Currently owner gets 50% refund when instantly destroying installations. Sounds like the amount of Alchemica stored in the Great Portal needs to be dynamic in order to always be prepared for all installations to be destroyed.
This would end up locking up a lot of alchemica in the Great Portal which would be good for price stability.
With that issue resolved it opens up possibilities for slowing down destroying installations and using GLTR to instantly destroy installations.
As mentioned during the DAO discussion, the Great Portal currently holds 1% of the Max Supply of each Alchemica as its max capacity. Any balance in excess of this will be ārecycledā during Alchemical Channeling, to prevent new tokens from being minted (which will increase the total supply).
This mechanic will help Alchemica eventually stabilize at an equilibrium supply, where building, channeling, and burning find a happy medium.
Similar idea:
could it be a possibility to give the option to swap the āold installationā for a new one, that has a lower Level? (maybe as an alternative to choose from, a second option to the 50%-Alchemica-refund)
For example:
I ādestroyā a Lvl6-FOMO-reservoir and receive a Lvl5-FOMO-reservoir(or maybe a Lvl-4), which I can put immediately on a new Parcel.
Thus, a certain amount of Alchemica (not far from 50%) is still āburnedā, while the Alchemica in the Great Portal remains untouched.
I think this is actually the answer. I think if we want to get rid of the refund, we need to offer some sort of 100% back for 30 days or something along those lines. Only for installations that have already already been built so we donāt rug people who have already built up their parcels.
This is the part that bugs me, all the numbers of what everything is to build is available yet a strange reliance on āWeāll just see where this goesā. This doesnāt seem to be a sustainable model, or at least itās only stable during bull markets, not good.
The black swan scenario of massive amounts of people selling installations is considered unlikely because that would mean people are giving up on the project, but this is not the case. Iām currently selling things from other projects to fund this one, and if a new and shinier project comes along then a sell run might actually occur. Technically that would be a protocol run.
But a system redesigned to be sustainable would allow the ecosystem to reinvigorate itself during bear markets. A system where the expenses/mechanisms are paid first, organizations are second, and players are paid in excess during spillover. This system has a disadvantage for the organizations as they are paid first currently. Currently the lights will always be on at the DAO and Pixelcraft, but the possibility of ecosystem failure is imminent. In the sustainable model, the game will always have the lights on, but the organizations may not be paid as much as theyāre used to. It might extend to not enough money is being given for dev pay. It also begs the question of how lean are these organizations?
Idk hopefully their model works.
The black swan scenario of massive amounts of people selling installations is considered unlikely because that would mean people are giving up on the project
People will sell once their parcels are empty. Thereās a good chance that this happens at the same time for a lot of people at the end of act 1.
Are there any new thoughts on the proposal to remove the refund? If the DAO plans to take action on this, it should be sooner rather than later, as it affects how players are planning their builds.
Just an updated on the Great Portal capacity ā as of today, the Great Portal holds:
47M FUD (4.7% of capacity)
24M FOMO (4.8% of capacity)
11.2M ALPHA (4.48% of capacity)
4.2M KEK (4.2% of capacity)
Currently, the GP is set to hold 1% of the Alchemica total supplies. Once it reaches that threshold, then recycling would be enabled for Alchemical channeling when the supply exceeds the threshold, reducing the inflation rate of Alchemica.
One potential upside of reducing/removing the demolish refund would be potentially lowering the Great Portal capacities, enabling us to reach ārecycling velocityā faster.
The main downside at this point is that some builders have already planned their builds to include the demolish reward.
But hoping we can make a yea/nay DAO decision on this topic soon, to give clarity to builders.
āAlchemica in GP (% of capacity)ā, āInstallations demolishedā, and āAlchemica returned via demolitionā would all be great additions to https://gotchiverse-analytics.vercel.app/
Those key values would aid this discussion a lot.
Thereās a bunch of other factors that will influence what people sell. If they have a lodge, the altar stays. If they have a high level altar, it probably stays.
If they slow built, they are nowhere near empty at end of act 1. There is only enough glitter to fast build about 25% of the land, so most will not be empty?
We can gauge a minimum lodge number by assuming all guilds will have at least one, and as many other people will have at least one.
H3 is likely to occur before end of act 1, so that will mean that high level altars will be of value.
This is a big dataset and surely I have missed other important factors. DAO bounty for modeling?
I agree we should take action on this. Most of the big builders, myself included, acknowledge we should prevent a bank run by eliminating the refund. I havenāt heard of any strong advocates to keep it. Could you share the data/models (if accessible) regarding total daily channeling emissions so we can calculate a safe threshold to initiate recycling?
Bankrun is already prevented by the limited amount of alch available for refunds.
Though, Iām not sure HOW MUCH? there would be at max in the GP? Also, that amount would be replenished constantly, so if the sentiment was demolishing then this replenishment would be constantly drained also, but demolishings would happen slowly.
When itās time for Act2, the there can be fully new rules for this imo.
1% of max supply is a gigantic amount (held at max in the Great Portal). 100million Kek , 250million Alpha, 500million Fomo & 1billion Fud. There is alchs in significant amounts for refunds already.
From a lore standpoint, it makes a heck of a lot of sense that the great portal might go under in the final great battle. This is a fabulous set up for Act 2 and it also means that people destroying installations in round ten are essentially acting like settlers that are preparing to venture into the great beyond, before the city is sacked.
Would it be so bad if the mechanics were simply supporting the lore? People want to know what the consequences of a battle areā¦ well there you goā¦ if you let them loot it, thereās no refund for you later, and thereās a chance your channeling gets disrupted if you donāt stop praying long enough to defend the citadel.
I agree we are WAY early to be making a big decision like this. Is there any data to suggest the likelihood of this happening? How many would have to withdraw from the Great Portal to significantly affect it? What would be the projected ārechargeā time for the Great Portal if it hit the āredlineā? IMO more data should be compiled before any actions are taken.
Itās very likely that most big farmers will be reaching land depletion around the same time (end of Act 1). This will have a negative impact on the price of alchemica & quite possible to exhaust the GP of all resource.
I donāt know if there is data to support this at the moment, but I do suspect weāll see more lands developed, especially once the replenishment rounds begin.
@coderdan I did like the idea floated previously to allow refunds of core installations like aaltars etc but not for the harvesters/reservoirs.
Can we begin to shape this discussion towards a few choices?
Are these the main ideas being presented?
The gotchiverse is an uninhabited desert, removing the recycling will impact the farming of other lands. Why do you want to handicap more those who invest in their lands, they are already so few.
Building is not very sexy, risky because the ROI is long, requires that the price of alchemica does not collapse and especially requires a substantial financial capital.
While on the other side, gotchis are super harvesters, whose kinship increases day by day, they donāt draw resources from the land, you can rent them for spillover, earn during the Rarity Farming and has a high resale value.
I think that deleting the refund is disastrous and the assumption that heavy builders will bank run is just speculation.
I am not a big fan of highly/very likely as the reason we should go ahead and make such, IMO, a drastic move so early on in the Gotchiverseās development. Yes IF the Great Portal was to have a run where 100ās of players with 100ās of level 9 installations all at once withdrew it would in fact negatively affect prices if they sold all/ most of their alchemica, but just how many would it take to deplete the Great Portal and how many are currently operating to be able to even accomplish this? With all the planned sinks and other uses in store for alchemica in the Gotchiverse would we not have mechanisms in place by that time to mitigate a lot of the risks? IMO this should be readdressed once we have the data to make a more informed decision because this seems more like a āknee jerkā reaction that we may likely vote on overturning/ reverting at a later date once all the proposed sinks are in place.
I think ābank-runā is not an apt analogy here.
A bank-run happens, when trust disappears, when FUD grips a majority of market-participants.
The analogy is enticing, because the case of The Great Portal running out of Alchemica seems similar. But a bank-run is a sudden event. It is a panic-phenomenon. An ā sometimes even deliberately - induced mass-formative psychotic episode.
My argument here is, that the recovering of Alchemica through demolition of installations will not be a sudden event. It will be very calculated. It will happen in an environment, that has proven to be resilient through the heterodoxity of expressed thoughts and transparency of market-mechanics.
What if I realize in the 8th round, that I have over-built somewhat? I will start to scale back, months before the end of Act 1.
What if I realize I have built too few installations to empty my parcels by the end of Act 1? Will I dismantle them only because the first chapter is ending?
Not everybody will be āon pointā, not everybody will want to be on point.
Contrary to the guesses of some speakers before, my guess is, that it is rather unlikely that a majority will have exhausted their parcels exactly or near the end of Act 1.
However I do not exclude the possibility of a ābank-runā-like event at the end of Act 1.
But I argue, that the discussion of this risk alone is probably enough to prevent it from happening.
Monitoring the probability of the occurance of a mass-event of this kind will certainly be crucial at the time round 8 or 9 arrives. If we deem the probability high by then, we could implement certain incentives for dismanteling installations earlier or later. That is, if we come to the conclusion that the market-forces alone cannot provide for a smooth solution.
The refund should stay.
Hello Frens,
What if instead of giving back alchemica, we give back the same installation but with a lower level ( half the price) with the possibility to be placed in another parcel. Motivated player would buy another parcel to benefit this refund, while others couldnt dump it in the market. We could also open sales of installations in the bazaar.
We could create a market for leveled installations. People who doesnt want to spend time on the verse could buy it straight in the baazar. It is fair for the big investors, doesnt create a bank run risk, and incentives players