I did that because people cant agree on a fee, and glitter is time, so why not just measure the time? If you move it an hour, its almost nothing, if you move 100 gotchis an hour, its almost nothing, if you move 100 gotchis 23:59, its kind of something…
I feel strongly that we should treat glitter as what it is, time, and always think in 1 glitter = 1 block, not in the GHST value of glitter.
That’s just one option. We could also only allow users to increase their timer, therefore not allowing any banked channeling and so increasing your timer would only ever result in lost channeling time.
I think “banking channeling” is misleading or at the very least too easily misunderstood.
If we’re able to set our own time-of-day for the 24h reset, we will have to wait for more than 24h on the first day. Imagine instead of 00:00 UTC you wanna channel at 14:00 UTC. That means from the last time you channeled at 00:00, 38h will have to pass before you can channel. This is necessary, so people can’t exploit this mechanism to gain time. However, you now lost 14h because you had to wait 38h on the first day, instead of just 24h. Just because you don’t wanna get up in the middle of the night. That’s not really fair, is it? Afterall, it’s not your fault that 00:00 UTC is in the middle of your night, or during your office working hours, or during scheduled family time, is it?
Hence, if for some reason you want to go back to channeling at 00:00 UTC, you would get those 14h that were taken from you back, because you would be able to channel 10h after the last time you channeled at 14:00 UTC.
There is no net gain, and there is no time-loan. You would merely get back what had already been taken from you. You would not be able to pay to get more time or channel faster.
Ok i was under the impression that for example i wanted to set my time to 1400 utc i would be able to move it forward to that time and my gotchi would be able to channel at that time. I did not really “lose” any time since my window was increased by those same hours I had to wait. Or are you saying if we used this concept i would have to wait until the following day before the new 24 hr window would be active?
Alright, what do you think of this implementation:
From the UI side, on https://verse.aavegotchi.com/, accessed through the Settings button, at the bottom of that menu, a button:
“Use next channeling transaction to set channeling reset time for all eligible Aavegotchis?”
That when toggled will submit a transaction flagging the address for the reset. The next channeling transaction by that address will use the timestamp of the channeling transaction to set the new channeling reset time for all eligible aavegotchis in the wallet (if the aavegotchi can channel, e.g. at least 24 hours has passed since its last channeling, it is eligible)
I suppose with this implementation, there could instead be an input box in the menu where the user could enter the specific custom reset time that they want, and submit a transaction that will bump the pending channeling reset time for all their aavegotchis forward to the specified time.
In cases of wallets containing asynchronous aavegotchis (which I think would be common after this feature is added), the UI could automatically calculate the different number of hours needed to sync everybody to the specified time, before submitting the transaction. This version has the advantage of not needing two transactions or using conditions set on the address, it just bumps the timestamp of the pending reset time forward.
OMG
Thats it, so simple. Burn 1 glitter to move your timer forward one block
Done. Lets Go.
Ok so now we need a poll to either burn 1 glitter to move your time forward 1 block vs a set fee where we need to come to some sort of consensus on what to do with the collected GLTR. Playing devil’s advocate here, maybe we need to do this in a way that is also beneficial to large gotchi owners that want a reliable renting market by including set move to times. IMO in all honesty just having a toggle that would allow owners to turn channeling “off/on” would be a more simplistic way of doing this. This again IMO is not really about having the 24hr window “start” at a time of a player’s choosing, its more about whether your gotchi will be able to channel when YOU want to channel. So depending on how this one goes, i will put up a sigprop about including a toggle on the renting UI the same time i open discussions on it 
This is a planned feature. That’s why this whole thing is a bit unnecessary.
Are you referring to the toggle to enable/disable channeling for a gotchi during a lending?
Can you provide a link to where this feature was announced?
I keep seeing people suggesting the idea of a toggle in lending, and it either gets ignored or shut down. But to me it seems like a very good idea that targets the root cause of the rush-hour problem, more effectively and easier to understand than custom reset times, so I’m not sure why there’s not more discussion about it. Thank you Quincy for pushing forward with it!
The only reference to permissions that I found in the Bible is about land permissions (The Gotchiverse Bible: Chapter 4 | The Curve). This is not the same as gotchi or lending permissions. Locking down your own land doesn’t prevent a borrower from channeling a gotchi on the borrower’s own land, that’s the whole issue. Channeling takes a usable aaltar and a usable gotchi, and we only have control over the land-half of this.
One possible argument against adding a lending toggle is if we want to keep the protocol-level aavegotchi lending feature ‘clean’ of any references to gotchiverse features.
But another possible implementation would be to follow the same pattern as for lands, i.e. set access permissions on each individual gotchi (and store that permission in the gotchiverse part of the contract).
I come back gain after many days not checking replies here. It seems there is a lot of different voices comes out here.
as I said before if introduce gotchi channel any altars in games then it should be not a big difference amont ABC options.
however I remind dev. team again: if you want to not make thing complicated, then comeback to 24hours cooling down system.
for me such system will be balance symmetry and simple. and this let me feel it a kind of natrual beauty. please all of you think more of my opinion.
in fact I don’t want to repeat this topic again and again. but please see what happened now: when 0:00UTC because lots of gotchis need to channel it cause renting rate very high normally 1ghst/1hour. and then renting rate get low gradually and finally it falls to 0.1ghst/1hour. do you think it is strange? it is like a “bug” every day in this gotchiverse. and for me it is good thing because I can use this bug to plan my renting strategy and I can earn money. but its really strange thing that cannot find in our normal life.
also now my altar already 2level, but I only channel it one time at 0:00UTC, because after 18hours you will find the unchanneled gotchi very few also its lending rate very high around 0.5-1ghst. its not smart to spend GHST and earn alchemica (cheaper everyday) from channeling. my opinion, it is the biggest problem that cause more and more land owners not willing to upgrade their altars further.
anyway hope dev. team can finish such situation soon, whatever choices you decide.
IMO when the devs put the whole concept of the gotchiverse together they did it with the idea of linking vested token amounts with the different land sizes. Your gotchi was originally intended to be used to interact with your land to help extract these tokens in a gamified way. The gotchi solo channeling/ UBI was setup to “pay” your gotchi daily for its daily interaction. The marketplace was setup to allow players the option to lend their gotchi to other players who needed them for interactions on their parcels or much later access to social events in the gotchiverse. The devs or NOT responsible for market prices nor the behaviors of the lenders/renters. What you are seeing is called supply and demand. The demand for unchanneled gotchi is higher than channeled gotchi based on the potential income. Now with my idea of added a toggle to the renting UI, you would IMO see more gotchi at a lower renting price because its owner now has the opportunity to solo channel at the time of his/her choosing. LOL now the issue with ppl botting the marketplace will have to be addressed in a different discussion 
I don’t understand your meaning, but my suggestion is that make the game as simple as possible, so most people can enter even some kids.
LOL i guess we are talking about the same thing. I am saying that we could have a button to push similar to choosing alchemica types/GHST when you make a rental contract. This way the owners could control when their rented gotchi would channel and that should help stabilize rental prices.
If you don’t want them channeling, don’t let them use your land, and don’t rent to open market. That is the current solution.
As we do not have the full land permissions yet, I doubt we will be able to demand gotchi permissions, and get those in a timely manner, as you are adding a second layer of ACL’s and the complexity of the “isOwner” dynamic on top if it.
It’s an ACL, and the lands are like demark routers, installations are internal NICs, and gotchis are clients. right now, they only have the basics of the main router config built.
If you think of this as CISCO or Linux, it makes much more sense, when you try to think of the how and why things are the way they are. (and yes, the part about the protocol vs the verse… thats client vs infrastructure)
Sometimes you surprise the shit out of me…in a good way.
Sometimes the Devs surprise the shit out of me.
Check this out… this fix they made already, that we just need to approve, fixes some of the issues were are trying to resolve here in this topic.
Nice and whitelist “hoarding” of gotchi should imo be looked at also.
What is that? Sounds like exactly what he was experiencing? Someone gets on the list, buns through em to channel, never returns them?
LOL it does sound the same 
. I guess saying hoarding was not the correct term. I should have said “inactive” whitelists 