Where should we send this, and in what format? What specific information is relevant to you?
This is ours, from the moment the playdrop ended. You can see quite clearly, the difference between 4 great players, about 20 average players, and 80 that kind of did something, but I would never rent to again, and 900 players who were an absolute waste of effort.
I think there is also another way how to handle this.
This is proposal (Stake2Play):
Create another staking contract, lets call it Stake2Play (we would have Stake for frens, Stake for glitter, and Stake2Play)
Non asset owner (Gotchi or Land) would have to stake aalchemica in this contract in order to be able to log into gotchiverse.
Staking would be time locked (as QI DAO is doing to lock QI for voting powers) for X amount of weeks (what time u usually detect bot?)… maybe 1 week is enough.
Player would have to stake aalchemica based on tokenomics…lets start with 100 FUD - 50 FOMO - 25 ALPHA - 10 KEK (this would be adjusted to price of FUD or KEK on the market. Amount neccesary to stake would reset every 24 hours / UTC) . I dont think we want more than 3-5 GHST of alchemica value staked for players in order to acess game.
So lets say we determine base amount to be based on FUD price. If FUD price is 0.01 GHST, than we ask 100 FUD - 50 FOMO - 25 ALPHA - 10 KEK). IF FUD price is 0.02 GHST, than we ask 50 FUD - 25 FOMO - 12,5 ALPHA - 5 KEK… and so on.
While alchemica is staked, user could play in gotchiverse. Player could unstake alchemica only after time period is finished…but will have to stake again in order to play.
Pixelcraft is still banning bots. We would leave 24 hours for appeal after ban, and if not appealed, this players staked aalchemica would be sent to burn adress.
If there is appeal on later date, and PC decides user was banned uncorrectly, we would provide alchemica from PC or DAO treasury to this user as a cashback of burned alchemica. I dont think there will be much cases, and honestly we have big alchemica treasuries at this point, so lets use it.
We could have both systems alive and evaluate which is more succesfull after certain time… Invites only vs Stake2Play.
What I dont like is to tell people what they should do with their alchemica. People invest time in the game, and they should be able to capitalise on that however they want to… Also “invites only” could slow down our growth significantly.
Benefits with Stake2Play:
Line incentives for players. Players do not want to sell alchemica, because their staked tokens will be worth less after unlock. Player ideally want price of alchemica to grow, because they have some staked.
We handle BOT issue. I think we would be able to detect bot before it extracts value of alchemica locked. Because we burn this alchemica after ban… we create positive effect on alchemica price if we are botted.
Stake2Play provides arbitrage for aalchemica market. Because we ask to stake certain amount of alchemica based on price of FUD or KEK…market will always search of equilibrium based on tokenomics.
Just my 2 sats, thanks for considering.
This is frickin fabulous, too. I like the howabout both you threw in there 
We should be open to trying things out during the alpha. Try it, test it, evaluate results, make progress.
But… never get addicted to the things that aren’t serving us as a whole, just because it’s become easy money, for some.
I like the Stake2Play option.
Small change users would have to stake LP tokens, this way they are providing liquidity. Liquidity providers are the most impacted by players selling and non-reinvesting. Ecosystem problems get alleviated if these two player types are economically alignment.
If user’s liquidity is locked up on a time bases, to make them eligible to play it would incentivize them to reinvest but not force them. (They would be earning GLTR as well) The amount of LP would have to be worked out. Maybe the amount they LP dictates how much Alchemica they can extract from the game.
Example: player provides 1000 FUDs worth of liquidity staked for 1 week. They would be eligible to collect 1000 FUDs worth in the game for that 1 week. Of course they could sell all their alchemica at the end of the week, but then they would be out and could not play anymore.
Guilds or sponsors could stake on behave of a scholars, this means Guilds and Sponsors would need to trust their scholars, since the Guilds/Sponsors has financial skin in the game.
Hey Dan,
I was messing with your tool. I have some questions. It seems from the results that we are treating players that sell Alchemica as a negative thing.
What constitutes a bad player?
Are we doing this because people are botting or are we here to punish people that play the game but don’t want to hold Alchemica?
This is of concern to me because I don’t think you can have a successful game where you expect to tell people what they have to do with what they earn. Furthermore a situation where we punish or ban those that dont want to Hodl.
I think this is even more negative considering we dont even have many things for players to do with Alchemica. Did we just boot the game and expect people just to hold the token when there isn’t much for them to do with it?
You also state that no matter the amount of sinks for Alchemcia that players would still just sell it. If thats the case are we not just in a futile 0 sum game.
I figured that if the game was fun and had cool NFTs that people would consider crafting and investing. Seems the biggest problem is Alchemica sinks, yet you just casually dismissed it as something that people would just ignore.
Just looking for some clarity. Is this really about bots or about people dumping Alchemica?
I feel like LPing is next step, where we could move the “gates”. LPing is “scary” for some people, while locking tokens is less “scary” …on the other hand you would teach scholars LPing, and so possible way how to earn with aalchemica.
Anyway, original proposal wanted to address mainly bot problem. As long as we “catch” the bot before it extracts staked amount of aalchemica, we are golden.
The invite only system and this system is not mutually exclusive, they both could live together.
Him: “We are not looking for a solution for token prices.”
You: “Aren’t you just worried about token prices and trying to punish people who lower them?”
Once again, it’s like you didn’t read the words of the person you’re responding to. Dan answers your questions clearly in the last four paragraphs of his post:
The first problem is that it’s far too easy for a botter to switch accounts after being banned and join the Gotchiverse used a borrowed Gotchi with a new account.
The second problem is that many players treat the Gotchiverse as just another P2E game and seek to extract as much value from it as quickly as possible. Even if we had many more items for them to craft, they wouldn’t craft them.
To reiterate, we are not looking for a solution for token prices. We have plenty of new crafting recipes that will be deployed over the coming months.
What we are trying to solve here is a form of decentralized identity (trust by proxy), without imposing any forms of traditional KYC on players.
Problem 1: Botters
Problem 2: People who have no interest in engaging with the game, but will only extract regardless of what is available
To re-reiterate, Dan is not focused on token prices, but on solving/minimizing problem 1 (botters), and problem 2 (unengaged extractors). The solution is developing a non-doxing pseudo KYC trust system.
Exactly my thinking. Very well said. I think Stake2Play should be something we implement as well.
I am mostly concern that invites only system slow our growth more than we think. We might not get traction that way, and we need people to talk about Aavegotchi.
So, I’d like to add in another layer top all of this… the rentalOperator
Till now, this has basically been a fuedal system.
It’s time to introduce the upwardly mobile middle class, to this experiment.
AL had a great idea with wristbands, that I want to plagiarize part of this for…
Use Dan’s full idea, as is.
Make the Stake2Play generate wristbands, that are for the day, and can be transferred one time.
Put serious effort into turning the best scholars into managers of gotchis, that you give ten gotchis or more to, and they channel them for 10%, then manage the rentals, vet players, and dole out their wristbands. If they rent to too many bots, they lose the abily to stake for wristbands.
The benefit to this is that now we are getting our gotchis channeled for 10%, and our rentals managed for 10%, and the AAAgents are doing the vetting, and the AAAgents(RentalOperators) are well on the path to ownership.
This also incentivizes large stakes by AAAgents, as if they want to be trusted with lots of gotchis, they need lots of wristbands. The size of their stake, will determine their rate of earning potential. The more they lock up, the more of the AAAgent market they can lock up.
There is a huge metabenefit to this as well - we will be putting the hustlers and community builders and communicators into the fast lane to ownership, and who better than that, to be brand ambassadors for how amazing Aavegotchi has been for them!
I like parts 1 and 2, but I think #3 should be flexible for guilds and other misc rental organizations. They should have the flexibility and choice in how to design their operations past initial cartridge receival.
I do have a question for how vetting would look like for future cartridges if players have no on-chain history to rely on, like how can I reliably give out cartridges on an ongoing basis in that scenario? We could do discord vetting at VGG for sure, but I just don’t see how I can objectively do that unless players had some trial period or a second chance to improve a bad player history.
So the concept of gotchiverse alchemica wristbands and guild wristbands are two ideas I’ve been floating around with a bit, like they are both applicable for tiering out benefits in either the gotchiverse or respective guilds in my mind. LP token history is now provable with tools like knowyourscholar (KYS standards? Lmao) being built out, so I don’t see why alchemica wristbands can’t be conceptualized in some way. Ideas on some design stuff:
Embedded NFT – much like an aavegotchi with spirit force, a wristband could be embedded with a LP token position? Drawing off that idea of Stake2Play w/ or w/o $GLTR accrual, could be very useful. Bonus if relative scarcity can be fitted into it in some way, where diff bands unlock diff perks. These should be incentivized to be added to over time ideally.
Craftable item – this way it could sit in any scholar’s inventory and be used to gate for long-term access, provide some future benefits to potentially gated events, like if PC or DAO square ever hosted events non-gotchi owners could get some temporal access to something. This would also be an immediate alchemica sink, maybe it could automate to an LP positon – im thinking out loud.
Guild issued bands – This is highly specific to each individual guild and can be tailored to have unique benefits based upon design and implementation. The main idea is that on-chain commitments to the gotchiverse can be easily identified and rewarded in ways that guilds should be encouraged to experiment with, like in leaderboard design and benefit tiers that coincide with services offered.
-AL
The tool is still in development. He needs to implement exchanging to GHST the same as holding alch as well as a few other things.
This is an alpha though, and basically all alphas ever for games have restricted who they let in.
I think it’s about both.
It’s 100% flexible… I’m just saying that we should put effort into finding and activating these players. Us owners, are already starting to do it ourselves, and the natural progression is that scholars will undercut us, so we may as well just cut to the chase and give them the “how to undercut us” speech.
I was really glad that today in the portuguese discord voice chat (funny the most active voice chat), they were discussing this proposal and the most active players were quite happy with the proposal, and many of them which were on the fence of purchasing land, are pretty convinced on the case of buying and betting in aavegotchi long term prospect.
That’s awesome! Very encouraging to hear.
I stated that there is a group of players that exists who, no matter how many fun items we have to craft to enrich our world, would rather sell Alchemica they earn to cash out for fiat.
Alchemica is essentially a new marketing budget for the Gotchiverse and the Aavegotchi NFT protocol as a whole. We should be using this marketing budget to attract players who are excited about Aavegotchi and willing to invest into the ecosystem.
In tradfi gaming, they use metrics like “player acquisition cost”, “player retention rate”, and “converstion rate” to measure success. These are easy for them to measure because they simply spend USD on advertising and see who bites.
We’re not spending USD – we are giving Alchemica. And a successful “conversion” is when a player who previously knew nothing about Aavegotchi decides to purchase an NFT from our ecosystem, whether it’s a tile, a parcel, or even a Gotchi.
What I am suggesting with the Caartridges is that we allow Guilds and Patrons the ability to reward players who have converted with continued play time, while guiding new players to join Guilds that will help educate them on more nuanced aspects of Aavegotchi.
Altars and Tiles were live for more than a month, which was ample time to see how new players would react to our ecosystem. Some scholars definitely took the leap to “convert” and craft them. Some did not. That is life.
What we should be doing at this stage is perfecting our funnel so that a higher % of new players convert into our ecosystem because they understand the project and the roadmap. Instead of just selling immediately to fiat.
What is wrong with curating the types of players we want to have in our game? Players are looking for certain types of games. Why can’t games seek certain types of players?
Players are allowed to do whatever they want. No one is preventing them from selling their Alchemica (although some have suggested it). But if they sell 100% of it over a certain period of time (a month, for example) with no conversion, I think we should consider carefully whether that’s the type of behavior we’d like to continually encourage.
It’s akin to setting up a Google Ads campaign selling Yoga Pants, but you’re targeting men in their 50’s. The conversion just ain’t gonna happen, so you need to keep tweaking it.
While I think the Stake2Play option is interesting (although could be technically daunting, as we’re mixing smart contracts and Alchemica prices, without an oracle) at this stage I’m against imposing any sort of slashing on banned players. Mainly because the support requests would be overwhelming.
How can we prove with 100% accuracy that the player has been botting? Botters are always evolving their techniques to appear more humanlike. It is very likely that we’ll end up banning real players and slashing their funds. Inevitably they will create support tickets complaining that their funds got slashed. Then we will have to sift through all of those, creating mountains of work to solve an almost impossible problem.
Bot fighting is always fraught with false positives, and while currently these false positives are easy enough to handle, introducing slashing would exacerbate the issue and lead to a very negative experience for those wrongly accused.
The main limitation to growth in the Gotchiverse is the number of Gotchis, and so far we haven’t seen any indication that utilization rates of Gotchis is saturated.
Scarcity increases demand, and I think that experimenting with an invite-only system could actually end up being a catalyst for growth. Like how everyone wants to get into Berghain but can’t due to their insane gatekeeping.
It makes sense because they are actually in direct competition with the bots.
The success stories of scholars that have built up in game assets and made themselves a little gotchi empire is a much better advert for the game than the bot invasion or players that just extract. And the fact that they are early means they have the chance of carving themselves out a piece of the pie that could be worth a fair amount if the game eventually goes viral.
Harambe had a really nice idea earlier tonight.
The DAO could fund a dedicated bot hunter, to be the one doing the legwork on verification of bot activity, and be responsible for keeping the false positives in the game and the bots banned.
It’s manual work best done by a single person, ,preferably one with a vendetta and the correct skills and tools to be a well armed zealot.
This gets us less false positive more confirmed kills and takes tons of pressure off of PC, on the individual verification end of things. PC makes the net, our inspector empties it.
Additionally… the DAO can pay a community member in GHST, and keep this all in the loop, instead of wasting PC DAI or PC talent. PC talent is the most valuable resource in this game. Lets not waste it.
Yup. Even If we look to the guilds to tell us who the best players are isn’t that just a list of the best human extractors? Just cuz they are in a guild and being active doesn’t mean they are crafting tiles or buying nfts. I have lots of good scholars (as in they make me lots of alch) but I’m pretty sure 100% of their alch is getting sold immediately.
If only there was a way to incentivize people to become gotchigang. Stake your alch for a chance to win a gotchi or something.