Does the bulk reset option for multiple gotchis address your concern?
With option A you can keep your 00:00UTC reset just fine no?
I feel option B is reasonable to include in the vote given the anecdotal sentiment that some people are now regretting their original support of the 24hr window system - it was an experiment (rushed imo) - why not give people the option to recast?
1 Like
Hello fren. I’ll explain my concern. I came upon this thread and read some takes framing the status quo as some sort of conspiracy and unfair situation while the reality is really or probably that Pixelcraft did their best with a complex situation during a tight launch schedule.
Also read some comments here and in Discord about “fairness”… rejoicing on the prospect of Option B happening and owners of multiple gotchis being affected as if: A) that helps the ecosystem in any way shape or form… and B) owners of gotchis really are giga-brains playing 4D chess trying to screw others in this DAO…
Do you really believe that tin-foil hat stuff? or are we owners really just trying to channel our dear gotchis within a reasonable and livable timeframe each day… and option B would make it so much harder and painful than right now?
I personally keep saying I have no issues with option A… but really am disappointed to see that there are those in this community actively seeking for nerfs to others or otherwise acting like if they happened, it wouldn’t matter at all just because it doesn’t affect them personally. They carry an “us vs. them” mentality and it’s sad to see.
To your question… should option B happen for whatever reason, I would campaign for a channel-all function/button to be released. Some people rather see nerfs than a platform that invites investment and ownership of multiple gotchis, and this is something I will always and vehemently fight against. I don’t think Aavegotchi is the place to fix society’s woes. I think we are all best served if we invite the most investment and accumulation to our platform and leave the politics and ideas “fairness” out of it.
1 Like
Thanks for your reply fren!
To me it sounds like you have every reason to vote for option A (or C - current implementation - should it end up in there), and that is more than fine.
I see your multiple arguments against option B as your personal opinon which you’re welcome to share and campaign with obviously.
But I don’t see it as some conspiracy to disadvantage larger asset holders (be that the effect or not).
It was PCs original plan, and I’m sure their intent was not to harm multi gotchi owners.
Were you always concerned about the original mechanism or did you accept it and begin to plan around it because that was the only mechanism in play?
To put the opposite view: PC’s original implementation advantaged no 1 time zone over another. It created no stressful and inconvenient peak hr (although it is a fun hr!) etc etc - you claim ppl want to nerf you for being a larger owner but you seem to ignore the fact ppl have already been nerfed by the introduction of this new mechanism. Feels only fair to include it for voting (it won’t get up as we know anyway), and not entirely fair to suggest anyone voting for it has it in for you and your strategy.
my <$0.02 worth 
3 Likes
What I’m really pointing out is the bias that JG1 is talking about. Option B is only reasonable at all if we include option C, “do nothing,” which would uphold the vote that already occurred.
It’s not good practice for any DAO to vote A vs B, overwhelmingly choose A, then have a new proposal for B vs C. Why does B get preference? If that’s the procedure, we are encouraging “special interests” to have outsized effects on the project whenever they have a lot of energy for one thing or another.
In this case, I would be fine with an individual gotchi 24 hr reset, and I think there may be even more interesting or effective solutions. I acknowledge the problems with the single global reset time and would really like to fix them, and I agree that it affects people differently based on time zone. However, my desire to correct that badness in no way makes me want to move to an equally-broken system. This is more about DAO procedure and debate than anything else, since I don’t think “revert to individual timer” will really pass.
2 Likes
I just realized that IDGAF what we do, I just want this over and done with and deep down in side, I think we should have just left it alone, and the punishment is that it’s still a topic 
Lets narrow it down?
- 2 choice
- 3 choice
- Ranked Choice
0 voters
2 Likes
I agree with this and back to 24h cooling down period. also I have one another suggestion. **We can let any ready channeled gotchi in game to channel any altars. and land owners can set profit persentage that shared with this channel gotchi ** by doing this we have many benefits:
- you don’t need to get up at midnight to channel your altar.
- you don’t need to spend much higher cost to lend one gotchi and just spend 5minutes in game for channel your altar.
- relieve the stress of server. altars will be channeled at any time, if some ready gotchi find the ready altar.
- attract more players: players will not only pick up the alchemica in game, they can also get earned by channel the altars.
- you don’t need to remember your gotchi’s timer. maybe some other gotchis channeled your altar automatically already in game.
- most importantly, this will push land owners to upgrade their altars. because they will not worry missing channeling at midnight after upgrade their altars.
please consider my suggestion, if you have any good idea or arguments just reply me here.
Thank you fren, solid response and arguments that make much sense.
Great question. I actually thought I didn’t see the big deal when people were discussing this mechanic the first go-around. I thought it benefitted multi-gotchi owners that ALSO wanted to channel every other day. I don’t do or need the every-other-day thing… so I thought the vote was pretty much inconsequential to me. But that was then when things were theoretical and now we have actual experience and people have upgraded their altars with REAL tokens according to the status quo. Option B is actually proposing a huge change from where we’ve been in REALITY and a NERF to how people have invested, because others are unhappy that they cant experience the reset at their idealistic time. What makes it ok to severely nerf one group (with financial consequences) because the other wants better opportunistic terms?
So… as I’ve explained several times already, including option B as the ONLY alternative is choosing winners and losers, it is choosing nerfs after the fact… justified by theory and the opportunity costs of others. Including it as the only alternative option is framing the vote and making those affected a scapegoat or a sadistic consolation prize, if you will.
Let’s just include option B as it clearly has its fans, but also an Option C… because the average voter may not read this thread, and they are entitled to an unframed vote and a fair/realistic way to vote against option A.
2 Likes
I think you might misunderstand what channeling is. You don’t channel your altar. It is not a resource, there is no alchemica contained in your parcel that is accessible through channeling. The gotchi is the resource, in this transaction. The alchemica in your parcel is the stuff you use harvesters to get.
Being able to channel on other peoples altars is a feature, that should be implemented soon, though. People with level 9 altars will surely be able to charge 25% and get customers readily, as that is probably more profitable that using their own altar.
1 Like
thanks for your explain me more for channeling. my opinion, if as you said channel on other peoples altars will be applied soon, then for me it is one very important solution of server stress and improvement of game experience.
however I still support back to 24 hours cooling-down. because after this above feature applied, many problems that cause by 24hour cooling down system can be solved.
if we choose 0:00UTC system, the game will be not balance, will be not symmetry. you see, the nature is balance, and symetry. and it works fine. so in gotchiverse should same as the nature. and not set any fixed timer.
1 Like
Using your example, this proposal is just A vs B again, only this time A is “better” instead of being rushed through and breaking the game.
Option C as you’ve proposed is redundant, given that Option A already does to the midnight UTC reset what Option C proposes (nothing). I get that you really want to emphasize the no-change vote, but it’s already there, packaged with a solution to the actual problem the proposal is trying to solve. It’s what “A” in your example should have been, had it not been rushed through.
Shake the idea that Option B is intended to be punitive and instead is something we want to decisively eliminate because we are all happy with a superior solution. “Do nothing” is not a solution that benefits the whole DAO. To be blunt, reading your position, it seems like Option C has been inserted in response to a perceived grievance rather than anything that has been actually discussed in this thread.
I don’t see the point of ranked voting where there is one real, obvious option and two redundant mutually destructive poison pills. It overcomplicates what should be a very simple way of suggesting to Pixelcraft a solution that would benefit everyone. If we’re not happy with the idea of paying a fee to set a custom solo channeling time, let’s talk about it! But it seems like everyone in here is already onboard with the idea.
1 Like
in our real world, we use clock to measure our time. but we not set fixed time to let every people get up or go sleep. because different people live in different time zones, also some people need to work at night. now everybody think it is natural. and it runs very well. same in gotchiverse, if we fixed the channeling time. I cannot tell you the disadvantages of this choise, but learned from the nature I think it is not suitable.
above is just my suggestion… not argument against 0:00UTC system supporters.
thank you fren for your suggestion. we should welcome everybody’s suggestions, and at the sigprop level, we can have many (competing) proposals, we can have many choices. We should be focusing on making the best option that everyone is happy with. Hopefully constructive attitudes will prevail over those that like nerfs and poison pill dynamics
Maybe everyone that feels really strongly about this should go rally some new voices and get them to throw in? If we do something now, we actually have another shot at fixing it, if that turns into chaos, too. This is already a science experiment…
2 Likes
Exactly, I don’t understand the gaslighting going on in this thread. A proper sigprop includes a link to a thread and it is already a bad look having all this gaslighting vs. legitimate debate and finding actual consensus.
The devs as custodians of our DAO are not 5 year olds and they don’t need us dumbing things down to only 2 choices for them at the sigprop level. The push to rush this prop with just 2 choices and many procedural shortcuts coupled with logical fallacies, are already making any potential prop very sus and questionable in spirit… unless its proponents start listening to the feedback vs. forcing the community to an either-or vote between their two pre-selected (aka framed) outcomes.
1 Like
yes, I agree with you for this point.
no hurry, and we should not make decision soon. I just express my opinion, and waiting for somebody question me.
Hi all, option C maintain existing system is now in the draft sigprop too.
Perhaps this Sigprop should not be raised until after this weeks DAO meeting just so everyone has time to take one final look before it gets issued plus we can get some final comments from PC.
1 Like
Look in the mirror. You came in with the personal attacks & inflammatory language.
Forcing players to fit an agenda or allowing players to customize their game experience. Which position has access to the greater amount of voting power? I guess we’ll see what happens if / when this actually makes it to a vote.
2 Likes
Long ago I offered my support for Option A.
You keep talking up the merits of Option A to justify your weird and suspicious need to include Option B while excluding C. Stop using option A as means to distract us from how you want to manipulate the other available choices.
Sure, if people are allowed the means to a fair vote, which won’t happen as long as you insist on excluding certain options (C) and including others for no justifiable reason other than forcing your own biases and preferences on this vote.
1 Like
Yes, I agree. Options B and C should not really be part of this, either of them. But if B is there, C should be too to honor the other vote and keep this vote less biased in its construction. That’s all I’m saying.
3 Likes