Thanks for clarifying your views. I agree that the bundling makes it hard to separate both issues and the strong desire for haunt 2 will sway many toward a yes. I understand it is also more a question of not creating a precedent versus the distribution itself which I respect. That said I do agree with the reasonning behind reducing the burned amount so to me it’s more about the repartition. On that front, I think the trust issue is moot as the devs clearly have their interest vested in the project as we do and the DAO has more of a governance role so does not have the real costs that a company with employees has. All in all it seems fair but would have been more comfortable with a separate proposition for this change.
4 Likes
Thank you! Agree fully. I think a separate proposal offering 5% repartition of the burn bounty to RF, when they are simultaneously expressing concern for rewards sources, would have been met with nothing but joy by the community.
3 Likes
Hi all, catching up here on the thread and want to address the very fair ideas/questions raised as well as correct some misconceptions. I’ll start with Rarity Farming rewards caps for this post:
Some have the impression that the cap is not being increased. In fact SZN 1 had a cap of 1.4M GHST and we agree that it needs to be increased in accordance with adding two new leaderboards. This is exactly why this SigProp structures SZN 2 with an increase to a 2M GHST reward pool. A 30% increase in rewards.
More math: adding 2 new Rookie Leaderboards at 10% of 2M each = 400,000 GHST. So 400,000 GHST is being allocated to new leaderboards while a total 600,000 GHST is being added compared to the previous season. Thus everyone is enjoying a net gain in GHST distributed per leaderboard.
That’s the first part of the reasoning.
The second part is about the ultimate goal of caps in general: to ensure stable rewards for more seasons into the future without having to rely on the issuance of new Haunts. The idea has never been to only have Rarity Farming when a Haunt is issued, but currently that’s the spot we’re in. Having a reward pool that can support multiple seasons would ensure longevity of RF without relying on Haunts. Incentives better align because we want more Haunts due to a growing player base, not because current players need to drum up additional RF funds.
In short, the SigProp posits that Aavegotchis still farm all the rewards but in a way stretched out over consistent (ideally) quarterly seasons. With the full understanding of the perspective now addressed, you are free to make a case (or SigProp) for having all the rewards up front and RF seasons being exclusively tied to Haunt issuance.
If you read this and find yourself agreeing that we should maintain funds for multiple seasons, but still feel that 2M isn’t the right number, by all means create a dedicated thread and SigProp for finding the correct cap.
Finally, one idea from our Discord conversations was treating 2M as a softcap. @JG1 mentions this. I don’t quite follow some recent suggestions about grand finale rounds. That’s a bit granular and seems to be more about how we spread the defined Seasonal rewards from round to round. What a 2M soft cap means to me is that, because we really don’t know what sort of funding will come into the rewards pool from H2, we leave the 2M cap as is for now and can always revisit it after a very successful aauction.
*EDIT added missing, non consequential words for the sentence “That’s a bit granular and seems to be more about…”
9 Likes
Let me begin by thanking you for the post addressing many of our concerns. The reasoning for grand finale rounds is round 1 and 2 would have possibly ongoing auctions and other things feeding into the rewards pool still. Considering your comments about aiming for certain regularity to seasons, I assumed there would be an overlap to things. A staggered release of wearables and portals via aauctions makes sense for the most optimal price discovery. Many things you have released hint to this, including the note that aGHST collateral gotchi will not be available initially but possibly later for H2.
Grand finale rounds allow for distribution while tabulation is ongoing - AKA no need to postpone season 2 until all sales are finalized. Goal could be that end of supply is selling already into round 3 or 4 of the season.
I may have done some wrong assumptions above of course.
I would take the chance to respectfully ask if you may share with us what amount was left post-cap of szn1 rewards? the amount displayed in DAO>Quorum is low and would seem to include only AGIP6 funds.
1 Like
45,875.60 GHST are basically entirely from AGIP6 (adding a 0.5% revenue stream from the Baazaar activity directly to the rewards pool)
The first SZN was funded with basically everything in the pool emptied into the first season. We all wanted to go big but this is also why we’re completely reliant on a second Haunt if we’re to fund SZN 2 properly.
This helps illustrate we are looking to use 1.4M as the starting point and increase as appropriate with the new leaderboards. Thus arriving at a 2M SZN2 cap.
To the idea above, I like it but strongly suggest we set a cap before the season starts. If we see great success in the aauction and there’s room to raise the 2M cap while still maintaining some support future seasons, I’d totally be interested in supporting that change and maybe you should lead that endeavor @JG1
4 Likes
Your mindset surrounding sustainable rewards has become substantially clearer and easier to understand.
If I understand this part properly, you would also like to begin season 2 promptly- and see the cap as means to that end.
Here I am not clear if you suggest a path of: sigprop after larger reward pool confirmed- or if you suggest a softcap sigprop now? In any case I thank you greatly for the vote of confidence, yet I would defer to @noahns whom already expressed interest to leading this type of prop.
Where I may lead a far more controversial prop is re. allocating 5% of the burn to RF. I had asked @coderdan to shed some light on this previously on the thread. Your last post should highlight that it is not unreasonable to aim for higher inputs into the rewards pool. My inclination is to think that even if Pixelcraft has experienced a sudden spike in costs/taxes/etc beyond earlier projections, we could then look at modding the 5% of the remaining burn or of the treasury. If you have anything to add to this it would be of course quite welcome.
Since we are addressing so many things surrounding rewards and tokenomics and in particular GHST performance, I would also like the chance to ask if increasing the tap again (or even curve fees?)- towards RF or BUIDL seems feasible to you or is there something that makes going after those streams impossible?
5 Likes
Not sure if I understand this correctly (what is tap in this context?), but it reminded me of something that I realized yesterday during the discussion with noahn
All I’m saying is the people who have invested heavily into high BRS gotchis deserve significantly more of the rewards […]
I believe that is what many of these people think, who bought high BRS Gotchis or godlikes and mythicals at crazy high prices from the baazaar. However, it is a great misconception. If anything, only the people who bought imba items from the maall should feel entitled enough to use the word deserve, because on the baazaar the contribution to the rewards pool is minimal (0.5%).
For the people who don’t understand this, here is an example:
- The cheapest beard that recently sold was 13.5k GHST. However, only 67.5 GHST of those 13.5k went into the rewards pool.
- Naturally, people expect a ROI on their purchase, which is why they feel entitled to a large chunk of the rewards
- However, even if we give the BRS leaderboard 90% of the rewards, this is just not sustainable. Especially because the more rewards BRS gets, the higher the prices will go that people demand for those imba items.
- So the BRS category is as much of a rewards leech as Kinship and XP, because those 0.5% market fees (whether they come from wearables or potions or Gotchis) are not nearly enough to sustain a season.
- After the season that followed the introduction of an imba item (after it was sold in the maall or auctioned off), that item will continue to leech rewards from EVERY future season, just as much as a lead in Kinship or XP will. And it doesn’t matter if the item (or the high Kinship/XP Gotchi) is regularly sold on the baazaar, because those 0.5% are merely a drop in the bucket).
- Hence I suggest (at least for S3) that we take another 10% from BRS and put it towards a Rookie-BRS leaderboard that ignores items that already partook in a previous season (aka were initially distributed before the last season). Since this has been done for XP and Kinship, it is only fair to do the same for BRS, since the contribution of old imba items to the rewards pool is the same as previously accumulated XP/Kinship. 0.5% when the high XP/Kinship Gotchi or the imba wearable is sold. So basically negligible.
- We should think about new means of funding a season. Shifting those 10% towards a Rookie-BRS leaderboard will make things more fair for rookies, but it will not solve the funding issue. Maybe we can do something with the REALM resources? Ashes already made a great suggestion that they could be used to craft items. There could maybe even be an exponential conversion from resource into item stats. For example for 1k KEK, you get a +1 BRN item, for 5k KEK, you get a +2 item, for 20k KEK, you get +3 item etc. Just not sure how to monetize this towards season rewards. Maybe we could not just put GHST into the rewards pool but also tickets and realm resources? We could have a small laand tax (resources, not GHST) that siphons resources towards season rewards (especially since part of the resources are spilled over to adjacent laand anyway).
2 Likes
Isn’t this already happening with the REALM? Part of the gotchus alchemica of each land goes to the Great Portal, and then used as reward in each Great Battle AFAIK.
As for the general argument, I’m afraid I can’t agree at all, as it puts the sustainability of this project in danger IMO. It’s a simple money in vs money out question. Buying more wearables or more expensive ones is a way bigger investment than just earning XP or kinship with a gotchi, so they deserve considerably more rewards IMO.
Same as with axies, to farm more SLP you need more energy, which is only given to you if you own more axies. Bigger investment should equal bigger rewards in general, but what’s good about Aavegotchi is that even with just one portal/gotchi and a few GHST staked, there is always a small chance that you win big with raffles, ARS, portals, etc. Play-to-earn and pay-to-earn are not mutually exclusive, but rather complement each other.
Anyway, where the perfect balance is, it’s hard to agree and a matter of opinion, but personally I don’t think the rewards suggested in this proposal are so way off, especially considering future utility for kinship as well (plus XP allowing you to increase BRS if you are a dedicated player/community member).
3 Likes
Hello fren! look into what what AGIP3 is. Tap of bonding curve. It is an interesting mechanism.
I struggle to determine whether your mind could be swayed in all this. Sometimes as people we reach a certain point where no matter what evidence we are presented, our conviction is stronger than fact.
I would hate to engage in discussion with you about this topic since I’m generally in close agreement with your views.
I think there are some critical wrong assumptions and opinions in your modeling of how wearables influence and affect the economy/meta during and beyond their genesis season. So we could engage into a very detailed discussion about these technical economic theory/details, but it could also be for naught, determined simply by how strongly your philosophies (or mine!) would resist or welcome the actual facts.
In that event I would rather not engage in the discussion and “agree to disagree” among frens before we even start lol. I’m not a fan of this term/mindset but many in the community use it and there is some wisdom to it.
1 Like
Yes, but the great battle is not rarity farming. Or is it supposed to replace rarity farming altogether? I feel like I already forgot half of the things discussed in the call.
I was merely brainstorming alternative ways to diversify funding/rewards for rarity farming after realizing that it depends a lot more on selling new portals than I initially thought.
What are you talking about? My general argument was that every reward category is leeching equally and very heavily from portal sales (as the 0.5% baazaar tax turns out to be rather small with just 45k so far) and that this might not be sustainable forever. It was prompted by the point that Jesse made:
I have yet to hear any counter-arguments to that. I merely stated very simple facts.
People who invest more are not prohibited from getting Kinship and XP rewards too. Their Gotchis can earn just as much in Kinship and XP as Gotchis from people who didn’t focus on BRS.
Also, their investment is not necessarily bigger, it is just different. What I’m hearing (correct me, if I’m misinterpreting), is that if there are 2 people that both invest 100k GHST each, the person who focused on high BRS Gotchis and wearables “deserves considerably more” than the other person who invested in (regular) Gotchis and also interacted with them twice daily and farmed XP for them? You will need some good arguments to convince me of that.
I never got into Axies but what you wrote doesn’t sound like a BRS investment strategy at all. Taking care of many axies sounds more like farming Kinship and XP for many Gotchis instead of having few Gotchis that are all dressed up in imba wearables.
Great, neither do I. I merely suggested adding a Rookie-BRS category to make it more fair to people bringing in new money, because they will fund the overwhelming majority of season rewards. So giving them an exclusive 30% of rewards instead of 20% doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. Even though it was just a suggestion and I’m not married to it at all, I really hope that was not what you meant when you said " it puts the sustainability of this project in danger". Because literally giving the people who keep sustaining the rewards (and thus the project) a slightly bigger cut is the furthest thing from putting sustainability in danger lol.
Thank you. I just did. This was before my time. I had no idea that the bonding curve was also funding player rewards. From the snapshot of the last tap increase:
This will help balance the reserve of the bonding curve, while also providing an extra 50,000 DAI per month that can be put towards player rewards and liquidity incentives.
How much funding for S2 will come from the tap?
I was a scientist, so facts are my bread and butter. And I change my mind all the time, as I keep learning more. Yesterday, I was still assuming that Aavegotchi adoption in my social bubble was indicative of Aavegotchi adoption in general. That is why I said in discord that I don’t think the rookie-leaderboards matter much. I suspected that most of the money flowing in, would be from people already here, reinvesting into the project. But after hearing how easy a time other people had (unlike me) convincing their friends about how great Aavegotchi is, I changed my mind and now consider the rookie-leaderboards rather important. My assumptions that it will just be the same people buying that have been buying so far, was sufficiently put in doubt.
Thank you for being so considerate fren. But I don’t want to run around advocating for something that is not supported by the facts. I rather have my ego take a small hit for being wrong and move on to advocate for the facts. I don’t even mind so much if it is against my own interests. I rather be right than sounding either selfish or ignorant.
I’m happy to listen fren. I respond especially well to numbers and hypotheticals. For example, from the arguments I heard so far, I would come to the conclusion that if I find someone that buys my Kinship Potion for 1 million GHST, that this would make Kinship deserve more rewards, because people spend more money on it? Haha, I really hope you both disagree with this or have some great arguments to back that up.
I cannot promise you that I agree with (or even understand) whatever arguments you’ll bring forth, so it is up to you if you want to invest the time to engage in this discussion. I would understand either way. I generally think that you, @Grip , @actaeon , @kenymccornick and me are better together than apart. I really like you guys, and I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to come to a consensus on this.
4 Likes
Thank you fren, what a nice and thoughtful response.
You are much more of a math person and modeler than I am. At end of my career I pivoted to sales and management because I’m a broad strokes, big picture guy and need those more detail oriented peeps to keep me accurate and grounded (as it has already happened in this thread lol)
With that said, here is a quick model of how we need to price in variables that inevitable rise and fall as they are the reward premium variable. I call these variables f (portal premium) and k (wearable premium) to arrive at forecasts for H2.
I include forecasts to how AGIP 6 is affected, and I even included a super optimistic measure of what a pet operator (wild reach at any dynamic that kinship game can contribute to rewards pool at present) to highlight how portal and wearable sales are the only reasonable source of rewards for season 2.
The conclusion of this hideous and assuredly imprecise model of mine, is it predicts that lowering BRS payout from 60% to 40% would lower revenues in a way where yes, those evil whale BRS farmers see their rewards cut in half, but this only for a net gain of below 300k for the kinship category while also hurting the XP category.
Worst of all, this severely reduces overall revenue that Pixelcraft could use to develop the game and realm.
I hope you don’t take I mean this image as gospel , but more as a guide as to the detrimental effects of lowering BRS rewards. Likewise if anyone gets inspired by this to make a better/more accurate model, that would be great.
I also hope that devs @coderdan and @Jesse_gldnXross consider the point I’m trying to make here whenever reducing or capping rewards is a consideration- expectations/signaling of future rewards (and their predictability/consistency) are a huge (maybe most important?) variable that I feel as a community we greatly ignore in poetic quests such as “the kinship petter should earn more than the indulgent whale/ape buyer” Yes- but then the numbers inevitably lead down the path I try to illustrate with figures below, moving on from just words:
Edit: Please refer to image in post below, many errors were addressed.
3 Likes
Out of pure curiosity, expanded the model to include a “super BRS” scenario where 80% goes to BRS.
Ironically it predicts the best outcome for the entire community, because even though the pools for kin and XP are 500k less in GHST each, the rise in revenues, BRS rewards and more importantly base prices, provides much greater base value/wealth/outlook for every single gotchi.
At the same time, don’t expect the community would ever follow this kind of path because we have demonstrated ourselves to prefer affordability, poetic social equities and other values beyond raw appreciation and yield.
Multiple edits- keep error correcting and optimizing, then re-uploading screenshot. Main error had been to not account for free/raffled items
2 Likes
Thanks for your elaborated response fren! I’m a pragmatic, hands-on, keep it simple person, as some of you may have noticed. So usually, when discussions get too long, there are many arguments, counter-arguments, etc. and I feel the main points have been made, I prefer to agree to disagree rather than start counter arguing everything in an endless discussion. Call me lazy, efficient, or whatever you prefer 
, but just don’t take it bad, the world needs both people like you and people like me fren. I’ll reply shortly to a couple of things, and agree to disagree about everything else, hoping it doesn’t extend the discussion much.
The way I see it, the new mechanics introduced with the REALM will complement rarity farming, so instead of having to redesign rarity farming, they can keep it mostly as it is and introduce the needed improvements with the REALM (free-to-play characters, kinship utility, more play-to-earn elements, etc). To me it is a very smart, very elegant solution, and I believe it’ll definitely pave the way for mass adoption (and that’s clearly what they intend to do). So collectors can still compete in rarity farming, and gamers can have fun and earn with the land gameplay. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I see it.
Your post started quoting this:
I was replying to your first paragraph after this. Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me whether they bought their wearables in the primary or the secondary market, the bazaar fee is not the important thing, the important thing is value, which has to be preserved for high BRS as it drives the Aavegotchi economy right now, like it or not. If I misunderstood, my apologies, if not, let’s agree to disagree and move on 
.
We share interests and I’m glad you are in this community, I just see this is as an experimental project that just got started, and rarity farming is just the first element of what I believe will become a more complex ecosystem later. I’m pretty confident that whatever happens to rarity farming, Aavegotchi will be all about play-to-earn for everyone, as this is the road to mass adoption and the vision of the team. Have a good day fren!
Thanks for the detailed explanation fren. Your model is certainly an interesting approach to this discussion.
What I’m confused about is how the scenarios you show relate to my suggestion. I didn’t suggest an increase to either Kinship or XP.
That said, I think it is very plausible that your estimated wearable bids go up as the BRS reward-percentage goes up, because relative to portals, wearables become more valuable. However, I don’t understand why you would assume that Portal bids also go up as the BRS reward-percentage goes up. I would actually assume the opposite. As reward percentages for XP and Kinship increase, Portals become more valuable relative to wearables, because of the pet-all functionality as well as the fact that for many activities, your XP rewards are given to all of your Gotchis. So the value of a Gotchi increases as reward percentages for XP and or Kinship increase. Yet, your bid estimates suggest the opposite, which I can’t find an explanation for.
As you correctly stated, I quoted that. And I find it irritating that discourse displays that as if I wrote that myself. 
I don’t disagree with this at all. In fact, I made the same point in one of the other threads:
I just don’t see it as black and white as you do. I don’t think splitting 10% of BRS to make a 10% Rookie-BRS reward will significantly devalue older wearables or high BRS Gotchis. While it is easy to argue that this would in fact make them 10% (or 16.67%) less valuable, I think it would increase the buy pressure of new wearables and new high BRS Gotchis, which would inevitably have a positive price impact on the old stuff as well. Obviously I cannot prove that, and as I said, it was merely a suggestion, as I think it would make things more fair.
2 Likes
Cool! Don’t get irritated fren, it was either a poor choice of words on your part or a poor understanding on ours. Either way, glad to hear.
Nah, quite the opposite, I don’t have a strong stance on anything that makes arguably small differences (hell, I don’t have a strong stance about anything on this proposal, that’s why I barely participated when everyone was going crazy after the article release). I don’t really mind having one all-time BRS leaderboard or one all-time and one season specific, I may lean towards one just cause I tend to choose simplicity unless the benefits are huge, but just a preference.
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.
3 Likes
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.