Can we just stop connecting tickets with passive yield then? GLTR seems like enough of a reward for the GAX. Let’s taper FRENS rewards to 0.
If we want more tickets, could we vote as a DAO to buy them in bulk as raffles and reward cases present themselves? lol we could do a GBM with tickets, or just sell tickets for GHST.
I think the first reward case we’d have is with a pay to play aarcade game that rewards scores/top scores with tickets. This would be organized by the potential ATF and playable from within the gotchiverse, of course. Personally, I would be happy to wait until this happens before seeing more tickets generated.
One issue to consider: if we denominate raffle tickets in terms of alchemica… what is the overall impact on the Aavegotchi protocol? I think we need to have a clear vision as to whether raffle tickets are part of the Aavegotchi protocol (gotchis, wearables, etc) or part of the Gotchiverse game (parcels, installations, tiles, etc).
By denominating raffle tickets in alchemica (or GLTR), we’d really be taking them away from a core mechanic of the protocol, and shifting them over to be a mechanic of the Gotchiverse game instead.
As @coderdan has said in the past, while the two are closely connected, the protocol and the game are not one in the same. Food for thought.
This is the big conversation we should have immediately… I have been wanting to start it, but I have been looking for the proper way to frame the discussion so it is actually productive.
We appear to be at a bit of a lul here, where we might be able to handle a bunch of governance related minutia that gets sidelined when people are fighting over the mechanics of how they can extract yields.
I personally like the idea of switching to dual GLTR and FRENS emissions on all our pools. They fulfill different functions and should be kept separate in utility, even if they are sourced from the same place. I believe however that relative to legacy pairs, there should be a substantially greater FRENS reward for those providing liquidity for Alchemica/GHST and GLTR/GHST pairs, which already have players essentially paying GHST to buy emissions at a premium. The raffle is a way of attracting liquidity by abstracting yield through exclusive, rare wearables, a mechanism that seems best put to use on ecosystem pairs that are almost a guaranteed loss.
This does not ameliorate the problems of ticket inflation and ticket price booms and busts around irregular, centrally-scheduled raffles. Without seriously revamping the way the Aavegotchi economy works, I don’t know how much we can correct those problems. While the auction system brings spikes of new money into the ecosystem, the raffle system slows the rate at which that money exits, because it subsidizes both ecosystem liquidity and the stability of GHST. Auctions and raffles by necessity do not occur in a predictable way, as they depend on Pixelcraft’s plans in addition to the DAO’s appetite for NFT inflation.
As it stands, the game economy is propped up by auctions and raffles (if not in form then in idea) and the nominal value of NFTs they create. It’s very hard to pull levers to keep all the ecosystem tokens valuable relative to one another, when those two mechanisms and the incentivizations they provide are the main ways capital comes in and stays in. That will change when the game is more fleshed out and GLTR and Alchemica have their own independent demand from game mechanics.
We could try pulling this lever now for GLTR, which would certainly bump GLTR, but there will still be considerable uncertainty in the market’s pricing of tickets, in the scheduling of raffles, what will be done with the existing tickets and FRENS supply; if there’s a taper, how exactly it would be conducted and how would ticket prices be set for both GLTR and FRENS simultaneously, and all the coding and management thereof. When I believe we could just incentivize some of our riskier pairs (GHST/GLTR especially) with some heavy FRENS subsidization. I don’t know how realistic it is to try and save the price of tickets, unfortunately, because it’s not possible to guarantee the value of something when its utility hinges on unpredictable scheduled events.