Introduction of Land Rarity Farming

Hi all,

I would like to introduce the concept of Land Rarity Farming, it’s goals, and some of key decisions that need to be discussed by the community. In short, I think this would incentivize building and engagement in the gotchiverse and serve as a massive alchemica sink in a DAO-run circle-of-win.

Here is my initial vision which will need significant feedback and iteration:

  • Uses 25% of the DAO alchemica collected from crafting for round 1, percent to be adjusted in further rounds

  • Automated to pay out at the end of every 3-month round

  • Land Rarity Score (LRS) will take into account Installation + installation levels, decorations, and the VRF roll of the parcel with a 70-15-15 payout respectively (open for debate of course!)

  • My initial modeling grants 1 LRS for every 10,000 FUD equivalents spent on crafting - VRF roll value is determined as the total amount of alchemica in the parcel when first surveyed measured in FUD equivalents

  • Payouts would be designed in a long-tail to capture and reward the top 1/3 of parcels with a similar top skew to the current structure of RF - There won’t be a specific “engagement score” as that can be relatively safely inferred by simply having high level installations which need engagement. Kinship has been fraught with botting and I don’t see the value in trying to create a new engagement metric which will likely be botted

  • The DAO would commission the tools to keep track of the leaderboard and perform the payout; It would be nice to somehow integrate that data to the main webpage too

Overarching Goals of LRF:

Incentivize and further gamify crafting and alchemica expense

Create competition at the top to engage whales and incentivize spending Incorporate decorations into gameplay

Give a defined floor value to decorations, tiles, and golden altars

Predictably incentivize engagement and spending

Give utility to DAO portion of crafting alchemica collected

Reduce overhead work from PC by being fully DAO run

Give increased value to unsurveyed parcels which may be a high LRS superproducer

Add further value to rare, super-producer parcels

Incentivize farming and building on high LRS parcels to climb the leaderboard

Big questions:

  • Do we create separate leaderboards for humbles, reasonables and spacious? How do we split up the percentage of rewards to those three groups?

  • Is 25% of all alchemica re-entering the economy too much after round 1 which will have high emissions and a TON of building?

  • Is a 70-15-15 split appropriate? Does that meet the goals as defined above - Can we find the technical expertise to build the leaderboard, accurately capture the LRS (land rarity score) and distribute earnings?

  • What are the details of decorations? How many can be equipped? Are there slots? What does distribution look like?

  • Can we set a stage for a different meta every round that allows for a fresh experience and iteration?

Thanks all! Looking forward to the many ideas and feedback. If you are a data scientist or technically inclined, please reach out if you’re willing to help build the leaderboard and distribution infrastructure.

Dr Wagmi


This is a pretty interesting idea and would reinforce previous mechanisms that have felt abandoned for a while (Rarity Competitions). That said, I see 2 major flaws in Land Rarity Farming as outlined above.

We need sinks, not circular Ponzinomics

Circular models are dangerous and can hide value extraction / dilution, especially in our case. Token sinks are important for P2E ecosystems because they take tokens out of circulation to offset dilution. All of the 4 Alchemica tokens have ridiculously high inflation models, and it’s gonna get muuch worse when harvesting launches. To offset this, we need mechanisms to remove tokens from the market - this is primarily done through crafting as it is the most obvious mechanism for a game (reward people but incentivize to spend everything inside of the ecosystem again).

If we start distributing 25% of all tokens that were meant to be taken out of circulation, we’re suddenly fueling the deeno spiral in a big way. Yes, some of this may be reinvested. But we shouldn’t ignore the fact that Land RF would be an “additional” yield for people who built out their installations to harvest more tokens - so they’re already getting their fair share of the pie (look at the projected harvesting yields, they’re insane!). In a rough market environment I don’t see the need to reward people with funds that should in my opinion be regarded as “burned”. In my opinion this is somewhat of a design flaw - we shouldn’t have allocated this much of crafting revenue to PC & the DAO - but I know there were reasons for this decision.

Aesthetic installations should stay aesthetic only

This ties into the point above of needing token sinks, instead of just circular DeFi farming mechanics. For a user the main purpose of Aaltars and Harvesters is investing money to generate a return over time. In very simple terms this means investing money to generate more money). Sound familiar? Yeah, that’s just an unsustainable token farm, and we know how that usually ends.

We need to break this circuit by introducing mechanics that have no financial implications. For now these are aesthetic installations such as Golden Aaltars, Tiles, and other decorations, in the future there could (and most likely will) be more gameplay-oriented things to spend Alchemica on. In my opinion these type of installations are sacred and should never be mixed with financial rewards if we want to prevent a death spiral of our tokens. Having a community of people willing to spend money on purely aesthetic / gameplay-oriented mechanics is what differentiates a sustainable game from a Ponzi with additional obfuscation layers (see $SLP, $GST, and dozens of other “P2E” tokens).


Do you think it’s worth putting together a proposal to change the crafting distribution percentages with a higher % being burned completely?

I think Dr Wagmi’s idea is an interesting one, but I am also a bit concerned about the additional inflation it will bring.

I guess the DAO needs to figure out what’s the responsible way to invest the Alchemica earned through crafting without resulting in too much inflation.

What if we were to experiment with this idea but with a lower percentage of DAO crafting revenue? Like 1% - 5%? Evaluate the impact on inflation to decide whether it is worth continuing in the future for future rounds.

Some of this inflation will be offset by the additional crafting that people will end up doing because of these incentives.


We could also give out limited edition skins as rewards. We could make them tiered in fashion and in “cost”. The amount minted would not be pre-determined. Rather, it would be however many could be minted with the 25% of the total alchemica collected. That alchemica would “buy” the NFT which would be awarded to the winners. The alchemica could then be burnt perhaps? These skins could then give additional LRS in the future and be sold on the open market similar to the LEGA. Just spitballing here as I agree that the inflation could be a problem!


What if we make a pact from the beginning, that the DAO burns half of what it wants to give out, when dealing with it’s alchemica.

Mechanic wise, I would really like to see “uniqueness” calculated into the mix. It would be a very fun game mechanic, trying to make sure that no one else was doing what you were doing, with people moving around walls and other shenanigans, at the last second.

Overall, I think we should 100% most definitely do Parcel Rarity Faming, but we should commission a study first, and get some professional numbers made up ASAP.

If we do this well, we create a fun side quest that creates more market mobility. If we do it wrong, it’s just feedback.

Picking a team to make the numbers work, would be priority one, IMHO.


I really like the overall concept of this idea. Similar to the concerns others have had, I would be more hesitant about further rewarding players for installations that are already yield-driven (harvesters, reservoirs, altars) - as I think the incentive to build these will ultimately be driven by the economics of the yield they produce, rather than a rarity reward.

I’m all for rewarding rarity of decorations, tiles, limited edition installations, and other fun curiosities that PixelCraft invents. Doing so offers an alternate style of play/investment outside of the yield-focused spreadsheet-fest that is harvesting.


Seems to me that it fits the decorations well, but I think adding utility too golden altars and tiles is a bad idea. These were always sold as purely aesthetic items, adding utility to them now is unfair.

I think Moon just summarized perfectly how I feel about this, he was just spot on. The solution to an inflation and extraction problem is not to direct extra rewards to those who invested and are already getting rewarded proportionally (channelling, harvesting when it’s out, etc). It’s also not a great retention solution either, cause the only people you’ll attract and keep in the ecosystem are those looking for yield, and will leave as soon as the yield it’s not worth it (which will arguably happen faster with this mechanic). Moreover, I also agree with others that aesthetic items should remain aesthetic only to be a more effective alchemica sink (i.e. spending alchemica on stuff that gives you a game benefit, not necessarily a financial gain).


I was figuring that there must be a way to give a generic value to things, and then use a modifier to get the final score, so that the base rarity of installations and aesthica is represented, and then it is modified by how rare it is to have that particular combo of those items. If you do it on a per item basis, this makes the person who has the most L9 anything, get the most point s for that type of installation, but doesn’t boost most people, who have a normal amount of something.

Normal behavior doesn’t get you to the top in this model. Buying some of every type of thing, and having an overbuilt parcel… definitely extremely rare. Lock down one type of aesthetica and load it up on a rainbow humble with an L9 wall around your 4 L9 harvesters and reservoirs, golden altar, and maybe a vortex? Probably unique, definitely hit all the bases, you’re probably in the rarified air.

How would you feel if the yields from parcel rarity farming, were more bling?

This might be a nice place to introduce autogenerated unique decorations, that are not available by crafting or by auction/raffle.

Make 7-9 different variations to the design, put them in tiers, where the godlike ones simply have more layers of variations, as is done with normal NFTs.

Commons would just be the item, uncommons would have one variation, rares would have two, and so on, with the Godlikes having 5 of the seven to 9 available variations, and the absolute winner of the whole thing, would get the full set of variations and a unique item.

We have artists in the community that could design these for us, and it would be a good first foray into community art.

1 Like

I just express my feeling as new member:

  • we can’t inflate alchs more than now, we lost a lot in terms of price, who stake alch on lps knows and wants to not be rekt rn;
  • love the limited edition skin idea;
  • burn half of DAO alch for each payout is a good idea imo;
  • different leaderboards for each kind of parcel is a good idea;
  • aesthetic items should be useful too (like you move faster or you have different colors for something, not necessarily need to be used to raise profits), not just aesthetic;
1 Like

I’ve been thinking about this more, and my conclusion has been that it’s too early so start attaching financial yield to items that were designed to be aesthetic only.

Utility? Yes, we can experiment with that. But putting a yield tag on decorations, tiles, and other installations that are non-yielding at such an early stage in the game would defeat the purpose of making them non-yielding.

I also strongly agree with the sentiment above that the DAO should not be spending its Alchemica in this way.

If the DAO really wants to add this mechanic, why not LP the Alchemica earned so far (paired with GHST) and give away GLTR instead of the Alchemica itself?

But ultimately I think it’s too early to add in this mechanic, since the game is still very early stage and is lacking in more robust social features (which is ultimately what will give value to the aesthetica).


Better, although we have to be careful not to dilute aesthetic items too much if we want to give their owners bragging rights (which is one of the things that gives value to some of those items in other games). Someone mentioned a leaderboard and badges (maybe we can add the ability to display your land/gotchi’s badges on your parcel?), something along those lines seems like a better idea to me.

1 Like

So… focus on getting the Community Art Taskforce initialized, before even talking about how much art one has collected :smiley:

Is there someone at PC that would be the recommended liaison for such a group?

Could this be a mechanic which would involve district mechanics. Districts would compete on rarity and on vanity votes and also most traffic. Prices allocated to District in the form of world wonders?

Just in case you hadn’t thought of this angle…

You don’t need anyone’s permission to set up a contest. The groups in a district could easily organize their own events with their own rules and prizes and methods of acquiring and distributing prizes.

It could work like a series of parcel pageants, where the winner of the district then goes on to compete for the best in citadel.

It could be ridiculous and campy and psychedlic, and fun. Or, we could add up how much money you spent on getting more money so you can spend more and get more and… nah, that reminds me too much of real life :smiley:

1 Like

Hello, I have an idea. There can be a pubg style competition where the last survivor will win the prize. For example Entry fee fomo, fud, alpha and cake. The top 3 winners can be awarded 20% 10% 5% of these entrance fees respectively. the remaining 65% is burned. In addition, +5 +3 +1 kinship can be given to 3 winners. In this way, it makes an extra sense for a person with a strong character to hire him. I have many ideas that can be added or subtracted, but it takes time to write. Kind regards

1 Like

If you can make up a cool plan, it would not be very hard to organize people to participate. The only thing hard about the one you have there, is you are trying to give kinship, which would be a tough thing to get the group to agree to. For a community based project, I think a stack of glitter LPs would be an excellent prize pool. Very cheap to contribute, and the prize pool would automatically grow over time.

1 Like

maybe land rarity farming should also include something more subjective, where people can vote for which parcels they think are the coolest!

i can hear you think, this could be easily manipulated, and therefore maybe the reward should be a wearable that is just for looks and does not add any utility like +BRS or benefits.

it could still be manipulated, but if the prize item(s) aren’t tradable i don’t see people put much resources towards e.g. paying people to vote for them.

introduces more engagement in the verse and gives people a reason to make cool parcel designs. Also even somewhat of a ‘utility’ for decorations and tiles!

This is an interesting idea, but I think land is an NFT with very high homogeneity. The contract cannot judge whether it is beautiful or not through numerical values. If the player has more connected lands, it is regarded as rare, so the value of the land will be higher. Very big differentiation, the player with one of the biggest estates will be the Land Rarity champion