SigProp: Launch Haunt 2

Ah yes, in this model I focused on what will happen when you shift from one category to the other, but your suggestion specifically is a bit different than this:

This suggestion although different, would show probably similar tendencies if we modeled it. The simple reason being that you are signaling less rewards for the same wearables now, and likely in the future- so inevitably reward premiums the market is willing to pay will decrease.

I did not assume, I simply plugged in the F variable to the numbers for the different H2 scenarios to find the results. F variable is simply the ratio the market has proven to pay extra as you increase potential rewards. To best understand this we have to delve into what drives portal sales. I am sure you have noticed or could easily observe in bazaar activity just how often someone will buy a portal, open it, and sell or dispose the resulting gotchi no matter what the gotchi is. This dynamic would certainly not change in H2. There is a huge lotto ticket/ scratch-off ticket dynamic to these portals, and what drives price is the search for that ultra-high- BRS gotchi that can be sold for over 30k GHST.
Now let me ask you, what drives this economic activity? Do you really think that if we keep reducing rarity/BRS rewards, people will continue to shell out over 30k GHST for a rare gotchi? Portal prices will not go up, because the issue with the XP and Kinship games is they are (right now) mostly subtractive of the game economy, while the BRS is additive. This where I have found ironic your prior use of the word “leech”. If anything, players of the XP or Kinship game are “leeching” the reward pool that has been mostly fed via BRS market dynamics. Not the other way around.

Portal prices would not go up if rewards are moved away from BRS and towards Xp/Kin. Why? Less people will buy portals searching for rare gotchi, because less people will buy these rare gotchi and will pay less for them. Kin and XP wouldn’t restore this loss, because those games you can enjoy the same rewards no matter how the gotchi is. Portal prices would drop where if anything, floor low-BRS gotchi prices might rise a bit. All gotchi can participate nearly the same way in XP and Kin, so people would buy the cheapest gotchi possible for the best ROI. We can also take this thought experiment further and to the extreme. Whales and BRS players are so demonized in this game/community some people have actually proposed in disc to flat out eliminate rewards, make it a F2P game, etc.
This is where I really get confused, why try to take out the defi of this project and aim to make it like any other “free” to play game out there? Some others have no idea about economics or where funds would come from to reward them- they just want a a game where they spend little but they are showered with constant XP and kin rewards. They don’t stop to think this is impossible unless the game became gimmicky about things like most “free” mobile games.
Do we want that kind of game? Simply to drive out those wealthy players? At some point as end users we should make peace with this being a defi game that inevitably will provide extra benefits/engagement the more you invest, or simply look elsewhere for a F2P game.

The problem is when you signal you can reduce rewards, the market responds immediately. This the Adam Smith’s famous “invisible hand”. I have noticed we have a lot of users that don’t understand this concept. People frequently make arguments like “if we reduced rewards, I wouldn’t change my spending patters. I would understand it’s for the good of the project, etc. other people will probably do the same” These kind of arguments are usually nothing more than poetic rubbish. The invisible hand concept explains why the market seemingly adjusts quickly and ruthlessly to any new realities, regardless of morals or philosophy or what “should be”.

Your argument older wearables have already received rewards and should not get more, or receive less moving forward I also find incorrect. Szn1 rewards yielded at best 10% for HIGH BRS wearables and gotchi. If the dynamic becomes to participate mostly in only one season, prices for wearables would take quite the nose-dive. People had invested assuming these wearables would always participate in farming, so a change of terms would hurt the overall project way more than whatever benefit we get to appease those who feel the game is stacked in favor of whales.
To take away rewards from older wearables to give to new, inevitable sends the market the signal that wearables might be more “disposable” re. rewards than it had seemed, and the invisible hand will do its thing.


The price of XP mules would go up in the reward pool shift scenario. Would this price change be enough to affect the outcome of the presented scenarios?

Heya fren, thanks for joining the discussion!

Without any modeling and just answering via hunch- I don’t think so because bazaar and auction activity would comparatively dry up. High XP gotchi trading in the bazaar would only feed AGIP6 funds, and that’s a very low revenue compared to aauctions. Higher prices of XP gotchi wouldn’t offset the big hit in wearable prices and sales. Once we have an aarcade where perhaps people are feeding reward pools via spending in game to farm XP, then the conditions begin to shift.

For as long as rarity faming remains the main/only factor feeding rewards, we are all best served by signaling the highest rewards possible for the BRS competition.

1 Like

Potions could be viewed as a way to keep whales interested in xp and kinship and thus feed the revenue stream. I think there is more than one way to play this game even if one has money to spend. As I understand the current route is not to diminish the brs rewards but to allocate rewards elsewhere also.

Could be , but in that instance you are nerfing BRS rewards, and asking those whales to not mind that loss in investment into gotchi/wearables, and just keep spending but now direct it to potions.
They would be crucified anyway for their use of potions as we already have seen, so the community’s anti-whale gripes would only get worst. Eventually the whales realize there are other platforms where they can profit more and be less hated, and leave. Sales, and inevitably rewards then go down. There will always be someone at top of leaderboard and that person would be called and judged a whale anyway with this culture we are establishing, even if they struggle to pay rent in real life. In the end the platform is left with the least wealthy user only, and nobody to buy from him.

It is just the wrong model and unsustainable, to try to nerf and knock off the top performers for the sake of ideals.

I have studied gotchies in different tiers of the price/BRS spectrum ,and some of the lower BRS ones actually have a better ROI for the amount spent than the rarer ones. I think this is another misconception in our community, because a larger chunk of the OVERALL rewards go to the top performers, people assume/feel the platform is producing better terms and conditions for whales. In reality, like in most economic platforms, high-ranking gotchi are simply earning rewards in a ratio similar to their overall investment when compared to those at the lower rungs of the leaderboards.

We could query for the information of what total Winklevoss has spent on all those godlikes. Clearly the investment has not been recovered, and his current overall ROI% is negative where many low ranking gotchi have earned rewards or appreciation to take them to a positive ROI.

Imagine buying a Ford Fiesta and complaining the buyer of the Ford Explorer has much more room, bigger engine, etc.

That’s a bit of what goes down here.

@CryptoGotchi Is right. There is a great misconception. I’ve witnessed plenty of the vocal whales within the community argue that secondary bazaar sales should be protected. That many bought up high value items and deserve more because of it. Not only that, but they hide behind their true intentions and dress up their narrative as if to protect newcomers vs. simply protecting themselves. To clarify, as the discussions in the past evolved, they had been pretending that their feelings on the matter were placed for the good of the entire community. It quickly became apparent where their intentions truly were, and it was to protect their FOMOed investment.
While I see whales as a somewhat essential part of any high value crypto project, there is a fine line between reward and entitlement. Especially when some are confused about which part of their investment actually funds the community.

I think most of us can agree that we are all adults, nobody should be protected from their investments, we all make decisions on where our funds go. In these regards there are more important factors. Buying straight from the Maal in the past or soon, Aauctions is such a factor. That is the investment that deserves more representation. This is an important thing for everybody to note.

This is a nice example. And I agree with @CryptoGotchi

Potions are villified. But I’ve rarely witnessed any discussion that places blame on our high rollers. I haven’t witnessed anything even remotely close to hate, especially in an organized manner. I think it an exaggeration to say the community has an anti-whale group mentality in any shape or form.

Awwww. Much love fren. <3 I like you too.

1 Like

Keeping in line with Aavegotchi’s goals we need always look towards the future while deciding what we can do now. Ultimately there are different reasons why people within the community found this project attractive. I think it would be a great idea for all of us to list what caught our eye the first time we decided to buy in. Most of these will be things that continue to draw new users, as we should always look to align ourselves with those ideals.

My Initial First Impression - BRS
Personally, a big factor for me was the idea that everyone as a collective would join in, add value to the pot by investing (purchasing portals), and then through a process of randomized generation we would all again, as a collective, have a chance to earn a high BRS Gotchi that could potentially earn you a top spot. Which is only half true, I was mistaken. But this is what we currently see with the high closed portal prices. People place value on the unknown, even though the chance is small it’s an enticing prospect to become a randomly selected “winner.” Functionality to be hopeful towards is pretty powerful.

An eye opener, was learning that items would heavily sway this function. Most of us are accepting of the cons that come with item ownership because we see that the pros outweigh them. My only issue was that so many Godlike, Mythical and Legendaries were raffled before Aavegotchi’s even existed, which my only qualm, is because they influence the BRS leaderboard too much imo. Plenty of those who would be rewarded for high BRS are OG members, with little room for newcomers to get on their level, even if they have a lot of capital. There’s literally only 1 Godlike and a small array of Mythicals for sale right now. Kind of an important variable. I bring all this up because this is yet another factor surrounding BRS scoring.

How do we expect newcomers to see this project? How would we like them to view this project? As a haven for the OG’s or as an Oasis for all? We should always keep our intentions towards further adoption, which I think warrants rethinking the leaderboard distributions. I do agree with @JG1 that we should take great care what we are signaling to the community. It is never a good idea to alienate any members. But I also believe that we should set in place guidelines so that changes can be made transparently without fear of too drastic of a change.

There will be more emphasis on the Gamefied DeFi aspects soon, the community will continue to change and become more active. We should be thinking big picture with all of our motives. With a lot of variables to consider, I think we should get down to the root of things and better organize ourselves.


You have made this argument before, and it truly isn’t the goal or what has been implied that anybody should be saved from their investments.

At the same time, have to be cognizant of how/where else would a competitor acquire a godlike or mythical for instance if they’re not lucky to win a raffle. We shouldn’t portray or make the secondary market (bazaar)as an avenue to get rekt “because we’re all adults that don’t need protection” and ROI should only be measured against maall (10K godlikes are probably NOT coming back) or against the near-free cost basis of a raffle. To argue in favor of reducing and/or adjusting rewards from what had been portrayed before, excusing it with “not saving adults from their purchases” is very derivative logic: “I will change the terms of engagement from when you bought, and if the prices drop and you get rekt, you should have known better”. I’m aware this isn’t exactly what you’re saying @DAOvahkiin-Grip , but many times you join a conversation that had started proposing cutting rewards, and then repeat this argument about not saving anyone, so yeah… This would please those that keep asking for more (or lower prices) at the expense of top performers, but in the long run the platform dries up as people are afraid to buy. You may be confusing the argument as a plight to save buyers, where the goal is to make the platform as inviting as possible for users of all incomes and for as long as possible. If you don’ change the terms on them, and if we focus on additive and constructive avenues to raise revenues and rewards, everybody wins and nobody “needs saving”.

It is not about protecting or coddling anybody, it is about creating a fair and cyclical economy. People tend to mistake “fair” with redistributive. In this kind of platform fairness should be that whether someone spends 1 GHST or 10000, each GHST should have similar opportunity or ROI. Unfortunately the 10k spender will/should have 10k times the benefit of the 1 GHST spender. This is where people struggle, accepting that very fact. People think fairness means subjective judgements as to whose a whale (wealthy) and should earn less per GHST invested because of societal fairness. People propose changes here assuming the whales would keep buying or stay after being rekt or given worst terms than a fresh low-investment/low-commitment user. Not the case.

Most complaints in the community have become very repetitive and while they don’t say “i hate the whales, I hate this player, etc.” complaints about fairness, affordability, rewards distribution/ opportunity have become a daily thing. This is a thread regarding Haunt 2 and here we are, rehashing the same topics all over again. There is a fresh thread in these forums to reduce BRS rewards to give more tickets/frens to low income users, and the first reply says that would be good balance against the whales. I don’t make this stuff up. There is a reason these conversations never end, but I am going to leave it at that, and try really hard to not reply further. I feel I may have contributed to this thread providing figures and projections, but don’t want to clog it further with the same points that have been made many times before- just hope the game continues moving forward as a platform of opportunity for those willing to work/research/invest, and doesn’t become the wealth redistribution mechanism some would have it be. In the same way you argue as adults none of us should be saved from our poor choices in bazaar, why should a wealthy user rescue another user from themselves (or their poor circumstances) via socialized rewards?

As always, much love @DAOvahkiin-Grip , hope you don’t take my points or disagreement as anything other than debate.

Haha. When the conversation continues to get to the same points there will be some repetition. It seems that the argument towards BRS Leaderboards maintaining such a dominant position keeps following the same route. The end points are always about the fact that some have bought items and Gotchi’s at high prices on the secondary market. Which was constructed by Pixelcraft and set free to be run by people. People who are subject to make quick decisions like FOMOing into something before letting the dust settle. I know plenty who’ve done it. I’ve done it. It’s a lesson well learned if we take the moment to appreciate it.

What other reason would there be to validate high prices that some chose to list and others chose to pay, other than to protect these people? Prices which were well above what Pixelcraft had originally set I might add. The free market is a free market. I agree BRS should have precedent, but not as much precedent as some so strongly believe.

I’ve surely witnessed quite a few moments where there are negative things said of whales, but it’s normally always met with plenty of more accurate input. Though not all complaints make sense and deserve attention, concerns surrounding these things are warranted I think.

My intentions have nothing to do with taking away from the wealthy to give to less liquid users. Rather, it’s about curbing certain functionality that could become more appealing to newcomers and OG’s alike.

Of course @JG1! As always, it’s a pleasure fren.


This bundling stuff reminding me way too much of congress. Can’t say I am a fan, frens


I know I have posted about balancing whales, at least once recently regarding the raffle. I was met with reason and that was that. I didn’t bring up hate because there was not any hate nor was there after. It is good to continuously question to keep everything in check but that doesn’t mean there is any ill-intent or attitudes.


I have a proposal that those 5% of GHST that would be burned, would instead be put into a community marketing fund. Where our community members could apply for grants to fund Local meetups / info meetings about aavegotchi and the play2earn model. I think this could have great impacts in low income countries where people can basically earn more money from playing than working backbreaking jobs.

1 Like

First of all, I wanted to congratulate dev team on a very successful auction.

With that said I want to address some concerns that forbid me from feeling completely celebratory.

As a DAO we were allowed very little input in the changes to tokenomics or rewards structure. I made a separate thread and proposal that should highlight it is not easy for anyone to just step in to blurry & fast paced DAO situations with little information available, and rally the community counter to a dev proposal.

Beyond DAO dynamics, as an end user and participant since launch, I want to simply ask if rewards and tokenomics would continue to change as the platform grows?

My expectation was that our participation would be linear into the success of the project (via the now modified circle of win), but with caps of rewards etc. It feels like the goal is to have a nominal cut-off, such as a 2 million cap (or other arbitrary figures) where the rewards or ratios are deemed sufficient and limited each season. Basically, past certain points of revenues or alpha-the intention is to direct these to Pixelcraft via adjustments to the circle of win?

They are two very different paths/models and I don’t intend to ascribe any judgement either way, simply want to be better informed as a gotchi owner regarding expectations towards the future.


JG1, I think it might be worth creating a sigprop that describes a process how decisions around tokenomics changes, season farming rewards, haunt portal supply, timing of haunts need to be made in the future. Maybe we can come up with some process that doesn’t bundle of all this into 1 sigprop.

I think a lot of people were unhappy about these being bundled into the one haunt 2 vote. I would prefer these decisions were broken down into separate proposals to give the community a better say.


Thank you fren!

The minute you said this, the 1-inch DAO’s approach to this came to mind!

I am not a part of that DAO so I am not informed of any details, but imagine a platform where people could vote on certain percentages and have the dials move towards a fair, community chosen total for each variable or ratio!


If you were to create a thread and sigprop on this I would be in favour of it. Only downside I can think of is that it can slow decisions down. But I still think its better for the DAO to have a greater say.


agree 1000%.
My heart at this juncture is with even deleting my outstinading prop, but don’t know what do honestly.
It could be a disservice for those that have casted a vote so far. I’ll await dev. feedback.


This has been a really good opening for debate in this DAO. I think it has had a positive impact. Gongratz!


The latest tokenomics adjustments put Pixelcraft in a good position with regards to revenue, keeping the lights on, growing the team, and having rainy day funds for potential bear market or regulatory uncertainty/taxation. 17% simply wasn’t enough to provide this certainty for us, especially with the team growing as fast as it is. 40% is still relatively tame compared to most NFT projects (which take essentially 100%, with no rewards for users), but giving back to the community is a core part of Aavegotchi and what helps separate us from many other NFT cash grab projects. Instead of throwing GHST into the burn address, we are hodling it and will have it available for any opportunities or emergencies that arise.

To re-iterate, these tokenomics were not in the white paper, and were intended to be updated if needed.

On to your second, separate point. We offered the 2M cap for Szn2 as an almost 50% increase over Szn1, but I can understand that some community members don’t want to cap it until we see the final numbers for revenue. We support discussions and SigProps about leaderboard %s and RF caps, if the community isn’t happen with our proposed numbers. Just please keep in mind that our goal with the 2M is to leave rewards for a possible Szn3, even before H3 comes out. It’s not necessarily healthy to rely on a new Haunt every time we want to do a RF season.


This is exactly the way I see it, better safe than sorry, gotta be prepared for whatever may happen. Even if we make huge revenue from the upcoming sales, I would leave the cap as it is (which is already an increase from previous rewards) and save the extra for future rewards. I also wouldn’t like more than 40% allocation because part of rewards will be cashed out and go somewhere else, so I’d rather see the money in the DAO or Pixelcraft as they will stay in the system and be used for opportunities and growth. The only thing I’d modify would be putting that 5% somewhere else or spread it between the DAO and Pixelcraft, cause I’ve never been a burn believer (other than for marketing purposes).