SigProp: Launch Haunt 2

[Jesse_gldnXross]

Vote at Snapshot

#SigProp: Launch Haunt 2
Author: Jesse | gldnXross#6482
Gotchi ID: 4563
End Date: July 15, 2021 at 0:00 UTC
Quorum: 20% (roughly 5M)
Discourse Thread: Proposing Haunt 2 aauction for July

Problem being addressed:
Accessibility to the Aavegotchi platform. Currently Aavegotchis are limited by a maximum possible 10,000 because only that many Haunt 1 Portals exist. This makes acquiring a first Aavegotchi cost prohibitive. a second Haunt of 15,000 more Portals, we aim to address this problem while respecting unique, collectible aspects of Haunt 1 Aavegotchis.

Our vision is for far wider adoption of playable NFTs, and the first step to achieving that means leaving the scarcity memes behind and focusing on being able to offer meaningfully unique experiences to more people.

Solution:
We are suggesting it is the right time to introduce a second Haunt of 15,000 more Portals in Haunt 2. We aim to address the accessibility problem while respecting unique, collectible aspects of Haunt 1 Aavegotchis.

---

Frens and family, the SigProp for Haunt 2 is now live and running all week long. Use this thread as a clean slate for related discussion and of course find all the background at the original thread linked right here:

Proposing Haunt 2 aauction for July

The AavegotchiDAO has a growing number of responsibilities but maintaining the appropriate supply of Aavegotchis in existence remains the absolute primary. It is impressive that, unlike so many DAOs, ours is not a rubber stamp. “Supply by consensus” is an approach that has been taken seriously as seen with the first H2 CoreProp not voting for a second Haunt just a few months ago. Today, the development roadmap and achievements of the project are at a different place, so I’d like to kick off dis…

Excited to have this conversation!

[diddlypoo]

Super excited for haunt 2, and agree with almost all of the proposed changes to revenue distribution, however am struggling to understand the rationale behind limiting the rarity farming rewards to only 2 million. With the addition of the rookie leaderboards this number equates to an identical amount to szn 1. With the addition of 15k more gotchis there will be many more high BRS gotchis summoned, meaning almost every existing gotchi will lose ranks on the leaderboard, i.e. everyone gets a smaller RF reward.

This is ridiculous to propose. Even ignoring wearables proceeds, the revenue from H2 portal auctions should easily be 3-4x the revenue from H1. If I recall correctly, we already capped szn 1 rewards prior, meaning there is an existing surplus of revenue reserved for RF. This, on top of the expected revenue from H2, should allow for a much much larger cap for szn 2. At the absolute least, the cap needs to be increased by 1.5x to account for the increased competition from H2 portals, but I would propose a 2.5x increase (to 5 million) due to the huge increase in expected revenue.

[kuwlness]

Fully agree with everything @diddlypoo wrote. Capping S2 rewards is very short-sighted. If anything, we should be looking at expanding the RF rewards for S2 considering we’re growing the number of Gotchis by 150%.

The team needs to seriously reconsider this. Not doing so may result in another failed H2 proposal and/or a mass exodus of players that have invested heavily with the anticipation of Aavegotchi becoming widely adopted only to realize the Team wants to cap their potential rewards.

Previous thread on Uncapped Rewards here: Uncapped Rarity Farming Rewards in S2

[CryptoGotchi]

In your thread Proposing Haunt 2 aauction for July you asked the community how many portals they’d want for H2. I counted 40 responses (I used the middle for people who gave ranges):
Mean: 19.68k
Median: 20k
Distribution:

Naturally, I’m curious why you’re proposing only 75% of what the average user asked for? You always sounded like an advocate for mass adoption @Jesse_gldnXross

Similarly to @diddlypoo , I’m also wondering about the 2 million cap, for the reasons that he outlined above. The only reason for such a cap that I could imagine, is that there is more than 1 season planned between H2 and H3. Is that so? That would be epic!

The aalpha is just in!:

[chair]

As a newer initiate to the gotchi verse, the prohibitive cost of acquiring the first Gotchi was concerning, especially when onboarding new players. I support a direction that is more inclusive of beginners.

[Moon]

Liquidators will be entirely free to play and auction ensure there’s a fair price discovery.

[diddlypoo]

On further thought and following Jesse’s heroics in dao-discussion, I’ll agree that the cap has been increased sufficiently to account for new gotchis shifting the leaderboard. However I still think that the final cap on season rewards need to be determined after all the revenue from portal and wearables comes in, so we could make a factual determination on how much should be saved for future seasons.

[JG1]

I support a H2 in July and even support the 15k number.
Unfortunately my hand is forced to vote no because I do not believe in the delivery of arbitrary changes to tokenomics or potential rewards via packaging them within a popular proposal.
For the sake of precedent, trust and decentralization, and the DAO itself, this type of behavior should not be encouraged for anyone bringing forth a proposal, devs included.

[Pebbles]

I love the proposals here! The ability to use Kinship in the metaverse is awesome and sounds like it may solve the conundrum of season 1 gotchis having too much of head start.

Two suggestions to possibly address concerns regarding Szn 2 rewards.

1. Make the cap a percentage of season 2 revenue vs a specific number.
2. Get rid of the remaining 5% GHST burn and put it towards reward pools. I think dividends are better than buybacks and give much better return for the capital.

[kenymccornick]

You mean “Lickquidators”, right?

[Pebbles]

Not sure I agree with this given the wide variance in people’s entry points to GHST. People who got at the very beginning have a much lower cost basis and are likely to spend more freely. Add on that GHST are actually down for most later entrants and you end up with a very wide cost dispersion. This is why I advocate for fixed cost portals with limit of portals per purchase transaction. By doing so each person can plan and budget better based on their specific starting point.

[pgendreau]

You mean the 17% to 40% increase to pixelcraft (compared to 10-15 for dao)? I also noticed that and tought it was a bit of a slide-in at first, but the medium article covers it better. The way I see it more and more is that the DAO will be using Pixelcraft for development so 40% for build from a DAO perspective make sense as there is so much in the pipeline.

[JG1]

Yes this is among the issues I have with the announcement. Most things I have read in defense of it boil down to, the intention is good behind these changes, so we should blindly accept them.
So then it’s a matter of whether you’re a believer on the philosophy that the “end justifies the means”.
Maybe you’re in the other camp and feel that breaking protocol or previous agreements or taking shortcuts does more harm in the long run than whatever temporary benefit it provided. I think neither view is necessarily wrong.

I wonder certain things such as how would devs respond in return to a similar proposal by a member of the community, if they were to package one change under the proposal for another more popular change. I think the DAO will be stronger in the end if there are no sanctified members ever, and this would include devs or other potential charismatic or important figureheads in the future. Actually, we should be able to look at these figureheads for examples of immaculate DAO procedure and decorum.

So it’s not about rejecting the changes to the circle of win based on rejecting the resulting benefits. In many ways, we already have a “Circle of Win v2” image released which digresses from the whitepaper (EDIT- IN THE WIKI)- so the PR harm has in some ways already been done, and anyone who might have rejected this kind of signaling path in the community never got to say their piece.

Many will be making a compromise or trade-off when casting their bundled vote.

[coderdan]

@JG1

In many ways, we already have a “Circle of Win v2” image released which digresses from the whitepaper

You’ve mentioned the whitepaper twice now so I assume you are referring to a specific part where the Circle of Win V2 digresses from it?

AFAIK there’s actually nothing in the whitepaper about burning GHST, or allocating specific percentages of GHST for rarity farming rewards. Those concepts were introduced in this blog post:

An Overview of GHST Revenue Sharing | by Aavegotchi | Medium and to be fair there is mention that the numbers may be updated later.

Pixelcraft has real costs and taxes that must be paid, and it’s become clear to everyone in the past several months that putting 33% of revenue into the burner has had very little effect on the price of GHST, while essentially limiting our strongest source of capital for all sorts of activities (development, marketing, partnerships, etc.)

I’m sure you noticed that player rewards were not changed, and the DAO percentage has been increased. The only category that got reduced was burn, because (as many tokenomics gurus warned us) burning value isn’t as effective as re-investing it. While it’s still true that the “value” isn’t being lost (it’s still in the bonding curve, as DAI) having more on-hand capital will give us much more ammunition for larger campaigns, such as the OTC deal mentioned in the medium article.

I understand that your primary complaint is that this change was rolled into a larger proposal, mainly to save time for the DAO. If you have strong feelings about the percentages, you are welcome to make a second thread or even SigProp that addresses the adjustment.

As always, thanks for taking the time to air your concerns fren!

[CryptoGotchi]

I think Pixelcraft made a good compromise. The proposal considers the interests of current Gotchi owners as well as the interests of people looking to buy in on H2. It also considers rising development costs as the team grows, and reinvests into its development. All of that is great and it shows that you guys are listening to our suggestions and concerns and try your best to chart a good course for Aavegotchi’s future.

That said, I’d like to point out some constructive criticism.

@coderdan

I understand that your primary complaint is that this change was rolled into a larger proposal, mainly to save time for the DAO.

What does saving time for the DAO mean? If you start at a hyperlink to the proposal, it takes 4 clicks to cast a vote. So any time saved for the DAO by creating 1 instead of 3, 4, or even 5 signal proposals is negligible. Especially compared to writing hundreds or even thousands of lines of code. The DAO is not the bottleneck. But maybe I misunderstood.

Either way, I don’t think bundling proposals is a good idea. And saying it is for the benefit of the DAO just makes it sound unnecessarily shady imo.

@coderdan

If you have strong feelings about the percentages, you are welcome to make a second thread or even SigProp that addresses the adjustment.

While technically possible, it seems very much futile. As devs, you have a huge clout advantage compared to any community member. It should be fairly obvious to anyone that any proposal that proposes a change to an ongoing proposal made by a dev (which was announced during the biggest Aavegotchi event ever) will not stand a chance. Especially considering that you guys bundled so many things together. People would have all kinds of negative reactions to this. Either they might fear that if they vote for a change that this would further delay H2, or they might be outraged how a community member dares to question the numbers that you guys came up with. Or they might be one of these people who only come out of the woodwork when you guys announce something, and not even check snapshot for other proposals.

Just to clarify, I think this is good (at least as long as the project is in its infancy). It just makes the argument of “Well, if you don’t like it, make another proposal” a bit weak.

To me, the biggest weak-point in your proposal is that you have yet to explain how you arrived at those numbers exactly. Both, the number of portals, and the percentages mentioned. I don’t think you just pulled them out of your butt, so I’d be really interested in the nitty gritty of how you arrived at them exactly. Just saying “the threads have been online for weeks” and “we considered and compiled what everyone wrote” is not an answer to this (referring to Jesse’s discord responses).
If you had included a link in the medium article to a more in-depth explanation of those exact numbers, you might have gotten in front of any criticism about the proposed changes.

Thank you very much for continuing to improve and develop this project that we all love so much! Keep up the good work.

[JG1]

@coderdan

You’ve mentioned the whitepaper twice now so I assume you are referring to a specific part where the Circle of Win V2 digresses from it?

Big error on my part! I frequent the different resources and clearly Circle of Win V1 is not in the whitepaper but in the wiki, my apologies and thx for pointing out.
On the other hand, I think the location of the information matters less than the damage to trust and goodwill from changing numbers or tokenomics that were previously announced, regardless of where.

@coderdan

I’m sure you noticed that player rewards were not changed

While the percentage of rewards hasn’t been reduced yet, it becomes hard to expect it wouldn’t, since dev signaling has pointed towards exclusion (previous suggestion to exclude H1 from certain rewards categories) and caps of rewards. Establish a different pattern of signaling, and maybe our expectations can begin to change as well.

@CryptoGotchi

While technically possible, it seems very much futile. As devs, you have a huge clout advantage

I have to agree with Cryptogotchi here. An issue with directing the great majority of the token burn to Pixelcraft, is that it would be difficult and contentious to adjust that ratio later.
In the same way I think its ludicrous and ungrateful to cut or cap or reduce rewards, I wouldn’t make part of an initiative to reduce Pixelcraft income in the future.

With that said I would definitely propose different ratios before theyre implemented. It seems tone-deaf from devs at this juncture to increase revenue by 23% via the burn reallocation, while telling us in the same announcement that you guys don’t know where funds may come for rewards so they need to be capped. What???

@coderdan

you have strong feelings about the percentages, you are welcome to make a second thread or even SigProp that addresses the adjustment

I am inclined to take on this offer for the reasons above, unless you have explicit and valid reasons to justify 23% for pixelcraft, 5% for a dormant treasury while 0% would be reallocated to the community via rewards. I would ask you to share those reasons now before I take the on the initiative and the pariah role that would go along with it. Some in the community really don’t take kindly if you disagree with anything the devs say or do!

[noahns]

As always, love the discussion and really appreciate the Dan and Jesse being ever present on the Discord to answer questions.

A few of us were just having a good convo with Dan and Jesse in Discord that I wanted to memorialize here. As Diddlypoo mentioned above, there’s really no reason to set a hard cap on RF rewards before we know how much revenue H2 is going to bring in. I propose that we change the language in the Coreprop to specify that the 2m is a soft cap to be revisited after H2. Something like:

“We intend to cap Season 2 rewards at 2m GHST, up from 1.4m in season 1. This is to ensure that future rarity farming seasons are fully funded. However, at this point this is a soft cap, and will be revisited after H2 if the amount of revenue generated for player rewards exceeds 3m GHST”

Open to discussions about what that final number should be. 3m seems reasonable because at that point we’ll have 50% funded a future season (this is in line with what JG recommended in the Discord).

Would love to hear feedback!

[JG1]

You know, this is actually growing on me, because now that devs shared their reasons, a soft-cap is something I can support, with some caveats such as:

I can relate to the intention they shared this morning, which is to normalize seasons versus having them be volatile in total amounts. It makes sense, so I would support a soft cap while continuing to oppose a hard-cap.

The reason I say it is growing on me is because, it allows for seasons to have a grand finale!

After soft cap has been met, distributing any extra in the last 1 or 2 rounds would be extremely exciting!

[noahns]

Could you expand more on what you mean by rewards being reallocated or readjusted?

[JG1]

sure thing.

Since you ask me to expand, I inevitably have to engage in assumptions, speculation, etc. I hope I don’t get usual replies as “we dont even know yet what szn2 might be so why you speculating on szn 3” etc. -
As that is what I’m being asked to do…

However, I hope my example clarifies that I don’t imply foul play or bad intentions when I say rewards would likely be reallocated or adjusted.

Lets take a hypothetical gotchi and name him Hippo.

Hippo ends #12 in BRS and #10 in kinship for season 2. H2 is a success and there’s 8 million that could be distributed, but things are capped at 2 million. Hippo is greatly affected by the cap as theoretically he could have received 3-4X more from his honest success in szn2.

Then in between szn2 and szn3 certain things happen. Maybe certain members push changes successfully on certain issues like kinship mechanic modifications. Perhaps ARS replaces BRS or they are separate categories for szn3.
So then announcement comes that szn3 will be the greatest one ever, with a 4-8 million reward pool.

Sounds great and victimless right? Well perhaps after the kinship and category change examples above, by the end of szn3, because of different ARS and kinship mechanics, Hippo greatly underperforms in rarity, kinship and XP categories.

He would have to look on as his success from szn2 has funded rewards for top performers in szn3, some of them perhaps entirely new to the ecosystem that very season.

This is just one example out of many complications that arise when you cap rewards. You are inevitably taking the rewards the current population was entitled to, and asking all of them to accept blindly whatever direction those funds take by the next season.

Edit: Replaced word “trust” with “accept” above. Realizing thanks to feedback from frens that I use this word too liberally compared to other cultures. I have invested my funds in Aavegotchi and I think that is the ultimate signal of trust