I think we could proceed with a Sig Prop even if the voting-power-issue is not resolved yet (if we really want/ must hasten things up… (for pressing economic reasons like prevention of depreciation of Alchemica)
but - as also mentioned somewhere in the Discord Dao-discussion – there should be definitely more options regarding the auction/raffle-split.
I think that it is reasonable to go forward with only 8000 parcels in the upcoming distribution #3.
I strongly endorse a auction/raffle-split of 50:50.
My guess is, that both of these measures would be favorable to the GBM-auction-action and overall parcel-prices.
I would allocate 50% of the revenue to the Rarity Farming Rewards Pool and decrease therefore the share to the Aavegotchi DAO to 10%. (since there is already enough GHST idle)
I appreciate that the intention of the land auction 3 Sigprop is to help keep things moving and try strike a balance between what has been discussed previously and what is achievable by devs but a fundamental flaw in our DAOs voting mechanism seems like something major to be rectified (to me at least) before we even hold any kind of Sigprop too.
To take an extreme example, under the current mechanism I could go start a quick forum thread with the proposal “Quadruple the playdrop alchemica quantities” which would likely gain a lot more support than it would if owners maintained full voting power. Sure it probably still wouldn’t pass but it’d still be a far more skewed result than what our most invested and to date most supportive members would vote for.
Again, not against the sigprop but just keen to hear some more info from PC themselves on feasibility of rectifying the voting mechanic before we get too close to a coreprop.
EDIT: Coderdan has indicated an approximately 14 day turn around on a fix in discord DAO discussion channel. With this in mind I personally wouldn’t be against a Sigprop progressing now as long as we clarify the following first:
Estimate of % borrowers make up in VP so it can be considered when assessing a close vote. I’d propose that this margin gets added to the differential required to win.
Poll on final quantity of parcels as this appears to be something that took most by surprise. Would be great if @stedari could raise this poll as I do believe he chose 8k in good faith but how the 8k was landed on was not entirely clear.
Repost of sigprop that contains these clarifications and the polled quantity
The approximate fix time for Snapshot is 14 days + Snapshot review time + whatever time it takes to implement after the review. This auction will be a $5M+ endeavor that needs significant lead-time from both technical and marketing perspectives. It’s my opinion that it’s in the best interest of all stakeholders to prepare adequately for the auction and a sig-prop is the first step.
The 8,000 Parcels is after a discussion with Pixelcraft about the feasibility and timing of an auction. This proposal would allow for a limited citaadel release with no bottom row or far right column districts. The 8 districts in the proposal would unite the map, form a complete rectangle, and offer a cohesive initial citaadel release (even if not the expected full map). The auctioned/raffled districts are in green and the white-out districts could be left out of the initial release to free up dev time.
Thanks for the clearer explanation on the how’s and whys. It is helpful when these are explained.
From what I’ve seen so far, the thing for a poll, would be the split between auction and raffle, as people have been quite varied in their thoughts on this, and it is very much a touchy subject, due to the reduction on the land quantity stacking with the tripling of the time between auctions. I’ve head arguments made for multiple options, that actually conflict in their reasoning, so it seems that more consensus is needed, is everyone is to feel that this has been a community process.
TL;DR - Date and Size seem locked, we just need a ratio poll now.
Aren’t we due for some wearables by now, as well? We really would do best in this coming growth cycle if we have a 1,2,3 punch of land, gotchis, rarity, wearables, on a schedule, so that new money knows it can go hard on a monthly DCA, and hit the ground running.
We can soften the effects of frens inflation, by doing a small haunt, and a small wearable set, all in a row, so that it flushes out the market and creates synergy between the asset classes.
We should be taking this opportunity that the delays have presented us, to provide an easy on ramp for new frens.
The NFT class as a whole has been getting inflated a lot already. If we keep introducing new wearables and gotchi, their value will not hold. Of course we have to introduce them as demand grows, but I do not think you can just place a specific schedule on this. If there is no new demand, there will just be endless NFT inflation.
The gotchi, wearables and land are the core of the gameplay in this and longer term holders should be rewarded for holding them, not get inflated and pay the price for people staking GHST. Why would I hold any gotchi or why would anyone buy any gotchi, if I can just wait on the next haunt in a few months and get them cheaper plus earn in a GBM auction?
If people want to get into the game, they can borrow a gotchi or buy one in the bazaar. If demand increases a lot there, I am all for a new haunt, but until then, I would always vote no.
I want to see everything get a usecase inside the game first, before we start inflating the NFTs, the core of aavegotchi, even more.
Great points made here about the snapshot voting power issue due to lending. I expect we’ll have that issue solved by next week at the latest. Just need some more tinkering (and syncing) with the subgraph.
As to the wider conversation about an appropriate size (original 10k plan or adjust) distribution, I will endeavour to provide some very specific up-to-date land availability statistics so we can make informed judgements more easily.
Actually, floor parcel prices are very cheap, some even lower than the auction price. Like with AGIP9, voting power was intentionally chosen to be lower than the perceived value. Floor prices should not reach voting power levels. Here the wearable voting power for comparison:
Common: +5 GHST
Uncommon: +10 GHST
Rare: +100 GHST
Legendary: +300 GHST
Mythical: +2000 GHST
Godlike: +10000 GHST
Those rates are offensively low and need to be fixed. They were made when the Maall even existed. That parcel VP is currently OK, but will eventually get out of whack as well. Gotchis at BRS value is a gross injustice as well, because it is using a linear scale on an exponential valuation.
We need some sort of system that is fluid and self adjusting. A 30 or 50 day MA would be just fine, with it defaulting to lifetime average, if there is less than five sales in that period.
Please put option in to do all the unauctioned land in the districts we already opened. We need that to finish our guild districts properly. Those of us who bought land 1 and 2, still want those other parcels, and the newbies can go nuts on the new districts.
I’m leaning towards 8k, but am also fine with 10k. Both I’m more in favor of a 70% / 30% split considering we have a surprise use for FRENS in the near future. The most important aspect as far as I’m concerned here is to fill-in the current Districts. I think there’s Guilds especially who would appreciate this.
coderdan mentioned it during the hangout yesterday. He didn’t confirm it would be drop or rarity tickets, but definitely a use for our FRENS. He also said it wouldn’t be for Parcels or Wearables which leads me to speculate we’ll be using our FRENS for an Installations raffle.