definitely don’t tie storage to the harvester. Build orders and ratios are very much a part of any resource management game and you should be able to scrap the harvester and keep the reservoir.
If no curve, then I think the LP should be overpriced when seeded, as it IS going to be instantly driven up if it’s an LP. and if people want to push it, they should have that option, but not for cheap.
After calculating the cost/yield of the different installations, I feel confident that the early demand for alchemica will probably be very high and therefore the initial price estimation should be rather high, let’s review some concrete examples:
Let’s say that you have a couple of humble parcels and the VRF gods got you a decent amount of FOMO and FUD in the first parcel and ALPHA and KEK in the second one. So you decide to build an Aaltar ,2 harvesters and 2 reservoirs in each of the parcels and target level 4 as the maximum upgrading level. Assuming that you go with the strategy “let’s pay for the updates as soon as possible to maximize yield”, then you should see something like this in terms of cost and yield:
As you can see, it will take about 60 days to break-even in terms of the amount of ALPHA invested, 70 days for KEK, but you will probably not recover the investment for FOMO and FUD before the first Great Waar. Trying to aim for higher installation level only increases the gap between parcel’s yield and the upgrading cost, for example:
Let’s now review numbers at a larger scale by assessing what is the demand generated if 70% of all the currently available parcels are used following the same criteria as before, paying for upgrades ASAP. Assuming that humbles will build an aaltar, 2 haarvesters & 2 reservoirs; reasonables will build 3+3 and 5% will go also for a gotchi lodge; spacious will go for 4+4 with 10% chance of a gotchi lodge and some walls, that would result in
As it can be seen, results are very similar to the previous example.
One big unknown at this point is the effect of the Aaltar on Channeling and the output of group Channeling, Chapter 3 should clarity these aspects. Without that information, it is really hard to make a reasonable estimation of the initial price, since the gap between supply and demand seems huge.
As others already remarked: it will be crucial to monitor and evaluate the developing economic dynamics constantly. I am sure the game-economics-experts at PC have some highly sophisticated models for a broad variety of scenarios.
I (as many others I belive) consider Aavegotchi at this moment crassly under-valued. (aka „peeps are sleeping on Aavegotchi“)
My hunch is therefore, that we should be mindful of that in our estimations.
As I see it, we are deciding here about the „thickness of the blood“ of our ecosystem:
we neither want clots nor do we want internal bleedings.
Still I am not sure how to approach this question properly… so I‘ll try tentatively a quite global one:
Total Supply Allocation for the Parcels in Act 1
+
1/3 of the Allocation for Channeling, Ecosystem, Gameplay(Boosts/Other)
and mulitply by the numbers of @stedari
…and then I‘ll see how I feel about the total amount.
The are also numbers from @kuwlness and @Umami in previous posts: I think these will be prices in the future or at certain spikes/ market conditions.
The question I ask myself is this:
will sufficiently enough energy/work be garnered in this first year to justify a minimum-valuation of about 42 million GHST?
The current fully diluted valuation of Aavegotchi is 130.5 m.
42/130.5 = 0.32 –> the 42m are about 32% of current Aavegotchis market-value.
I would go with the numbers of @stedari. If for some reason they ought to be higher, I wouldnt go above 2x-3x. If lower, not less than 0.75x.
My gut-feeling is, that from these levels we will see
some healthy price-discovery.
p.s. I hope so much that there will be “floor-trading” at the GAX
