RF SZN 5 kickoff

Proposals by Gotchi Gov'nuhs
1

GM gotchichads,

Hope you’re all doing well and staying spooky, 'tis almost the season for it after all!

I come to you with the ghaastly proposal of having a RF SZN 5, this one is going to scare your socks off…

The parameters are… the same!?
In the spirit of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” - please refresh yourselves on the params of the past four seasons below:

4 Rounds (2 weeks each) 1.5 Million GHST Rewards Pool - to be funded by the DAO treasury player rewards pool

70% BRS

20% Kinship

10% XP

Top 7.5k Gotchis (30%)

*I suggest we make the 1.5m GHST prize pool whole via the DAO treasury as previously discussed in AGIP 23. The DAO has been rebalanced with a lot of GHST due to a recent pixelcraft-lead proposal for a DAI buyback that passed governance a few weeks ago.
edit: I’ve since been reminded by some helpful frens that there’s also a 3.5m GHST+ pool of player rewards to work with. This could be our go-to for the funding of another RF season, given that any gotchiverse-native uses for said pool seem like they’re a few quarters away from finalising. If deemed useful by the DAO, we could give the player pool rewards to RF on an IOU basis, with said pool to be refilled first when we do another sale or liquidity-generating event.

In case you missed it, a short recap for our RF scheduling;

SZN 4: June - July

SZN 5: October - November

SZN 6: February - March 2023

Cliffnotes and points of discussion:

We are still in quite a deep bear market, not just on a gotchi-level but on a global level, I hope you’ve been staying safe through that frens! The good thing about bear markets is that you can buy low and pivot into generational wealth. The bad thing about bear markets is that everything is low, including your portfolio, and your heating bill might soon be the size of a small pacific country’s GDP.

I have a feeling that in the spirit of guarding core protocol features and keeping our wearables market alive, it is a goal of the DAO and the treasury to keep some form of RF going, which is why I’ve brought this topic up on the forum.

It is, however, important to have some considerations on how to fund these, going forward.
The appetite for risk assets is at a record low, so funding future seasons with a (GBM) sale might not just annoy our long-term holders, but even risk our stock not selling out completely in the worst case scenario. This could be verybad™ for the gotchigaang.

On the other hand, funding a rarity farm by trade fees of the GAX alone is a pipe dream in the current market, but very much possible once we kick off and lickquidate the world. Maybe it’s prudent to coast off our treasury, while getting some GHST and alchemica sinks in to accompany SZN 5, and plan accordingly for 2023 and beyond?

We are stuck then, in a dilemma, where on the one side our treasury is now running net negative every rarity farm, but not doing a rarity farm at all could only quicken a slow bleed all too happily, as people cut their losses at the prospect of yield drying up. Perhaps this is an acceptable risk to take and we should focus on keeping the treasury filled, or perhaps we want to burn runway and focus on keeping our core userbase engaged in preparation for new user acquisition and the hopes for better market times ahead as the macro-situation changes.

I don’t have a crystal ball, and I cannot predict what 2023 and beyond are going to look like economy-wise. I firmly believe that if we keep our community strong and our devs and shippoors building and moisturised, this decade will be the decade of the gotchis; but the economic policy of getting there, I leave to you all to reach consensus on.

What are your hopes for season 5, what are your worries for season 5 and beyond, what would you like to see going forward?

Share it below, but please try to keep it concise and on the topic of rarity farming!

Stay spooky, stay safe :ghost:

*Edited to include the 3.5m GHST player rewards pool

8 Likes
2

The treasury only has less than 5 million GHST left. Despite this being a huge amount of value, I say “only” because it won’t even last us until the end of 2023, if we keep this up. ‘This’ being RF rewards and schedules. It is not sustainable. Sacrificing the treasury for users to stay a little longer doesn’t seem like the right approach. Furthermore, once the treasury is all dried up, those people would still be the first to leave, and we’d be right back where we’re now, just without DAO funds. I also don’t see an issue with people “cutting their losses”, since that just makes for better buying opportunities for the people with strong(er) convictions.
If capital must be deployed, I’d much rather see more of this value go towards grants, since bear-markets are for building.

5 Likes
3

We are in quite the predicament considering the Raffles gave away too much free GHST and caused endless dilution of assets. We were averaging a giveaway of ~3.5M worth of GHST each Raffle and as a DAO we failed to stop that before it became too much for our smol community to overcome.

Now, we need player growth but cannot continue to mindlessly sell new assets at the detriment of existing holders. We will need to do some big brain thinking on how to continue to fill the DAO’s coffers with GHST without creating an environment that also causes more players to leave than are onboarded.

The DAO has a little over $420k (ha!) USD worth of Alchemica just sitting there with very little usage planned for it. We’ll have to keep track of how significantly this is growing on a weekly & monthly basis. There may be a way to split up RF rewards using a combination of the two.

Alternatively, the removal of the Curve is another aspect that continues to be an interesting take. By allowing GHST to appreciate (assuming we can get those new players in without cannibalizing the old ones), we would be able to hand out less GHST via RF rewards since the value in $USD terms would be significantly higher than what it is now.

But we definitely need to further explore things and brainstorm since RF was the foundation that most of us bought into when we first took the Gotchi Pill. To remove that would likely be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and we are left with a mass exodus.

3 Likes
4

I think the right dates for RF5 would be 16 Nov '22 - 11 Jan '23 based on recent timings.
Snapshot dates would be
R1: Wed 30/11/22
R2: Wed 14/12/22
R3: Wed 28/12/22
R4: Wed 11/1/23

5 Likes
5

The November timing works well with the crypto/stonk cycle because its always extra volatile.

Kuwlness is spot on about the GHST/Alch situation.

The DAO stakes ghst with alch, so that eats into the ghst supply, and currently were only paying oot in ghst. Most of the activity at this stage is alchemica related, not bazaar, and there are no auctions.

We either need to take in more ghst or we need to pay in alch when it is amenable. We should probably do both, but at the moment, the DAO has alchemica, dai, ghst, parcels, so we should probably start treating the assets as interchangeable(maybe give a few % incentive for payment in whatever the DAO has a surplus of)

6 Likes
6

The fundamental solution to this problem is the floor price. If the floor price of gotchis is higher than 1000ghst, then even if the rarity mining stops， high brs gotchis will not drop in price.The same solution can be implemented on wearable NFTs.

I have an immature suggestion, that is, take 1 million ghst out of the DAO treasury and buy 5 floor-price gotchis every day, so that about 1,000 gotchis can be recycled after 200 days.
There are less than 300 gotchis under 1000ghst available on the market.

  1. Make the floor price support for gotchis
    2.When the bull market comes , then the treasury sell high on the floor price to fill the treasury. The treasury farming will definitely not be low for xp and kin.
    3 Provide liquidity to gotchis.
    4 The price of buying 1000 gotchis can be stabilized at 800ghst by imprecise calculation.
    5 All holders benefit.
    If buybacks are stepped up, there may be a bull market.
1 Like
7

I’ve generally always disliked the idea of “rarity farming” … I thought that it was good to start things off, but that going forwards we should have much more interactive ways (e.g. in the GotchiVerse) of offering rewards to players.

That said, I think it depends on whether or not the DAO is realistically going to have decent ROI ideas for investment in the future. It’s probably better than funds just sitting around forever and will keep asset prices afloat… Sort of like if a company doesn’t have +EV investment ideas to just do buybacks or dividends…

I just don’t have a strong opinion at this stage, honestly…

1 Like
8

How about 1 million GHST instead of 1.5 Million GHST as total rewards for sZ5?

2 Likes
9

I think that would be a good compromise. That wouldn’t leave our farmers hanging, while also showing some financial responsibility from us as a DAO.

10

I agree with HARDCORE in everything he said.

We need to think about sustainibility of rarity farming. We put “Stop” on new asset sales, and that means we have no way to replenish “reward coffers”.

We should only do rarity farming when we have plan how to fill up “reward coffers”…so we have new assets sales planned.

We might as well end bonding curve and distribute XY millions GHST to asset owners with this thinking….

Besides, big part of reward pool came from “land sales” and “art contest” for land owners was the only reward…. Look at land prices, all crashing much more than wearebles. We need to find and develop alchemica sinks, or reward land parcels owners more , because otherwise no land sale can come in the future. I believe land sales are the future of protocol health and finance and we should threat them this way.

Maybe we could do smaller rarity farming seasons, or try to implement ARS as was planned in whitepaper. Maybe wait for forge and use rarity farming as mechanic promotion

Just my 2 KEK.

11

I appreciate everyone’s posts and thoughts regarding this subject. It’s an important topic that needs a lot of care considering we’ve had the contests pretty much running ever since the inception of Aavegotchi.

I would like to see if there were any substantial positives from this last RF szn across the ecosystem before voting YES to any sort of proposal for RF in this current climate…

In my mind all we do is further drain the treasury for not very much in return, especially since the DAO is pretty much getting 0 revenue with the moratoriums on releasing new assets. Why not take this time to reform rarity farming instead of just churning out the same basic iteration that we all know could use some improving?

2 Likes
12

Is it possible to get forge done by NYE and do RF then? a forge launch into RF would be wild.

13

Being an OG in the space with a considerable investment my first reaction is… yes to another round of rarity farming as I would gain a significant return on my investment in percentage terms compared to the rest of the financial markets…However I do not like the idea of shortening the runway given that the bear market may continue on for some time and funds that may need to be directed towards development will be distributed to the community.
The forge is an amazing concept which should keep the community entertained and provide the opportunity for players to massage their Gotchi stats before the inevitable battle ground action starts … I would rather see the funds that would be directed to rewards for rarity farming go towards development that would attract new entrants to the Gotchiverse .

8 Likes
14

I think players would use the increase in price from the DAO buying all the floor gotchi’s as a great exit strategy …

15

50k funding has already been approved by sigprop for the forge. With the forge we can have GBM auctions for schematics, frames and wearables. This will go towards the funding and make it way more sustainable. I’d say we should kick off next RF season 1 month after the forge release (currently est December).

1 Like
16

I feel your concerns fren, but I should point out that my OP had mistakenly not accounted for the 3.5m GHST player rewards pool.
No runway funds of any sort would have to be used up.

That aside, I do think having 5m+ treasury GHST idle in this market also serves little use for us, so I’d be devil’s advocate and say it’s better served paid out to players as in aaron’s metaphor of the buybacks/dividends in tradfi even IF we dipped into that balance. Our DAO isn’t strapped for cash, but the players are taking the brunt of the bear market in every single asset class. The rarity farm is the basic gotchigaang celebration we all know and love, and the reason so many of us bought and cared for so many wonderful little ghosts in the first place. It’s a winning concept that I hope to see regularly for years to come.

It’s great to see all of the community come together and think of building and managing our project, thank you all for your input so far! :ghost:

2 Likes
17

Another way to think of it is would we rather have:

  1. Another 1.5million GHST distributed to the community OR
  2. 30x 50k GHST funded projects such as the Forge

Obviously point 2 depends on galaxy brain dev’s from the community (or further afield) to build 30x killer dapps but it is food for thought.

I tend to think having 30+ killer dapps/games as part of our protocol ready to go for the next bull run would be money better spent and help drive growth.

Or perhaps even both? Reduce RF SZ5 to $1 million GHST rewards and set aside the other 500k specifically for good, well thought out, resourced 3rd part dapp funding.

9 Likes
18

Also as OP holder I would like to see RF as planned.
I don’t know how to improve the economy, I don’t dare to suggest anything, but what I think is that what we need is the actual gameplay for worldwide adoption like exploring and fighting.

3 Likes
19

I think the rewards for RF5 should come from the DAO treasury.
I would like to see a distribution like this:
60% rarity
20% kinship
20% XP
XP has gained much in actual value, since it reflects now considerably more the engagement since the first huge XP-drops.

20

As I mentioned in the Discord, this proposal was not written with the correct formatting and thus is invalid to be considered a SigProp. Whoever submitted it, please re-submit with the correct formatting. Thanks.

2 Likes