I think we can update kinship mechanics, make it more like real life, where there is no such thing as everyday growth, and resources should be earned and build.
We need something closer to original kinship, when it was possible to burn kinship on channeling. The burning rate can be adjusted by DAO and will depend on development stage and market conditions
steps to take (numbers are arbitrarily)
right now gotchi can earn +2 kinship per day, if we also make altar channeling cost 4 kinship, it will make your gotchi work 2 days to farm once, which will efficiently reduce farming in half if you want to hold your KIN levels
increase KINship rarity farming reward (+10%?): we can do this if we want to incentivise people a bit more not to burn KIN
economical effects
it will make UBI alchemica inflow more elastic, during bad times it will be more beneficial accumulate KIN and during good time you can give it up, but get a part of game growth reward
higher level altars are much more desirable now!
suddenly KINSHIP leaderboard is much more meaningful and interesting
for discussion: I own 1041 gotchis and 642 lands
Cheers
It makes sense from a lore perspective (Gotchi’s expend effort channelling and get tired when you make them do it!) as well as the economic benefit of reducing channelling emissions.
Increasing kinship rewards in next RF season would definitely make even less channeling happen so very open to doing that too!
By far the simplest patch I’ve personally seen so far too. And it will make all the nerds get out their spreadsheets again to formulate a new strategy!
Thanks Yanik for reviving discussion around this mechanic
Great idea but this will do very little to slow issuance in the short term and we need something stablise the economy before combat release. If we went ahead with this and my proposal to increase spillover then I would approve.
The Kinship mechanic needs to be changed. Right now, it’s too simple and no-brain. No skill or effort is involved, and no strategy is required.
I’m not sure about the proposed changes, but our community can design robust mechanics around Kinship. I want to make Kinship a more strategic game, where players must carefully consider their actions to maintain their advantage.
Note: I’m the Top1 Kinship gotchi owner and might be biased in this discussion.
How do you figure that? +2 Kinship potions cost 600+ GHST. This proposal wants to deduct 4 Kinship to channel a couple of cents worth of alch. The least we can do is give them their whole couple cents worth of alch for channeling. It will have a tremendous and immediate impact on channeling, short term and long term. If this gets implemented, there is absolutely no need for your proposal to be implemented as well.
Yes, our potion chugger supreme
Thank you @yanik for turning this into a proposal. The last couple times I brought it up, I didn’t think it would actually get that much support. Let’s do this
EDIT: @HARDKOR recently mentioned that channeling is currently a kinship-granting interaction, similar to petting, chugging, and dressing. Would it make sense for this proposal to include removing channeling from the list of kinship-granting interactions, or at least to address this oddity lore-wise? On the one hand, it makes total sense for gas purposes to continue to accept channeling as a Kinship-granting interaction. On the other hand, what does it say about Gotchis? What can we do lore-wise for it to make sense to deducts 4 Kinship and add 1 Kinship in the same tx? Is this some deeply rooted psychological issue of Gotchis? Maybe an abandonment issue (like how their tokens “abandoned” them, when their position got liquidated, and they got turned into a Gotchi), or a codependency issue? Do they want so badly for someone to interact with them that they don’t even care about what kind of interaction it is? “My master cares enough about me to hurt me…at least he is not indifferent”.
Please someone help to come up with an explanation before it gets even darker
Ser at this rate of dark turns we will need a society for the protection of gotchis
Very much love the idea of kinship burns, would really add more strategy to the whole paradigm of channeling and leaderboards. Understandable it didn’t make it into the first version, but it was a very solid economic loop imo even as the initial concept we had way back when.
I think giving the DAO a burn rate to adjust would solve the alchemica question very neatly, without treading on land value much or at all. Might also be nice to have certain carrots and sticks on both ends? For example: the longer you don’t channel, the bigger your channel bang for buck will be, whereas if you channel day in day out, your gotchi gets “fatigued” and gives less alchemica for a while until you give it some rest and pet it a few times? Sort of like rested experience bonuses in other MMO games.
I am a fan of this idea, interesting and will shake up the kinship leaderboards, of which there is really no way to crack if you’re not already there.
This along with an increase to the divisor of the channelling base rate would:
-immediately reduce inflation
-make for more interesting gameplay
-increase value of high kin gotchis
-be fair for ALL gotchis and aaltar levels
-be simple to implement
Since there was already some discussions about RF leaderboards becoming stale without the introduction of new wearables, I support the proposal as it is a potential remedy of channeling related alchemica emission problem and for making the leaderboard more dynamic.
Could you explain this further? Whether it’s the base-rate or @Immaterial 's spillover adjustment, why do you guys feel like this proposal on it’s own is not enough? If you want to shake things up in the Kinship leaderboard, why would you take away from the incentive to channel? Or to phrase it differently, who do you think would channel? Certainly no one (unless by accident) in the top 300. The value proposition is just not there. I would certainly no longer channel any of my Gotchis, not even my top 3000 ones. So if we implement this proposal AND one of the nerf proposals, there will be no Kinship leaderboard shake up at all, because high Kinship Gotchis would just stop channeling for good.
For this to actually have an effect on the Kinship leaderboard, it needs to be balanced in way where the decision of whether to channel or not is not completely obvious, even for the top 300. Otherwise it won’t effect the Kinship leaderboard…all it would do is keep high Kinship Gotchis out of the verse.
Interestingly, on the very long term of things, you’d have kinship rarity farm rewards and kinship gotchi baazaar values almost acting as a “backstop” for alchemica, with the entire thing becoming a big pool of game theory and arbitrage. The concept, if tuned well by the DAO and embraced by the market forces that be, could truly be almost a “bonding curve lite” for alchemica and kinship both.
The reason we still need a nerf proposal is because as cool and interesting as this idea is, it will not predictably lower inflation. Yes it will have an effect but how much? How fast? Will it increase or decrease volatility?
I am in the camp that this is fast becoming an emergency so we need a guaranteed nerf at this point.
This divisor idea was proposed over in coderdans thread and well liked by many people. Currently the channeling modifier is the square root of kinship / 50. We should increase the number from 50. This will have an immediate effect, make it a longer curve, and drive more value to high kinship gotchis while a fair solution.
That is exactly what it will do. Please feel free to explain why you believe otherwise.
You explained how alch issuance from channeling scales with the square root of Kinship. Meaning higher Kinship = more issuance. That is 100% correct and part of the reason why this proposal would be so effective. This proposal would (without any further changes) make almost all high Kinship Gotchis stop channeling immediately after it got implemented (and yes, “almost” and “high” are relative and no one can accurately predict those numbers at this time, which is exactly the same for any of the other proposals). So you don’t just stop a certain percentage of Gotchis from channeling, you actually stop the highest issuing Gotchis from channeling, decreasing issuance (and thereby inflation) dramatically.
How can that be in question? Why would anyone continue to channel a Gotchi at a cost of 4 Kinship (to get between 30 and 90 cents of alch), when you’d need to spend 1000 GHST on a potion to get that Kinship back. So to answer your question of “how fast?”: The very same day. This would not at all be a gradual process. People would make up their minds of whether or not they are willing to take that hit on the Kinship leaderboard or not. Trying it out, or doing it maybe one day, but not the other day would not make sense economically. What am I missing?
Maybe I didnt use the correct words… yes, it will reduce inflation. But how much will it reduce inflation? Tell me the exact percentage inflation will be reduced, will it match the current outflows on quickswap? Yes all the points you made are correct - it will stop high kin gotchis from channelling but how many? Would it be more profitable to channel when alch prices rise? Would this just create a pump and dump environment? This proposal cant answer these
All of the other proposals have an exact percentage of minimum impact. This simply does not. Its a cool idea dont get me wrong, I would love to see this implemented into the game but its just not the golden bullet to solve inflation
The guy with the most gotchis is suggesting it, seems like it might not be that unpalatable. We might lose the guys who view the game as “put gotchi up for rent forever and walk away”, but… maybe those people aren’t the best kind to be in an economy with in the first place?
From a “whats their angle” perspective, I give extra credence to a Yanik idea on this, as he has max gotchi and is managing them himself via the normal rental market AND scholars, and he has lots of gotchis in kinship RF, and he’s big enough to care about the entire economy, as if it were his own bag.
It is definitely a more subtle change than the other proposed, but it is also the only with with a “hard choice”
Not sure how hard this lever can be pulled… definitely need some numbers on the effects.
What do think about adding a new formula for the base-rate to this proposal to achieve both goals? I have no time atm to make a full model, but a first suggestion (merely a starting point) would be something like this:
where
m is your multiplier for alch issuance
m_min is the minimum multiplier
f_r is the reduction factor
Depending on the values you choose for m_min and f_r, you can make sure you get the immediate overall reduction in issuance that you’re looking for, while also providing a higher incentive (because of the square instead of the square root) to channel high Kinship Gotchi. If someone were to channel their high Kinship Gotchi (i.e. sacrifices their spot on the Kinship leaderboard), they’d be rewarded with a much higher amount of alch. This would have at least the chance to shake up the Kinship leaderboard while providing a minimum reduction in issuance (with a high f_r (e.g. > 300) and a low m_min (e.g. < 0.5)).
I love this idea. I strongly believe adjusting the base rate is the simplest, most effective, most fair solution to inflation. What that equation ends up being I have no clue, I’m not a big maths guy. But ya, adjusting the base rate and adding Yaniks proposal to the mix would serve two things 1.) it would predictably bring inflation to a desired level and 2.) like Hardkor said - it would create the first hard choice in aavegotchi. Leading to gotchi specialization, a more diverse value set in the ecosystem, and less gotchis channeling.
I agree. I believe that is the main objective of the proposal
steps to take (numbers are arbitrarily)
economical effects
Is this some deeply rooted psychological issue of Gotchis? Maybe an abandonment issue (like how their tokens “abandoned” them, when their position got liquidated, and they got turned into a Gotchi), or a codependency issue? Do they want so badly for someone to interact with them that they don’t even care about what kind of interaction it is? “My master cares enough about me to hurt me…at least he is not indifferent”.
