Proposing Adjustments to H2 Figures and Details

[JG1]

@CryptoGotchi

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

More accurately, I wish to eliminate so much the distinction between OGs and rookies , H1 and H2 etc, and make the aavegotchi platform more of a roaring beast of economic opportunity that anyone can jump aboard on at any given time.
I feel the more you complicate, redistribute, nerf, limit, etc. especially for blurry idealistic reasons, the more we all suffer in the end.

@CryptoGotchi

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.

Fair criticism of the model, and this is what I would have liked seeing more of as it was developed, vs. dismissing it at this juncture based on inconvenient results. You said you could be swayed with logic and numbers but at this point you seem quite dogmatic to me. At the same time adding those other variables you describe would make the resulting forecasted prices different (higher most likely) but their relative effect in comparative scenarios is very minimal. why? if you prio XP or KIN rewards you don’t invite buying into H2 portals, you invite flooring of the H1 gotchi with most XP and kinship, so the number going up would be AGIP6 which I already labeled as a guesstimate.

@CryptoGotchi

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

I would hate to disagree just based off your voting power, but for the record, my proposal is enjoying great support from whales and ALSO from the low balance wallets/users that you claim to represent and that you argue my proposal scares away:

I thank all the lurkers out there of all wallet sizes that are voting positively for my proposal.

The voting tendency is showing that high and low wallet balances are voting overwhelmingly positive to it. A cluster of wallets with medium (5-10k) balances voting no- hints to me that demographic argues for affordability but the real goal is reduced rewards for whales. That, or erroneously thinking that rewards can or should award dynamics that aren’t additive to the economy, no matter what figures I present here.

I feel that this is a controversial proposal and it will not be easy for anybody to jump into this discussion with support for it. But I thank everyone who is taking the time to read and vote with the platform’s best interests in mind <3

[CryptoGotchi]

@JG1

You said you could be swayed with logic and numbers but

Funny how things turn out. I liked your post in the other thread but I hadn’t had time to respond. I thought we were coming closer together. Then when I had some time and wanted to write a response, telling you that I appreciated your explanation, and that I thought your arguments had merit, I saw you had made this proposal and I was shocked.
I was obviously mistaken in that I thought we were able to come to a consensus (in a meet in the middle kinda way). Not only did you propose to raise BRS rewards beyond its previous max, you also proposed a delta leaderboard, which I think is the worst of both worlds. Since that was not a compromise but in my mind the worst proposal I have seen so far, I gave up coming to a consensus with you. At this point I’m not even sure if you actually believe your proposal will increase rewards for everyone or if you simply want to convince others of this. After this screenshot I lean towards the latter:

@JG1

but for the record, my proposal is enjoying great support from whales and ALSO from the low balance wallets/users that you claim to represent and that you argue my proposal scares away:

You are very experienced in crypto, so don’t tell me you never noticed that all those < 1 GHST wallets keep voting for the same thing at the same time…if you feel the necessity to make this part of your argument, then I really don’t see any more reason to spend my time on this discussion and excuse myself from it.

[JG1]

You said “if” so I’m assuming you haven’t head for the exit yet.

I do suspect some botting in votes so I left out the smallest balances (the 0.01 ones). Once the argument goes this way it is difficult… because if I screenshot the top then I’m labeled elitist, you see?

If some of those penny votes are bots or not I truly do not know but if we trust our quorum parameters the community is reacting well via votes.

@CryptoGotchi

I saw you had made this proposal and I was shocked.

Time has kept passing without a reply from devs . I was challenged by them to make a proposal, but we know the clock is ticking and the coreprop can hit any day, do you agree?

I feel you may ascribe suspicious or ulterior motives for me. I have no need for this as do play all the categories and have invested in all of them. This includes gotchi with low BRS and no wearables and nothing going there besides kinship game. As such, I have nothing to hide except being an advocate for gotchi value and the highest rewards possible (all categories). Thank you for saying I’m experienced in crypto BTW. My experience lies actually in more traditional fields like finance and economics and this why I venture to suggest things to the community in these fields.

I feel I have provided valuable data such as delving into the y variable to show I advocate higher rewards- but not necessarily at the top.

I feel you dismiss my drive to increase rewards ignoring the fact new users could actually be making higher payouts/ROI in their first season thanks to a massive BRS pool, only because by name/tagging/principle your preferred dynamic (guessing kinship?) is getting “less love”.

@CryptoGotchi

in a meet in the middle kinda way)

Hoping you can see there was no strategy here for me except not missing out the opportunity for us to be heard before the coreprop. I can respect you think XP delta is bad but not entirely sure why, in that case I was just proposing something actionable to go together with my suggestions, (DELTA+ 600 XP event.)

If you can invent a mechanism to increase revenues and rewards that isn’t BRS centered and that can be implemented for szn2- I’m all for it. As I said above my loyalty is to higher rewards but for instance I think a much lower y variable is much more bullish to the platform- in other words you wouldn’t see the mooning happening mostly/only with godlikes but you see those other wearable sets, those previously ignored common items etc get a new value, dynamism, etc. and that wouldn’t be a whale game at all. I feel those markets/segments of the economy actually never took off because rewards haven’t gone high enough as of yet, but they could.

Edit/P.S: I forgot to clarify this proposals discussions have gone way into BRS, when the original spirit was that at least 5% of the burn belongs in rewards. Maybe you would like to put out a different proposal with different numbers? For instance you could propose that 5-10% of burn goes to kinship only etc. In many scenarios you would have my vote fren. I didn’t raise BRS specifically for the hell of it, I did it as a way to restore to Pixelcraft the lost revenue they would give up by directing that burn to rewards. The model and proposal took off from that starting point.

[jarrod]

Those <1GHST votes on snapshot are really sus. So they have no wearables, no Gotchis, and not enough to stake GHST for 1 Fren per day but they are voting on this snapshot proposal

[JG1]

I’m seeing some 0 GHST votes how is that possible?
I’m definitely not behind them, so the counter-implication could be made that someone without GHST to vote, but the technical skills is trying to affect/stain the otherwise successfully-trending proposal via shade.

[JG1]

For the record and posterity sake, where some members would like to focus the conversation on sub 1 GHST wallets that achieve not much more than troll value, I want to point out this diverse set of you all (10k-100K voting power range) that have voted majorly yes with an open mind, trusting in the co-win avenue I preach. I congratulate you for being open minded and trusting a contrarian path. Much love to you all.

[GotchiLove]

they are test running their multiple wallets for the upcoming auctions

[DAOvahkiin-Grip]

I think there are key factors left out of this proposal. It also seems like you’ve gone down the opposite path since the discussion in the previous forum post. And I think a lot of your reasoning is too assumption based. At this point I’ve agreed with pretty much everything @CryptoGotchi has had to say.

[JG1]

Fair enough fren.

This is just one model, one path, etc.
From the beginning I have stressed being open to modifications, a different path, etc but the focus gets lost. This was my attempt at reaching the best results without reducing Pixelcraft revenue. over and over again this gets ignored to direct criticism but little solutions.
I could make a second proposal/thread to appease those against it, but then I would have to defend it against those who favor BRS over KIN and I would have less honest or mathematical reasons to back that up. I play kinship and I would be accused of personal bias in favor of kinship. I would be accused of proposing something against my own model.

You could literally copy paste my proposal and modify the numbers now to the 50 BRS ratio you guys favor, it’s not too much effort.

Or we could just let this thread and initiative go down as nothing more than a reflection of the community’s sentiment, mistrust and personal biases. It’s our call.

[DAOvahkiin-Grip]

@JG1

From the beginning I have stressed being open to modifications, a different path, etc but the focus gets lost. This was my attempt at reaching the best results without reducing Pixelcraft revenue. over and over again this gets ignored to direct criticism but little solutions.

I feel you. It’s easy to say you don’t want something without putting in the work to remodify or rebuttal. I think right now the sigprop posted to poll how many portals people want is speaking for itself, I can’t argue with consensus. Though I still feel as though less than 20k portals is a poor choice. We’ll watch what happens throughout the coming auctions but at this point I’m more optimistic about the raffle than I am about the portal auction because of this.

I also keep thinking on it and I keep coming to the same concerns.
What is the point of leaderboards for only H2? I dislike the idea that we need to segregate to promote “inclusiveness.” We’re just alienating H1 investors, especially anybody who’s invested in the ecosystem within the past few months. As well as creating more of a demand for current investors to ape into Haunt 2 Gotchi’s. I thought we wanted less competition between current investors and newcomers. If anything it makes more sense to clean the slate, like what has been proposed time and time again, so everybody starts on the the same spot szn 2. Open up the amount of Gotchi’s rewarded to a higher amount like 7.5k. Through ample minigame and community interaction the XP leaderboard will become one of the best ways to entice newcomers.

After much thought, a distribution similar to this is the best option imo.
BRS - 60%
XP - 25-30% (Maybe take 5% for Rookie Leaderboards.)
Kinship - 10% (Maybe even take this 10% allotted for Kinship and use it for rookie leaderboards if need be.)

Again, I think by separating we are going to create a higher demand by our H1 players, and it will be even harder on any new members. The argument for rookie leaderboards has been that H2 should have more rewards because H2 will fund the pool this time around and that we should reward them more, yet if that were the case we would see a Rookie leaderboard for BRS that didn’t count current wearables. It’s also a pretty poor message to send that you need a H2 Gotchi to compete within the categories that rewards solely based upon interaction. I would argue that H1 users are a pretty large part of the growth Aavegotchi has, and will continue to take part in. These upcoming auctions will see to it that Aavegotchi’s are sold well above 100 GHST for a portal. Some of our jaded members who missed out on the first launch and bought from the secondary store, will easily look at this change with disdain.

At the end of the day, my only real problem is that the sigprop had new language in it that shouldn’t have been organized until polled. If the community wants it then they can have it, but at this point we need a better way of asking outside of a simple Yes or No to All Sigprop.

[JG1]

Thank you for the constructive and detailed response fren.

I hate to see the community disagree and bicker over splits of the rewards pool, while Pixelcraft is signaling caps to rewards. Precisely I think this thread if anything, has highlighted that everyone cares about rewards- and changing them or capping them with packaged votes- is harmful to morale beyond any tangible benefits.

The conversation in this thread never allowed me to plug in/suggest a 3million cap instead of a 2 million cap signal for instance. In my controversial model, just raising that cap to 3 million for example, raises all the numbers so much that percentages don’t have to be tweaked. I lament the conversation never got there because the focus has been on discrediting the model, and Pixelcraft strongly endorses a 2 million cap when for instance we already have 700K revenue floating in VR Headsets alone.

I am very displeased that tokenomics were realigned and rewards capped right before the auctions without allowing the community much input. I plan to address this with devs in the other thread.

We could raise caps and direct more token burn to rewards in my model, without tweaking percentages towards BRS (and away from KIN or rooks), but for this we would need Pixelcraft to be open to changing these variables.

[JG1]

@DAOvahkiin-Grip

At the end of the day, my only real problem is that the sigprop had new language in it that shouldn’t have been organized until polled. If the community wants it then they can have it, but at this point we need a better way of asking outside of a simple Yes or No to All Sigprop .

You know, frankly, from an outsider perspective that is my main problem with it too!

As I was working on this, I had anxiety of the coreprop being introduced without changes because nobody would step up to the challenge of a sigprop like this one (if it can be called a sigprop) so my goal was to capture the community’s average opinions and wants- as I perceived them. I actually consulted with members of the community in private and the main message I was given was to not take away resources Pixelcraft may need for the realm.
There are of course so many issues with that and I will agree. I hope if you re-read the thread you will see I have never been dogmatic of any direction- except that there is room for more rewards for the community. As I placed the proposal, I hated having to do a rushed and packaged response simply because that’s what we were given in the H2 sigprop.

Think about this- we argue about 5 % going whichever way but nobody says- “Hey, lets set the burn at 0% then!”
This was the surprise on my end- Where I rushed something out, making clear I welcomed changes and help in building the model, I was hit with more vitrol and suspicion, than support or alternatives.

[DAOvahkiin-Grip]

@JG1

I hate to see the community disagree and bicker over splits of the rewards pool, while Pixelcraft is signaling caps to rewards. Precisely I think this thread if anything, has highlighted that everyone cares about rewards- and changing them or capping them with packaged votes- is harmful to morale beyond any tangible benefits.

I wouldn’t want to equivalate a sometimes turbulent debate to bickering, but I understand your point. It’s pretty important I think that packaged voting is addressed. I don’t care to see things like that in the future. If anything a timely poll is very easily set up, it should be written down within the Aavegotchi “template” moving forward.

@JG1

Pixelcraft strongly endorses a 2 million cap when for instance we already have 700K revenue floating in VR Headsets alone.

I am very displeased that tokenomics were realigned and rewards capped right before the auctions without allowing the community much input. I plan to address this with devs in the other thread.

If they were skeptical that the GBM auction model wouldn’t cause high pricing, I understand only in that it’s good to be cautious instead of betting everything against an uncertainty. Other than that I think we all knew that these auctions will drive price discovery quite high from the start. This model literally rewards for placing a bid, it incentivizes pursuing a payout. In what universe would something like this not continue skyward? lol. None of ours. So we know that the revenue from the coming H2 and REALM auctions will set new records within this ecosystem. The discussion on setting a cap before we start to see the potential numbers is a waste of time I think. The idea that we should raise the cap will make more and more sense in time. It’s not a decision that should be made right now.

I agree with you. I don’t understand why it was thrown into the mix so early.

[JG1]

@DAOvahkiin-Grip

If they were skeptical that the GBM auction model wouldn’t cause high pricing, I understand only in that it’s good to be cautious instead of betting everything against an uncertainty.

Uncertainty can be handled in very different ways. What I have disliked is that a lot of uncertainty is attributed exclusively time and time again on one side of the ecosystem.

We have to look at the entire ecosystem perhaps as table with 4 legs, or a building with 4 pillars .

I hope I don’t regret this example on the basis of bad modeling. Models don’t need to be perfect to illustrate tendencies or provide insightful tools to analyze things beyond just words.

USERS // LIQUIDITY SIDE (LPS & ARBERS) // INVESTORS (OWNERS) // DEVELOPERS

These four pillars sustain the cyclical economy that has been engineered. Just like we shouldn’t engage inwardly as users to argue about rewards, imagine if Dan and Jesse had a split vision as developers? Where would we be today?

With that said this blockchain space introduced a lot of complexities that we need to know how to handle if we are to survive as a DAO. In more traditional business the lines aren’t as blurred between the participants/members of those pillars as we do have in this community. That is, some of us are in all 4 categories. Some of us just one, or maybe none. Rarity farming was supposed to be precisely a mechanism for us to blur these lines.

I dislike the main justification in the announcement to direct most burn to Pixelcraft is that Pixelcraft has “real expenses and taxes”. Does that mean that other users don’t? There’s a float of an 80% tax on crypto in the USA just to start. If taxes rise should our USA users get more rewards? a refund?

I’m sure you of all people could appreciate that if we shouldn’t rescue bazaar buyers (by the way, your argument will be stronger now when looking at auction bidders…) we shouldn’t hastily rescue Pixelcraft without admonition or questioning if they didn’t properly forecast taxes, expenses, liabilities.

So essentially when bad things happen, when there’s uncertainty, risk, etc. One side or the other of the equation should not be bailing out the other. I think because just one of those pillars is the end product, and it is tied to gaming, it shouldn’t be the “cinderella” tier in the ecosystem. Imagine if bad forecasting led us to change terms with liquidity providers, investors or maybe even the devs themselves via adjusting their salaries.

I am well aware I will likely be criticized in this example because “rewards weren’t reduced”, but the precedent has been well set for a constantly changing circle of win. People invested into the GHST ecosystem should have legitimate concerns about a hasty change to tokenomics.

I feel this thread highlights a very insidious dynamic at play, which is that of envy. Probably because this game is a competition, we can’t be happy for the owner of several gotchi- we call them whales and assign them evil attributes or intentions. The factual reality is there probably isn’t a single real “whale” among our users yet, when taken into the context of world wealth. We have a few dolphin that get vilified simply for having more and buying into the system, that’s the sad truth. The issue is, can you imagine approaching any of the other 3 pillars this way? Can you imagine asking the devs for their bank statements and tax returns - and if they are “whales” determine that they should earn less? Should we do KYC and adjust staking rewards depending on the wealth of the depositor?

The dynamics I describe above create an easy path that we continue to take because rewards can ultimately be reduced and we saw in this thread many people prefer reduced rewards as long as those at top of the leaderboards don’t earn more.

Ultimately, I am concerned 3 legs of the structure are hyper protected when the 4th is having to go season by season with a trend that keeps pointing/signaling towards reduced participation (at least percentage wise) in the success of the system, and inward fighting for the scraps.