Replace Wearable Crest GBM Auctions with DAO Vote with Fixed GLTR Fee

I think this will result in a reduction in the number of guilds and a centralization of a small number of guilds controlled by whales. Every 3 months I expect to see the number of guilds to drop as whales will concentrate their position with larger GLTR bags and more wearable crests under their control.

The players in the existing guilds we have now will need to adapt and be ready to dump their existing wearable guild and go find another guild that has won one of the wearable crests they have a wearable for.

I just don’t see how smaller guilds can compete with the likes of Gotchi Vault (currently sitting on ~58M FRENS) and these large guilds with partner parcels.

If wearable crests become too expensive this will put inflationary pressure on the wearable supply as smaller guilds will need to find a cheaper wearable crest. Smaller guilds will need to buy these new wearables off the secondary market as raffles are becoming harder to win.

1 Like

While we were brainstorming this mechanic, we did discuss the idea of Wearable holders voting on which Gotchi Lodge should hold the parcel. As an idea I think it has merit, but as Zygo pointed out above, it could be a logistical challenge getting everyone to vote the right direction, further complicated if multiple guilds emerge trying to claim the same Wearable.

However, my main concern lies with AavegotchiDAO setting the prices for the Wearable Crests. The auction method lets the free market tell us what the price should be, whereas the DAO method lets us tell the market what the price should be. Whenever possible, I believe it’s optimal to let the market make these types of decisions, but I do acknowledge that Guilds may feel uneasy if they have to constantly worry about losing their Crests.

Incentivizing Guilds to provide liquidity on the GAX in order to earn GLTR to hold onto their position is a cool mechanic that is very beneficial to the overall ecosystem, and helps prevent value extraction, but we do not want to add unnecessary stress to what should be a casual farming game :slight_smile:

I believe there’s probably some optimizations we can make to the proposed system to make it fairer and less prone sniping, but I believe the system itself will be quite strong.

So my vote would be to keep the proposed system, but add in some checks and balances where needed.


The idea of introducing “channeling exploitation rights” for each wearable is very interesting, it definitively helps to establish a solid long-term plan regardless of changes in the player base.

However, as Jarrod pointed out, giving incentive to people for fighting for those crests, will have a negative effect on small/medium guilds with low liquidity. Based on the previously known information, all guild members made a financial commitment assuming that this will grant them the right to be part of guild channeling. Now, all the responsibility and pressure are on the guild leaders who either manage to win the auction or fail completely. Even if we are not many in such a position right now, this new mechanism exposes us greatly to any wealthy user who wants to extract value and target guilds who had announced preference for a certain wearable.

If winning by voting is not an option, at least it would be very desirable to have some additional protective mechanics such as avoiding using bidding incentives. Guilds will bring a lot of value to the game if PixelCraft and the DAO support their efforts, speculators will leave whenever they feel the time is right.

1 Like

i think that rather than having a bid to earn, it could be more of a stake to earn, you could farm fractionalized guild crests and a vote could be required to set the crest to a structure or likewise change it to another one?

to have decentralized ownership of crests makes the most sense to me. would allow for more distributed ownership of something that i don’t see should be centralized ownership. if you want to keep share your going to have to keep staking underlyings so still keeps it flexible with fluctuating and changing user base.

i think that this other model where it goes back up for auction is going to cause a high friction ux.

likewise if i am a gotchi and i want to have part of other guilds organization i should have access to do so. its an open free market were trying to build not more tools for whales to camp the best assets.

although if a whale wants a big share of a high profile guild because they believe in the long term value proposition of the likeness they should be able to deploy there capital accordingly aswell.

at the end of the day the end result should best reflect each wearable holders community interest.

Please do not let the dao set prices for things. the vault has control of the votes now and we’re in an electoral college type situation, where whatever the majority in the vault says, is what the dao thinks. As we’ve clearly ceded dao control of the game to the vault by allowing them to control the votes, the only way to keep things fair is to design market based mechanics that are balanced, incentivized(degen friendly), and well enough designed mathematically, where they inherently make it hard for one group to take too much of a market.

1 Like

the difference is that that this electoral college consists of all holders not just centralized figures with constituents. but i see what your saying this is why i think whatever system we have for distributing these is needs to be transparent and inclusive to all parties interested in partial crest ownership.

my actual point is that we need to design systems that are resilient, as opposed to using manual market making.

We’re about to do WW3 because the world played the “pull the economic levers with fiat debt” game for too long. The truth is, there has to be losers for there to be winners. What is most fair and beneficial for all, is if the big losers and the big winners, are the degenerate gamblers. The safety investors want their reliable yield, the gamers think they can out game each other to get more than their share, and we build the game to protect the interest of those two groups, but the truth is, the gamblers(and the people who buy stuff and dont fully utilize it, these people are like lost bitcoin wallets) are the ones who actually pay for that “extra” money people are earning. There should always be the option for someone to “do something cray” and go all in on something and either it blows up[ in their face and they get rekt, or they get a huge win and erryone mad… Intermittent reward is what keeps the world going…

1 Like

I think we need to look into changing quorum rules when it comes to Gotchi Vault. It’s basically a whale pool and is causing centralisation issues due to a defect in crypto taxation policies of governments. It’s just going to get worse with each rarity farming season.


Too late. We’ll never win that vote :wink: Might as well move on and do our best to build the game in a way that keeps price manipulation out of the hands of the dao.

1 Like

maybe changing quorum rules is less attractive than establishing a checks and balances system, so that different community entities can keep each other in check. also as far as i know the gotchi vault is a permissionless treasury management protocol hardly a product only available to whales. and they are also making strides to make sure that there overall votes represent the sentiment of the members in their pool of assets not just the sentiment of the whales with the proposal power.

The community already gave up their rights when they allowed vote delegation, so… I think best response is to simply keep coming up with GLMR sinks so that it dilutes their dominance. The idea of of GLMR charge to reroll a parcel was a nice one…

I don’t think griefing is going to be a huge problem, with the GBM auctions for crests. GLMR is limited, and guilds will go hard to get the ones they wanted, and there’s going to be tons of it blown on the top ones, which means it will be tied up in those auctions. There’s far too many wearables for a group to be effective enough in the auctions to truly dominate it, and the part of the rules where it says you can be in multiple “guilds” means that even if you are not in the guild for your awesome item, you can probably make a deal with them for access to the channeling, as they do gain from having you there due to the spillage rates declining as the lodge levels and the channeling rate going up exponentially with additional channelers.

Here’s another idea to solve the issue: Instead of being auctioned off for GLTR every 3 months, every crest has to be “charged” with GLTR every week (which is sent to the DAO or burned, whatever) before it can be used to channel. The only way for a crest to change locations is for 51% of wearables holders to trigger a move, via smart contract.

With this solution there’s a constant GLTR sink, and wearables holders can control the location of the crest whenever they want instead of every 3 months. There’s still the issue of how much GLTR should charging the crest cost, but maybe somebody else has an idea of how to link that price to the market somehow.

Since wearables represent a significant investment, and aren’t very liquid, and are tied to guild identity, I feel they should have the power to determine where the crests go. Putting crests up for auction opens up potential for a lot of abuse and bad experiences for players, and provides very little benefit. I honestly worry that if crests go to open auction, a lot of players and even guilds might quit in disgust if somebody buys their crest and uses it to basically extort them.


So you are saying that people may rage quit and sell their stuff cheap in the bazaar allowing players that may not have had the opportunity to buy those items another chance at a lower cost?

Hopefully we don’t see rage-quitting as a feature. The goal should be to build as many virtuous cycles as possible, where the competition to get each crest increases the value of the entire protocol (for example, by providing a big GLTR sink and by incentivizing active playing of the game).


Firstly, I like how you maneuvered with crests; there is no need to equip them and ruin high-quality sets, hold in the pocket, great solution.

Bid to earn mechanism is super exploitable; most guilds have already announced their guild wearable crests. Others accumulate wearables silently, but it’s not a piece of information that is difficult to obtain. Having a list of desired wearable crests you can quickly bid at devil prices will be outbid. No guild wants to miss Guild Channeling, as it’s 50% of all Alchemical Channeling.
The second point, I want to underline @Egor’s remark “to coordinate 5 players is incomparably easier than coordinating 1000 players.” While participating in stress tests, it was hard to coordinate 30-40 players. At the same time, 5 players can drink beer and play left-hand, joking on the Discord voice channel.


  1. What if we change the presence bonus to fixed numbers:
    0-10% of all gotchis with wearable crest participate in Channeling, then the multiplier is 1.2x,
    10-20% - 1.3x
    And so on
    It will lower the distinction between the quantity coordination problem against quality easiness coordination but with difficulties to acquire godlike wearables.
  2. For at least mythical auras is a must. Mythicals are expensive enough to include them in auras list. We can implement the rule of 3+ (TBD) items to activate the Aura effect. Alternative: a group of players can choose one Aura instead of godlike staked auras. We need to discuss it as well.
1 Like

Honestly, I feel like the crest is just creating a problem instead of solution. We’ve already invested in the wearables, why does it need an accompanying item?

I love your idea for using GLTR to charge items. Why couldn’t GLTR just be used to charge a wearable for channeling. That way we don’t have to worry about who gets what crest… if you own the item you can channel. Also, the GLTR sink remains intact.

off topic
Please come over to the EYE discussion and participate in that, as EYEs and then the wearable effect, are all tied into the aura mechanic. These are separate issues, but underneath it, we need to make a cohesive situation. We need more people who are thinking about the intereconnectedness to weigh in.

Auras are really a 0 range AOE effect with a radius size, with friendly fire on/enemy fire on for buffs and reversed for debuffs. (start thinking of how effects can be broken down into classes and modifiers)

on topic
For the crests… how about this slightly refined compromise

At end of playdrop, during the channeling test, but before the harvesting launch, all registered guilds that have logged at least 50 sessions to their 3rd party address, can pick one for round 1, sorted in one of the following ways

  • Guild with the most rentals logged to their 3rd party address(s)(up to 3 may be provided as some guilds have arrangements with player guilds)

  • largest wearable pile, calculated at maall price(this is dumb for voting, but makes sense for rarity as the scale is correct, just not its relationship to GHST prices)

  • Sort by total gotchis per guild(this is fair as well, as the group most affected by the decision is going first)

  • sort by amount of alchemica held in guild coffers at end of playdrop(we don’t have the GeX, but everyone is stockpiling for the GeX, and this would add an extra layer of competition during the playdrop)

  • Put all the guild leaders into a special event, hearts enabled, battle to the death, last gotchi standing gets to go first, first one out, picks last. Livestream this in the verse during the channeling and chat test phase and we have some viral marketing (best option, hands down, GG)

  • Straight GBM no change to bible
  • GBM + whitelist by total gotchis
  • GBM + whitelist by trial of combat
  • GBM + whitelist by game count
  • GBM + whitelist by alch treasury size
  • Raffle off the crests and let people sell them on the bazaar.
  • New idea, list it below.

0 voters

Whitelists is from this thread - Whitelisting Established Guild Crests During First 3 Months of Gotchiverse


New Idea
Blind auction in GLTR for guild wearable, top bid wins. Auction would be every 3 months as originally stated in gotchi bible.

Some details
Since on-chain transactions are publicly viewable a technique known as “commit and reveal” is used to hide bid amounts until after the bidding time frame has passed. After the bidding time frame has passed users would reveal their bid. Highest bid wins

Bob hashes his bid “12000.123466” as ba69e198819c5cc4f01ea9293f10ae7dcff6ad1c and commits in a tx.
Alice commits her has of “22000.000000” as e30fe6c3199671171b546aa948a82f8e1aca603b

After the auction bidding time is over both Bob and Sue have a set time to reveal their bids.
Bob reveals “12000.123466”,
Alice reveals “22000.000000”.

Alice would be the highest bidder and win the wearable

With this approach there is competition between guilds in bidding and removes the grieving attack. There would need to be a simple UI built to support this auction.

Here is an example of a blind auction described in the solidity docs