Equipping a spacious with a lvl 9 aaltar and several harvesters/tanks costs a lot more than the first place, the people who are going to do that are the same people who were going to do it without this contest. Logically few new people will compete because it is an obivous loss making investment, only the initial builders will benefit from the stimulus check.
I am for rewarding those who build since the beginning in the gotchiverse but from what I understand it is not the main goal of the contest, here we have a pay 2 win competition without strategic subtleties that would give hope to a random to win. Unlike the Aart Contest which requires financial investment AND creative imagination.
I like the idea very much, not because I think I will have any chance in the competition. But the leaderboard of the competition will give me a measure of how much I am spending. Often I ask myself: do I spend too much or too little? Even though the leaderboard will represent the power-spenders it will give me a benchmark.
Weâve been wanting to add more leaderboards to the native Gotchiverse UI but just havenât gotten around to it yet.
One even simpler idea would just be for someone to build out the âTop Buildersâ, âTop Spendersâ etc leaderboards, and we can link to those from within the Gotchiverse.
Just having public recognition might be enough to encourage some to spend more Alchemica, without even adding in potentially controversial rewards.
But if the desire is to have rewards, I definitely like @stedariâs idea about making it fully DAO-run!
Attleast I have allready spent my alchemica and now only allocating yeild back to the installations. Im thinking I would be not making the cut if the timeline would âalc spent within a weekâ. Leaderboard sounds nice. With aesteric installation prices?!
Separate question; donât we already have a software for letting us know how much weâve used up on installations, tiles, etc. ? or we only have a manual calculator not an automatic detector?
I suggest also to start the first round with payments to the current standings, and then continue with weekly or bi-weekly standings. Let s reward the upgradoors till now too. Disclaimer: I have a few L9 upgrades.
To widen the appeal without significantly diluting rewards can we consider some random weekly prizes for anyone who got into the top 100 (excl. top 10)?
Eg you finish 45th in leaderboard and get entered in prize draw for 1 of 3, 100 ghst spot prizes.
Hi guys, sorry Iâm on vacation right now so havenât had any time to reply.
I believe the main desired outcomes of this competition are:
Support alchemica prices until PvP is launched (or close)
Have a fun economic game to play or watch. We could schedule the leaderboards to finish halfway through the weekly hangout for added excitement.
PoC for future DAO run competitions/leaderboards
Perhaps bring in some new players (PC could help with some marketing)
In terms of quantifiable numbers then I would say, if all else was remaining equal, minimum success would be more alchemica spent on crafting/upgrades than the prize pool, than usual.
So for example (numbers made up):
Last 8 weeks spend = 1M FUD
100k GHST = 4M FUD
Minimum success = 5M FUD spent over next 8 weeks
My hope is obviously for much more than minimum success but I would accept the competition has failed (economically) if this wasnât achieved. Now obviously, with NFT displays and bounce gates etc that number becomes harder to quantify, as it will affect spending, but I still believe it will be possible to get a rough idea by excluding those installations from the calculation.
I tend to agree with this sentiment â I donât really see how this plan is going to make building more attractive to new players, and the Altar / high level Reservoirs / Harvesters are already being rewarded with Alchemica.
I think leaderboards are a great idea and should definitely be built, but rewarding upgrading with GHST isnât going to lead to a 4x outcome like youâve written above IMO.
These numbers can be pulled from the subgraph, instead of making them up.
Do we have data on how many ânew playersâ we really have? A measure of success for me was if we see current players use alchemica to build instead of dump. I hypothesize we are neither attracting new builders nor encouraging current builders to continue building.
The root cause of this problem is that the land cannot be continuously developed. The initial investment is too large, resulting in a player can only develop a piece of land. If the developed land can be directly lent alchemy from the central bank, then the second piece can be developed immediately. In the case of paying some interest, everything goes into a virtuous cycle.
Are you suggesting adding loans in where the terms are a steep lien on the output of the property, until paid back? It would make a lot of sense to borrow the funds for a l7 AltarâŚ
If you could borrow alchemica, you could sell it instantly, effectively allowing asset holders to short alchemica. You could then pay the loan back later for less and profit on the difference. If we built a smart contract that only allowed it to be used for building an aaltar, many people would take the loan, use the upgraded aaltar to channel gotchis, and never farm the land with no intention to pay the loan back. It sounds complicated or impossible to have a lien against both land and any gotchis channeling the land. I suppose the easiest solution would be to completely turn off the ability to channel on the aaltar until the loan is repaid. The end result would be that more alchemica is produced and sold, speeding up the entire market, and, likely, leading to a plummet in alchemica and land values without sufficient sinks.
The ratio of borrowing and interest can regulate everything. For example, only 70% of the alchemical value can be borrowed, and then the interest is close to the daily output. Lending alchemy also requires reinvestment to develop new lands. In this way, the utilization rate of funds will be maximized, and the union can become bigger and stronger.
ALPHA is down 60% in the last 30 day period and surely has a volatile path moving forward. A central bank lending system would introduce significant systemic risk both to the DAOâs assets and the value of the asset itself. There is perhaps an opportunity for a third party to introduce a limited, high interest collateralized loan, but I think you are underestimating the amount of risk, instability of the token, and dev work it would take to deploy a safe product.
Theres also the logical fallacy of only being able to do one⌠Iâve finished a reasonable and a spacious , bought more, and am building those out quite quickly with my yields. No loan needed, just aggressive reinvestment and some fiat sprinkles for juice.
Theres a few of us expanding sideways⌠its not pretty or fast or easy, but its a strong play with current land prices.