Proposing Adjustments to H2 Figures and Details

In the above link, our dear devs have proposed launching H2, but with so many variables and big time constraints, the community was presented a bundled vote that resulted and wide and mixed reactions.

After a lot debate in the aforementioned thread, I started building on a model that could predict revenues and prices depending on certain factors such as (primarily) rewards signaling and allocation.

Our devs responded several times that as a community, we could present perhaps a better way forward and let the community decide via vote.

Alas, I decided to take on the challenge beyond arguing with words and really get to work with something I believe would better represent certain economic facts I hold very dear.

I decided to present this community something deeper than endless debate and through mathematical projections, illustrate the magic of certain concepts such as Smith’s invisible hand, and Jack Ma’s co-win.

The key points of what I propose:

-Increase proposed BRS payout from 60% of rewards to 75%

-Add 5% of revenues prior assigned to burn address, to reward pools permanently

-Because model shows that as reward potential grows so do prices, increasing total raffle amount from 20% to 25% (Consider this a regenesis factor- more free portals and wearables for those still left out of a gotchi even if prices climb)

-Because so many in the community feel there are no ways to get busy with rewards if they cant afford wearables, proposing a whopping 10% of reward pool for XP-Delta during Szn2. Also, I propose 600XP is earmarked to be distributed mainly via minigames throughout szn2, to finally address the complaints that people may never catch up to the Aragon voters. This large delta reward pool is very inviting to newcomers and those less liquid.

-Kinship rewards are lower than in original proposal, yet original proposal has a rookie kinship league. I propose a summoning kinship bonus for H2 instead, and only one kinship leaderboard. Kinship is a long term game of commitment, and the XP delta rewards proposed herein better address the concerns of inviting newcomers with rewards participation.

-Original XP leaderboard and reward pool would be lower, yet a high XP gotchi is going to indirectly benefit from the substantially greater BRS reward pool.

-“Regenesis” adjustments I propose here like delta XP leaderboard and a higher raffle ratio are to be seen as a way to address long standing issues and concerns in the community ever since H1 launch- so these measures would be assumed to not be back in place come a Season 3.

Because of the economic benefits of signaling higher rewards, this model even forecasts that Pixelcraft would get a minor boost to revenue from their original proposal, even after giving up certain funds to rewards and raffles.

I hope the community sees the wisdom of constructivism and co-win attitudes, and joins me with a “yes” to these adjustments to the H2 proposal, for which I had no better name than “the regenesis”.

I will not build a poll here, in this instance I will ask you to cast your vote directly in snapshot frens!


Can’t support this. Kinship and XP leaders have to take a cut to their rewards through the introduction of rookie leagues but BRS gets a massive boost. Really unfair. Rookie Kinship leaderboard is easily dominated by whales now, no need to even use kinship potions just pay Gotchicare to automate the petting.

LOL if I was this bloke I would vote for this proposal aswell: 0xfF...30a0's Aavegotchis

EDIT: Just saw the part about cutting rookie kinship. You are still advocating for halving kinship from 20% in H1 to 10% in H2.


The reasoning is no other than the forecasting shows higher BRS rewards bring all the numbers up really.

If we could drive revenues/rewards through kinship and XP mechanics that would be great but how?

Do you have any suggestions for a different path? Or did you like the original by devs in full?

Also would like asking you if based on your response you feel that the “low BRS” scenario in the model is something you like better? (MUCH lower rewards pool overall, lower revenues for Pixelcraft, less rewards for certain “blokes” being the driving priority- over the comparative gain for kinship farmers??)

Sadly, I was lectured in the previous thread that there is no whale animosity in this game-but your response hints otherwise. Your argument against said “bloke” could be reversed. This “bloke” ranks higher in kinship leaderboards than he does in BRS, just saying!

I think the 2M large enough for SZN2 farming, I am pretty comfortable with that number. I think the split suggested by PixelCraft is fair enough, I get they are trying to get new players on board, Kinshippers and XPers took a big hit but so did BRS leaders.

Given the Maall drops will stop I agree we need a way to replace that revenue to make these reward pools sustainable.

Couple of ideas:

Increase the Baazaar fees (again)
For Kinship, institute trading fees in the DEX when trading Gotchus Alchemia
For XP, gaming tokens could be purchased to play arcade games to earn XP with a revenue split going to game devs, pixelcraft and the rewards pool

Not advocating. I love the kinship game, but in trying to stretch every number for the greater good- OG kinship and XP take the biggest hit here- there’s no denying it.

I should expand that the intention is not to trivialize XP or KIN moving forward, but theres a lot of voices that want to cut the OG advantage for the sake of adoption. Rookie KIN makes a bit less sense than Rookie XP. Delta XP with big XP rewards- creates the kind of shuffle that is not exclusionary for anyone. At the top of XP income you would have the person that did both OG voting PLUS gaming during szn2, and at the bottom the person that did neither- isn’t that the fairest?

I hope you can begin to see I tried to accommodate many views here while also maximizing revenues AND freebies.

I do want to note your concerns are precisely why i called this “the regenesis” as OG XP and KIN take a hit this time, but to signal already this would not happen for an H3. Basically this would be H1 opening their arms a little bit for H2 into the genesis club

What are your thoughts?

What I don’t find fair is XP and KINSHIP leaders having to take a big cut for the sake of adoption but the BRS leaders get to grow their portion of the rewards.


Keep in mind their gains are dilutive, a lot of these reward funds come from selling items that people buy precisely to knock off these leaders.

Where as KIN and XP leadership is more cemented, BRS leadership will shuffle with every auction. Nobody is secure at the top.

More godlikes, wearable sets combinations, mythicals, pets etc will be available than ever before.

We don’t even know exactly how ARS will shuffle the leaderboards but we have been assured by devs it will.

For all these reasons, I would urge you to vote for what grows the community, Pixelcraft budget, GHST price, overall rewards, auction income, etc. etc. etc. over worrying too much about the rewards going into any particular wallet.

Another reason for my proposal is I see an INSANE demand for raffles, and we need to grow that raffle reward pool- or we may see a lot of disappointed participants. Maybe the 5% extra raffle supply of items could be distributed in a different way - chosen by the community.

Because the mechanism of growing rewards, KIN pool takes a 33% cut, but whatever those same gotchi would get in rarity rewards- is nearly doubled. Most gotchi even if kinship leaders got most their rewards through rarity. So the great majority of the population sees more rewards in this proposal, not take a hit. Should we hamper the platform to accomodate those few gotchi that dont buy a single wearable and only pet? Because they’re leaders at petting but have otherwise contributed very little to the game economy? You suggest things that “could happen in realm” to drive kinship economics but season 2 will not have the realm. Maybe we can take this path for season 2 and a very different one for rewards once there actually is a realm.

One of selling point is the play to earn aspect. I think it is important to keep Kinship and XP rewards decent to grow our player base. These sort of players will have smaller ARPU but I would think they would be large in volume and we need to fill up the REALM to make the game more fun.

I am biased because I have high KINSHIP gotchis, but the play to earn aspect is what attracted me to the game.


You wouldn’t think it, but I am biased to kinship as well- over BRS and more importantly XP.

I proposed the direction where the numbers took me, not with my own interests in mind. If giving 80% of rewards to kinship is what brought in the most revenues to develop the game and maximize rewards, I would be ecstatic to propose that, it’s just sadly not possible at present.

I am open to deleting my snapshot proposal and resubmitting with any changes or adjustments that make sense and maximize the net benefits to the community.

I am against this proposal, for the sake of adoption I think beefing up the capital intensive BRS rewards pool is not the way to go. Fees accrued from the baazaar are negligible.


That’s fair. In the model I have tried to show what is given up, gained or traded off in many scenarios.

In many cases we may argue in a net-worse result for the platform, for the sake of not assigning too much one or the other way. I.e. the response above linking somebody else’s wallet. I call this subtractive energy/logic.

Your response argues that overall rewards should be lower for the sake of adoption, so you either support the original (under “high BRS” in the table), or support beefing up something else like kinship, and it illustrates (under the low BRS scenario) that you’re willing to cut BRS rewards by more than half/2,5 million, in order to see 300k more on the kinship side. In this scenario portal price is more than halved which might be something good from your point of view- prioritizing adoption. This is why I don’t think’s there’s wrong answers, only trade-offs.

I dislike the subtractive trade-offs because it feels like saying “If offered an egg when that means my neighbor gets two eggs, then I rather get no egg”.
I am not accusing you of this fren, but just pointing out my personal views on the topic.

I didn’t explicitly use bazaar fees as an argument in favor of my proposal, as auctions would be the source of revenues.

Finally, you may have missed how my proposal increases raffle supply from 20 to 25%, and gives big rewards to newcomers for joining now with any gotchi and playing games (XP delta)- all of these are great draws for adoption comparative to the more divisive rookie boards, IMHO.

I would like to analyze your bias, and point out that you are opposing more rewards for your demographic (current scenario splits the projected 1.5 million in half because of rookie boards, so the total for OG Kinship would be 750k projected in dev proposal, wheras it’s over 1 million projected for OG Kinship in my proposal)

Play to earn, for both H1 and H2 is majorly rewarded in my proposal thanks to XP delta, compared to original proposal with exclusionary haunt boards.

Just pointing out how my proposal would actually benefit you and your ideals as you have currently stated them.

This is why I made the model, people are clouded from seeing the best outcome for all, when they prioritize limiting the ceiling for someone else above them. From your arguments, the only remaining one is that high BRS participants would make a lot more rewards- this is true and I have no counter for it.

If your priority is limiting the rewards for users like the one you linked, at the expense of your own szn2 rewards and play to earn potential, while also opposing a larger raffle supply, then by all means you have voted well against my proposal.

I am open to increasing the raffle supply. The downside of this is that it would decrease GHST income from losing auction participants (which is another big opportunity to onboard new players). I really don’t know what sort of prices to expect from these auctions though.

I have accepted the impact on my kinship rewards as a result of the rewards split proposed by the SigProp even though it will reduce my rewards personally, it will incentivise new play-to-earn players to participate which will bring a long-term benefit with the increase in adoption.

If you raise the cap on total rewards, I get OG kinshippers will get more, but BRS leaders will get proportionally more.

Given that Kinship rewards were split 50-50 between All and Rookie, I thought it is reasonable to do the same with XP. Although I can see an argument for raising the Rookie XP in proportion to All XP.


It wouldn’t according to the model. The FOMO reward effect drives higher sales in GHST (even if from a slightly smaller population?)

It is a trade-off I am not sure we can do away with, and the model was made to show what a strong effect it has. It is a capitalistic effect that I do not control, have simply tried to illustrate it- in hopes as a DAO we use it to our favor.

In my proposal, both H1 and H2 can participate in XP delta vs. having a rookie and an OG leaderboard. The proposed OG leaderboard would reward previous potion drinkers / sacrificers, and the rookie one would be exclusionary.
Just imagine Discord chats, people would be talking about two different versions of games essentially, different game leaderboards all the time. More dev-intensive and boring. Less sense of a unified community.
As mini games come out and the aarcade develops, certain people could say the feel they have to buy an H2 gotchi because the H1 XP leaderboard is already stacked by H1 highlander-whales, while all the fun is happening in the rookie XP leaderboard.

@jarrod @Kokusho @CryptoGotchi

The beauty of spreadsheets is I can switch the percentages and quickly get the new result.
Here I tweaked the numbers a little bit with all of you in mind, and while it may not maximize certain returns, it is more balanced against your concerns.

Maybe this could be a way forward.

Much love frens <3

*P.S.- The bad side of this tweak is we suddenly project Pixelcraft revenues slightly lower (340k GHST) than with their original proposal. As mentioned before there’s always a trade-off.

Another VERY important point to consider is the y variable in rewards distribution. In szn1 the y value used was 0.97. This variable you can consider in simple terms of how strongly rewards are stacked at the top:

A very simple path I have almost assumed would take with a larger rewards pool, is tweaking the y variable. Please look at this model below where there are 6 million to distribute in BRS rewards, which allows to change the y variable to 0.9. It also allows to reward the first 10k gotchi with BRS reward. take a close look at gotchis ranking at 500 and at 5000, look at just how much their rewards go up. To think higher BRS rewards only benefit a few whales GREATLY misses the potential or as they sometimes call it, “missing the forest for the trees”.

1 Like

And that is the problem right there. You made the model to show what a big effect BRS has by simply ascribing all economic effects to BRS and none to Kinship and XP. Furthermore, you seem to completely ignore several key aspects:

  • Your model ignores that H2 is not H1: You need at least 1 weight to adjust price for H2 in relation to H1.
  • Your model ignores that new people do not own (good) wearables. According to Aavegotchi Stats the highest BRS Gotchi has 576. Lets assume a new player, excited to get into Aavegotchi gets a 580 out of a portal. He could only afford 2 portals and a couple of common/uncommon items, that pushes his Gotchi to 620 BRS. So despite owning the rarest Gotchi in the known universe, they would not even make Top 100 BRS. Its because wearables are totally overpowered in this game. You made the argument that people buy portals to sell the high BRS Gotchis for a profit. But your model ignores the fact that a lot of people don’t want to sell their Gotchis for a profit. They want to play the game and compete. And with the tiny amount of new godlikes / mythicals that is introduced per quarter, newbies don’t have much of a chance to compete for the big prices in BRS, even if they get incredibly lucky with their portals.
  • Your model ignores adoption and demand. Yes, you convinced me that in general, BRS rewards should be higher than Kinship and XP, because your arguments that the portal lottery is a big driving force for portal prices is convincing. But that doesn’t increase portal prices because of increased demand, it increases portal prices because of increased expected gains for Gotchi flippers and people with good wearables. Price increases due to increased demand is much much more desirable, though. It is more sustainable and less risky for the project. How do we drive up demand? Certainly not by making new players feel like they have no chance, as they’re competing against OG Gotchis and Players in every single one of your proposed leaderboards.
  • Your model only considers S2. You need to look further ahead. This builds on my previous point. Adoption and demand grow exponentially. Rookie-Leaderboards feed into that growth by rewarding new people that invest into the ecosystem. Demand will allow us to auction more portals more regularly without portal prices tanking. So season rewards will be fed more money, more regularly. If you show people that committed players can make a profit from buying a portal, even if they get in at H3 or H4 (which will feel late to them), then more and more people will come and join. From what I heard, Filipino adoption is what helped Axie take off. Imagine if they flip from Axie to Aavegotchi. Or any other big wave / country going “all in” on our little project. The more attractive it is for new players, the better for us all.

Your proposal would decrease buy pressure from new people. If your proposal is adopted, new players would think twice about joining. They would rightfully think that the money has been made and people getting in now will - almost exclusively - feed the OG players who already established themselves at the top. It would slowly but surely thwart the project’s growth and turn it from a promising candidate for mass adoption into a fringe project for a couple of hardliners.

Basically it comes down to this. Do you rather have 80% of 10 million by next year, or 50% of 20 million by next year?

I’m still convinced, that the best rewards distribution for fairness as well as adoption and overall gains by everyone would be this:
50% BRS
10% Kinship
10% XP
10% Rookie-BRS (only new wearables)
10% Rookie-Kinship
10% Rookie-XP

with transferable XP potions (play to earn) and non-transferable Kinship potions (play to win) as mini-game rewards in the realm.

And if I need to, I could certainly make a spreadsheet that “proves” this, in the same way your model “proves” your point. In the end, neither one of us can predict the future. But we can certainly try to get as close as we can by considering everyone’s points and driving forces.


Just so we are all on equal footing here and a little out of simplicity.

50% All time BRS
10% New Haunt Gotchi/Wearables Specific Bonus
20% Kinship
20% XP

I am against an all time XP and Kinship leaderboards merely for the fact that H1 gotchis would claim rewards for time immemorial. Why on earth would H8 be feeding H1? Thus the sooner we implement a fairer system to all subsequent haunts the better.

1 Like

Nope, I’m against this for many reasons already outlined here by others, I prefer Pixelcraft’s proposal better or even @CryptoGotchi (lower rewards percentage, more rookie-only leaderboards, more kinship rewards, less BRS rewards, etc). All the data you are presenting and the assumptions you are making are based on H1, but we all know it has to be taken with a pinch of salt, we need more haunts and more data to really see what’s what. So I’m not gonna repeat arguments that me or others have already made, I know we all have a strong stance about certain things and we just have different views about how to promote user growth, no matter how hard we try to “enlighten” each other. The only thing left for me to do is agree to disagree. Good luck!


A huge assumption in this community is that only affordability drives demand.
The drive to aim for the lowest prices etc has some marketing theory merits, I just find it funny how many think of a wider demographic for adoption means we have to aim lower for rewards and prices.
My model doesn’t ignore adoption and demand in the sense that as rewards/prices rise, also opportunity. We may lose somebody on the fence that would only spend 300GHST in the platform, but we could have someone who stays and brings 5 other users that would invest 1000, just from the greater, un-nerfed opportunity.

People assume that nerfing rewards to push down prices brings in more users. You may be inviting low commitment, low spend users while scaring other users away that would spend more and contribute more.

I have tried to display a model where if rewards grow, everybody can make more rewards. But if we try to grow the ecosystem and people ignore their own potential of rewards because " they dont have a chance to compete for the big prices" it is just envy-based reasoning. it is ignoring your potential return, no matter how good against your initial outlay, because of resentment that someone else will do better. I have tried to show here what we all give up as we focus on reducing rewards for the best performers- everything goes down too.

Again, I would counter I want to entice smart players that are drawn in from the unbounded opportunity, than more of the affordability champions that spend little in the ecosystem and simply argue for lower prices while demanding more free stuff.

I am proposing increased rewards, opportunity, and raffled items- so not sure how all these things add up to less users. Again the assumption that this platform benefits from providing less opportunity- because that would lower prices and draw in more users- the ones that don’t have much to spend and contribute into the platform.

Not a fan of this accusation. I will leave it at that and wish you luck should you move on to contribute with a separate model, proposal or anything actually constructive.


You propose to nerf the opportunities for rookies (compared to Jesse’s proposal) and expect that that would lead to more of them joining?

Actually, that is the effect that your proposal would have on the project. Your whole schtick is that you made a model in which you claim portal prices are exclusively driven by the BRS portal lottery. So the kind of new people that you’re attracting with raising the BRS reward percentage are flippers, looking to buy a lot of portals and then sell off their high BRS Gotchis for a profit before moving on. Because, as I explained, they themselves would not make much during rarity farming, because they are missing the items required to do so.

Yes, we are all aware that that is what you’re trying to do. Your model tries to predicts portal prices (an extremely difficult task) by using one single independent variables, which is BRS rewards. You ignore any other influence in this very complex ecosystem. You assume prices/demand for second class, excuse me, second haunt, portals will be exactly the same as for H1, which not only had no competition during the time of your data acquisition, but will always have a “first” bonus. Not to mention that the influence of Kinship and XP leaderboards on price are not negligable.

Just to be painfully clear about it, your model describes the ABSOLUTE MAX effect that BRS could EVER have. Which is, if all other possible effects are contributing exactly 0.0 to portal price. So it is an undisputable fact, that your model MUST overestimates the portal price due to BRS reward increases. Hence, your statement that increasing BRS rewards will increase everyone’s rewards is doubtful at best.

Due to the network effect, it would be more beneficial to have a lot more people join the ecosystem than just a few more people. And I don’t see why low income / low budget people should be less smart, or demand free stuff.

I really don’t understand why you keep talking about affordability when you quote me. I didn’t talk about affordability at all. One of my main points was that it is better to increase prices by increasing demand than to increase prices by making the portal lottery percentage bigger. Especially because your model makes provably wrong predictions.

I didn’t say you made your model flawed on purpose. I was merely referring to what you keep writing yourself. You didn’t make a model to predict portal prices, you made a model to show a strong effect of your independent variable of interest, while ignoring everything else. And by doing so, anybody can show anything. That is not an accusation.

Thanks, fren, but I’m afraid I’m one of those people:

1 Like