Next season of rarity farming

Not related to RF but to address the “stale” aspect of kin:

I did propose we freeze alch multiplier and assign multiplier based on position of a gotchi in the kin leaderboard.
(Discord: -2 thread)

This allow one to reward/add “kinship” as a prize (for games, quesst, or any other kind of new mechanics) and have 0 effect on emission (except by upgrading aaltar) making it no longer “stale”. However, it has following issue:

Tokenizing kinship for payment/reward for games won’t work:

  1. Top 1000 will not burn their kinship for games the same reason they won’t burn it now for channelling

  2. Kin has different value to gotchi in different leaderboard postion.

A1500 kin paying 1 kin to enter the game is not same as 500 kin paying 1 kin. 1 kin for 1500 is worth way more than 500 kin

  1. #2 means that rewarding a 1500 kin 1 kin is not same as reward a 500kin 1 kin (same reason cryptogotchi argue against new kinship potions)

This has yet to be solved…

1 Like

Let’s try to stay on topic here @reset. Thanks!

How would we rank the smithors? Is the Forge subgraph fully deployed?

yea, sorry. I tried to avoid it by using spoiler tag

1 Like

When you’re on your 4th comment in a row with no reply, it might be time to pump the brakes, king

1 Like

For rankings, I was thinking of making the competition a bit dynamic similar to the alchemica competition. Some quick ideas on this:

Total smithing level is only part of the equation. Track the delta of xp gained for each two week period. We could play with the variables across each two week period. An example of how this might look:

Round 1:
50% Weight to total smithing XP
50% Weight to smithing delta XP

Round 2:
65% Total smithing xp
35% Smithing delta xp

Round 3
80% Total smithing XP
20% Smithing delta XP

Round 4
30% Total smithing XP
70% Smithing delta XP

Those are just sample numbers. We would want to think more on what would have the most impact. Folding in the delta on XP would be great as it becomes less passive and encourages more activity in the forge during the competition. It also prevents the situation where we could again have “runaway” boards in which those who smithed first will always win and just keep compounding wins without contributing back into the ecosystem through alloy burn.

As an aside: the weighted concept would potentially be broadened into XP boards, but to a lesser degree. Once upon a time, delta boards were on the table. If there was a variable which factored in the delta on xp, even at a 10-15% weight, we might see some really nice action on an otherwise stagnant board.

1 Like

What about skipping the ghst and simply allocating whatever alloy the dao gets from smelting, to the rewards. Simple transfer of value from the casual forger to the most aggressive. Maybe have some schematics that go on top, for the top 50 or so?(would depend entirely on what the next release is composed of)

1 Like

The last season literally just finished. This is way too early to be extracting SO much value at such an early stage of development. I vote a definite no, even though I have top Gotchis which get paid out each time. IMO, we should be spending funds on growing out the user base first.


I can’t speak for the core RF. On the smithing board, exploring avenues to lessen the drain from the rewards coffers is something I’m keen on. Potentials:

Award schematics
Award alloy
Award Collab Land tokens. We could potentially make a rare pet schematic (it’s one with surplus cores) that is the collab land mascot. Partner with them and get some tokens from their initiative. It brings exposure to us, to them, and could make for nice rewards.
Award GHST

Any combination of above.


There doesn’t seem to be consensus at this point on whether we should have a smithing leaderboard, or how that would be paid. It seems like at this point in order to keep with our 3 RF a year schedule, we may be better off moving forward with a sigprop for a June 1 start date maintaining the old leaderboard allocations, and then if the Forge team (or anyone else) wants to submit a detailed proposal for the smithing leaderboard in the interim we could tack it on, or spin it off as it’s own leaderboard (akin to the alchemica leaderboard competition). Thoughts @stedari


I tend to agree, but Im thinking that maybe the first one, as its a tester, could come up with a way to fund itself. Maybe do a run of Trophy schematics(artifact) and use the funds from that to bootstrap it?

A single item raffle, for a welding style helmet, for forge set, thats also a mask, would be perfect.

Or, give forge stuff for forge competition? Maybe its just that the forge leaderboard gets 10% of every new schematic, and its 1 month before you can buy it. Nice incetive, aligned with goal…

If you time it so the gbm is 1 week into rf, and the geodes are week 3, and the rf people have theirs 3 weeks before rf, you make a very strong value stream through the market.

This is a mechanic the forge team could simply implement themselves, by allocating 10% of supply to the top forgers. Its well within their 'promotional discretion"

i personally dont think we should be taking rewards from the Kinship leaderboard now that the proposal to have a trade off between channeling and RF kinship farming exists, on the contrary we should make it more rewarded.
I like the smithing level as another layer of RF, but rewarding top300 seems too little in a pool of 25k gotchis. specially since its a leaderboard that you can just directly pay2win at the expense of overall market alloy.
The argument for top300 was that there are only ~450 wallets with forge items, but how many more people would try to join and participate smelting and forging after this proposal would take shape ?
Is there a way to reward a % of the participants instead of a fixed number ? for example top 20% of forgers get ranked in RF ? instead of a fixed top300


I think the 300 tail is fair. Rarity farming right now only rewards the top 7,500 gotchis. That’s 30% of the total possible 25k.

If we were to use the same metric, 300 is 30% of how many users? 1000

I suspect most people use just one gotchi for forging so it’s more of a user-based metric than total gotchi count. Do we have more than 1000 active users who might actually play the forge or compete? At this stage of the market cycle, I would doubt it.

1 Like

There is a a difference.

Multiple users can pool their wearable into 1gotchi to smith/smelt to gain an advantage in ranking

You can’t do that on kinship

XP you technically can by using sacrifice but you lose a gotchi in the process and ability to channel

BRS technically you can by sending wearable to 1 gotchi
But each slot is limited to 1 wearable (you can’t stack)
so there is a limit to how much you can pool

Smithing does not have a pool limit or any penalty like XP.

In fact, it incentivize pooling:

Higher smithing level cost less GLTR

This means higher smithing level cost less per Smithing EXP(skill point) which makes this a very uneven competition

1 Like

1 User with 100 gotchi is not same as 1 User with 1 gotchi

I think smithing comp is closer/similar to alch comp since its a pooled competition

However, alch comp does not have a smithing level which reduced cost per rank point as you level up

1 Like

This happens with classic RF, too. Players can swap wearables, climb the ranks together, and split the profits! Is this actually a problem? Teamwork making the dreamwork.

If you run the numbers on how much the smithing skill benefits you, it is insignificant.

As an example:

It costs 2.6m GLTR to forge a mythical at level one. At level 15, it costs 1.7m GLTR. Mind you, getting to level 15 requires forging > 4 mythical items. That difference is $7.76.

At the end of the day, regardless of whether or not people team up, is we’re driving deflation into the wearables market by incentivising users to forge and burn alloy / essence.

Looks like you didn’t read what I said about BRS?
Why are you responding by selectively quoting part of what I said?

We can’t have a proper discussion if you do this

This response does not seems to address the statement you are quoting me on.

(Or you are missing the point)

But I will take what you said at face value.

Here is an example of what I was trying to demonstrate:

2 wallet each spend 1000$ on competition

wallet A: Level 20
wallet B: Level 1

wallet A and wallet B receives different amount of skill point for the same competition.

This doesn’t seem to be correct in spirit of a “spending” competition to reward different points for the same amount spent

Is the forge team declaring smithing level benefit are insignificant ?

Who designed the benefit for smithing level? Was it me?

So by your own statement, is it fair to say smithing level are basically useless?

Are you just making something out of nothing?

If wallet A lvl 20 spends $1,000 they’d get maybe $8 worth of smithing xp more as they would save on GLTR.

Is this actually a problem?

We talked it over a lot and ultimately decided the smithing skill as a way to save on Forging was meant to be minor. The intention is to allow for further protocol developments to leverage the skill in different ways. Games, too, can pick up the skill and integrate it in fun ways.