@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.
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.
Items
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.
Adoption
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
