RF SZN 5 kickoff

Proposals by Gotchi Gov'nuhs
21

This is being discussed as a SigProp in the DAO meeting but as coderdan mentioned (as did I in the meeting) it doesn’t meet the parameters for a SigProp on Snapshot.

TBH, I think we really need to address how (and who) can add props on Snapshot. It can get very messy and sometimes we’re not actually sure what is an official SigProp and what isn’t. At the very least IMHO before proposed in Snapshot as a SigProp the proposition should be discussed in here (or the Discord forum?) and verbally in a DAO meeting. Then when approved as a formal SipProp it needs to be titled as such in Snapshot.

I honestly think there should be a designated member of the DAO who is responsible for making sure all the necessary steps are taken prior to SigProp voting and that same member is the one who posts the prop in Snapshot in coordination with the proposer. Importantly, when the prop is posted the title should as a standard always begin with either SigProp or CoreProp and the AGIP number.

22

For clarification;

Is this because the sigprop does not follow the spirit of sigprops; i.e not being spam, not being a blatant nonsensical statement that clutters up our DAO, not being in violation of conduct and common sense.

Or is this because this sigprop does not align with certain incentives or designs and is thus easily singled out on a technicality like this? I can think of more sigprops that have moved to core prop despite not being a clear cut template. Should we not measure equally, then? Seems very convenient not to when it’s beneficial.

The voting power of the DAO certainly seems to find it a fine proposal. I’m sure they’ll still find it a similarly fine proposal when it follows a template.

It is unneeded to make attacks at proposals or those writing said proposals, such as frens Mark and Fantasma today, done in good faith and good taste, and instead belittling them for not being “responsible” DAOists or not taking their role seriously.

I can assure you, they take their roles much more seriously than most, and I have nothing but respect and admiration for the passion and commitment they have shown to making solutions, compromises, and ideas to make our community a better one. Something I cannot say for everyone, though I wish I could - for we do sell ourselves as the frenliest DAO. Playing for the peanut gallery looks nice on paper, but the peanut gallery is easily entertained, and more importantly easily caught up by the next shiny thing. Please consider the core community and the core supporters who have loved and believed in the ecosystem since inception.

re: locking up sigprops by fren Choyna

It seems very dangerous to add a central point of failure and a high barrier to entry for making proposals. It is not as if we are being absolutely flooded by low quality ones. I have seen maybe 4-5 in total over the year that were what I’d call actual nonsense
Some props, including some of my own, have not always followed templates - and I do try to look at templates but I occasionally get caught up in passion and in trains of thought and write them in freeform instead.

However, losing that contribution, or worse, centralising it with some sigprop guru - would absolutely murder DAO attendance and proposal motivation.

1 Like
23

No, it’s because there is no indication of who is creating the proposal. The template clearly states that you should state the GotchiID of the proposer, so that the community knows who is making the proposal and XP can be delivered to the authors.

Screen Shot 2022-10-31 at 10.28.17 AM
Screen Shot 2022-10-31 at 10.28.17 AM1242×502 38 KB

Unfortunately Snapshot does not let us update proposals. If they did, I would ask you to update it. As an OG of the community, I wish you would set a better example for others in the DAO by adhering to our guidelines in your proposals. That is why I asked you to re-submit your proposal, with the correct formatting.

Agreed.

Belittling them? Attacking? I was the one who encouraged Mark to raise the discussion in the first place. I think the DAO should not be afraid of discussing difficult issues.

I just believe that he and Fantasma were hasty in deploying the SigProp after just a few days of discussion.

3 Likes
24

RF is the primary lever for the DAO to assess what is the current health of the project. It can be used both ways (I ll not put here exact terms, because sec).

At this moment, it is a negative vote of confidence if the DAO decides to make an RF.

About RF needing to satisfy some criteria before even thinking about it: Who is going to set a maximum or minim amount of fund allocation for RF? the DAO? or PC? DAO will never nerf itself and even if it sets a policy, it can always revert the policy.
Having PC vetoing RF means the DAO never had real voting power.

I do not know why we are even discussing formalities and not fundamentals. Roadmap is not being respected - investors not feeling great - this is the fundamentals. As I said before, having RF now is a vote of no confidence PC can respect the roadmap (or whatever that means as we do not have a clear roadmap with dates / deliverables).

Instead of discussing treasury management, RFs, can we switch the conversation to: do we have a deliverable in the next two months?

What is the next deliverable in the next 6 months? Is the Forge well established and well funded? Do we have a clear roadmap game-play wise? I know there is one fake cards airdrop / raffle, but that is not going to help the gameplay. Are we going to have the Gotchiverse as the final deliverable to Aavegotchi or it will be a side project?

Do PC need more money to scale up to bring fast and better results ? - I think we can all agree here DAO would be more than willing to give up one RF worth of funds to PC to speed things up.

6 Likes
25

gm frens is sz5 cancel？Dao’s vote has been passed Why hasn’t it started yet sz5？

26

i think no. RF can wait imo

27

I really think the original mechanics to rf are wearing thin. We need to encourage a broader participation. To do that is to move away from the top heavy reward stature and also look at an aavegotchis individual traits for what they really are and the way wearables interact with those traits.
Currently we are ignoring the mathematics of a gotchi’s curve, in some cases well beyond 100 and below 0 which is still classed as an uplift in BRS. I propose we look into or even just think of the concept for the future where participants equip gotchi’s to raise their ARS stats close as possible to or 0 or 100 without exceeding and negatively affecting the highest possible score on either side of the curve.
The way I look at a curve 0-100 is that exceeding 100 you are moving back into negative territory and vice versa
(disclaimer) This idea is only practical and applicable to rf and not pvp
This kind of play would open the door for more juicy competition and more participants, and ofc the eye traits would then be the decider on tie breaking stats.
I think those that have purchased godlike /mythical items for rf in the past have in some cases been well renumerated by now and those items I’m sure will still have good value proposition in pvp and in rf still to some degree.
I think there would be greater demand for less tier wearables if the payout out structure was expanded to 10-12k gotchi’s and it would complement well with the forge also.
When I hear of rarity farming I just don’t get excited anymore, it’s the same song over and over, same people, it’s quite sad for all those that can’t compete on a bar that’s set so high.
Make it frenly make it for all of our community!

1 Like
29

Are you suggesting that gotchi with stats below 0 and above 100 get penalized?

1 Like
30

The RF season dates are contingent on the Forge release.

2 Likes
31

a date for the start of season 5 ?

32

This essentially rewards whoever spends the most money. In the end, it will still become a small group of people’s game. Because ordinary people and poor people are not rewarded. This kind of reward model actually finally established a barrier to entry for newcomers. If spending more money only increases the probability of winning, then ordinary people and poor people also have a very small chance of being rewarded, which will attract newcomers.

33

Isn’t it good to have a guaranteed exit mechanism?

34

Simply draw a lottery, divide the lottery tickets according to brs, the higher the brs, the more lottery tickets you get. In this way, those with low brs can also get 2 to 3 lottery tickets. Then everyone draws a lottery to get RF rewards. Then press kin xp to also divide lottery tickets to draw rewards. This solution is better than the floor price I said before.
The probability of winning the lottery is the same for each lottery ticket, and the probability of winning the reward is the same, but the high brs will get more lottery tickets. Make sure that the one with the lowest brs can get 1 lottery ticket.

1 Like
35

Yes it would really make players think what they are equipping rather than sending a couple of the gotchi’s stats to the moon and also the distribution of ageing/XP spend points of the gotchi.
This could also produce a small alchemica sink by being able to craft a respec potion thats unique to that current gotchi’s points allocation to be able to switch back and forth from rf to pvp, not marketable on Baazaar just for that use case ofc

1 Like