About the bots/multi-accounts in Discord - (Re-introducing the Dark Forest extension)

As most of you have seen this past week, the discord has run rampant with multi-accounts, bot farms, and a ridiculous amount of people trying to game the system in order to receive the loot box rewards from the discord mini-games.

Although it was a great idea to allow the community to be active and earn rewards by engaging, the value of these rewards combined with no barrier to entry has brought hoards of new people with the sole intention of extracting value.

My proposal is to re-introduce the Dark Forest extension as soon as possible leading up to the launch of the game on May 2nd and include rewards to land holders who can stake and unstake their land for a smaller portion of rewards (rewards also would be based on land rarity).

The whole purpose of these rewards leading up to the game is to distribute the resources to the players that will actually play the game and stimulate the in-game economy.

With the tons of people coming to extract value by farming the discord rewards and dumping immediately upon receiving them, the goal of cultivating the early game economy isn’t being accomplished.

I am for re-introducing the dark forest extension until game launch, however if that is completely out of the question then I believe to participate in the discord mini-games and actually earn rewards people should own at least one land, unicorn, or shadowcorn (or stake 500 RBW or more). Hopefully the Dark Forest extension isn’t out of the question and we can re-introduce it as there are a lot of new unicorn and land holders who didn’t receive any of the benefits from the first go at the Dark Forest.

Please let me know your thoughts on this and thanks for taking the time to read all the way through!


I like this idea, and this is a very nice writeup.

Do you think it would be interesting to run these minigames on chain?

My team (Moonstream) wrote the Dark Forest contract, and we have been thinking about deploying a minigame contract in which players could vote for how a minigame should progress at every step. Community managers could open and close voting and choose their narrative for the minigames based on how the player’s voted.

Players would vote with cards, each card representing one alternative at that step of the minigame. We would drop cards to players in packs (think Magic drafting).

We could airdrop vote packs to players based on different criteria - position on UNIM Leaderboard, ownership of Unicorns, Land, Shadowcorns, amount of RBW staked, whatever. The criteria themselves would depend on the CU team.

Every day, players could vote on minigame decisions (left vs. right, etc.) using the cards in their voting packs. The players who choose the winning decision at every step would automatically get to claim a reward from the minigame contract once the minigame completed.

Players could also sell their voting packs and voting cards on secondary markets like Open Sea. This way, even a player who chose a wrong choice at some step could see some value from the minigames. And it would add an interesting on-chain social element to the game.

We’ve also developed an on-chain crafting system (think Minecraft) and could incorporate it into the minigames so that players who take the trouble to craft items for each turn in the minigame could get more voting power or bonuses to their actions.

It’s something we’re quite excited about so if you guys are into it we would be happy to build it for CUverse . :unicorn:


I definitely like the idea of on-chain mini games!

Had to familiarize myself with Magic drafting, but I get the gist of it, basically a blind card pull.

The voting on going left vs right reminds me of the CU discord mini-game “Huntercorn” which was actually pretty fun and always had the discord buzzing with exciting about the decisions they made and trying to piece the puzzle together.

The on-chain crafting system sounds interesting and I’m curious to see if there is a way to have these mini-games simulate a lite version of crafting in CU so that people get their reps in and build the habit/strategy of crafting so that when the game launches, people hit the ground running and bootstrap the in-game economy at a faster rate.

Would the voting packs be card packs with different power scores like a DAO vote or would it be more strategic? What would be in a voting pack just as an example? and would people have to stake their voting packs in order to put them to use?

BTW you guys crushed it with Dark Forest! It was a very smooth experience and I’m very glad there weren’t any security issues.


The kind of minigames we’d create are Choose-Your-Own-Adventure style minigames (like huntercorns or Ethermore quests - https://ethermore.xyz/).

Whereas huntercorns runs in Discord, and Ethermore relies on IPFS metadata to determine quest outcomes, rewards, etc., we would do everything fully on chain with a smart contract.

Each minigame would have a series of phases. In each phase, players would make a decision about how to proceed to the next phase. There would be a game master who described what choices the players have and give some narrative suggesting to them what kind of outcomes each decision would imply for the next phase.

For example, making a good decision in Phase I could give you a substantial bonus in the boss fight at the final phase.

In each phase, the game master would have the option to call a randomness oracle to resolve successes/failures. We would use Chainlink VRF for this as we had a pretty stellar experience with them for the Dark Forest.

In each phase, players make their decision by spending voting cards. Each voting card represents a different course of action in the minigame. Our idea is to build a general enough set of voting cards that players could reuse them between games.

A voting pack would be a collection of voting cards (like 5 cards). The cards in each pack would be determined at random. The experience would be the same as the one for the recent RBW airdrop - we wrote a contract that packaged up RBW into an ERC1155 token and then players could unwrap the rewards from the ERC1155. In this case, players would unwrap their cards from the voting pack. On unwrap, we would resolve randomness (Chainlink VRF again) to determine which cards they get.

We want the cards to have strategic meaning in the minigames. They shouldn’t just be about voting power.

Crafting: If you spend a crafted item along with your vote, it can give you a bonus. Either a bonus factor for the number of votes, or a bonus to the action that your vote represents.


I feel this is already being talked about in the Ideas thread, titled Prevent malicious arbitrage of event rewards Prevent malicious arbitrage of event rewards


The idea is undoubtedly interesting with mini-games in the dark forest.
The only thing I ask you to take into account the interests of all who are interested in the game, and even those who do not have unicorns and land, but those who staked 500 coins for a year.
It looks like they’ll be given a special Founding Fathers Badge, so it can be used as a pass to the mini-games in the dark forest.


Most of the topics being made so far in this forum are all about controlling the distribution of rewards to non CU holders specially to those discord grinders/reward hunters that wont do any good to the community but saturate the market with the rewards once released.

This has been the topic also under the #dev-discussion in CU discord but so far no response was made but any of the CU-devs or at least halt the distribution of the rewards until this has come to the voting of the investors

IMO, even if we throw reasonable ideas, the time is ticking, and there’s a continuous distribution of the loot boxes to non CU holders.

Anyways, i’m 100% supporting any ideas that will benefit most of the assets holder compare to discord grinders with no CU assets at all


I understand the issue. What if in our move to protect holders like this, we inadvertently exclude the non-nft holders who are waiting on the side lines to jump in at better prices.

There are only 30k lands nft and 10k unicorn nfts and those holding don’t want to sell at the moment because reasons. So not a lot to go around to be a holder. I’d very much like to have rewards go to holders like myself, yes, but I have to think about those who are committed but just not holding nfts at the moment. I guess the question is how much of rewards are going to non nft holders and how much are going to nft holders? Before we decide we have to squash this type of distribution.