Consideration for Staking and RBW/ETH LP yield adjustments

This is in consideration for both proposals on the table.
[Author’s Bias: I am looking for reject both proposals and have the community discuss this creatively not in a rush fashion and create a much polished one.]

This information has been created with the current information and Limited time that Author has. Readers should not be rude/critical to what author has said but best to provide an input to the us all move forward.


The goal is to provide data to the community and to get answers to which option we can move this forward. as we know there is an issue and we need to do something about that issue.
The two propoasls are the following
from : YanDelphi

from : darthschmitty13

Problem :

  • Both proposals main goal is to reduce emissions in staking.

– Since the topic has been brought up about emissions the proposals also mentioned about the use for the Net reduction, and can be allocated to active players via leaderboard, jousting etc which brought interest from the community.

[take note : while the first proposal indicated that it can be used there, there was no mention of it to be of use yet. but the intention is there hence a redirection of emmision in the future.]

– The second proposal was also great as it cuts the emissions still and consider the long term run and the effects players just purely on extraction.

– Some Stakers concerns of the reduction being too high and not being conservative.


Source: CU_GameBank

As of today the current circulating RBW in the economy is our current RBW circulation is now at 94,496,711.

Our current circulating supply w/o stake is 38,679,680 RBW

This is a Chart for reference:

While we have continously decrease rewards in the land gameplay, we haven’t really made any adjustments on the extractions being done in the staking platform. data suggest that some people do not even play and just extract the value from the project passively.

The community totality have a direction on rewarding Active participation. hence we have made actions such as Staking V2. in our platform. Author believes that this Staking Yield change is also important for us to move forward on that goal.

Here is an example of a sentiment that I’ve picked in one of my conversations: user is anon for privacy reasons.

The graph shows that 59% of the RBW is staked, with that conversation at hand, there can be some reasons why we have so many people staked. Are they actively participating the game? are they just extracting? or are they just extracting and then stashing into the game?. While this can be seen as aopportunity, it can also be seen as a potential flaw. Author does not have enough time nor data to support any claims but we have to accept that reality that some people will be “taking advantage” and on the purposes of pure profit.

The big question is :
Even with the 59% of players are staked into the platform Are you okay if we make changes on the current staking yield?

  • Yes - Im currently staking and Im okay with the Yield Decrease from Staking
  • No – Im currently staking and Im NOT okay with the Yield Decrease from Staking

0 voters

Working solution :

What if we can reduce the amount of stake rewards still but in a more conservative way, while also providing additional seasonal rewards and still has an amount to be kept for the long run?

The author tries to venture this idea to ensure that every interest is protected or backed with data for further understanding of the situation we are in while keeping things grounded.


  • This will not solve complete player growth. but it can be used to attract users because of the increase of rewards in the upcoming loops.

  • Since the RBW will become more “scarce” it is possibly expected for the RBW to go up in value.

  • Rewards will still need to be taken somewhere and to what point. while some adjustments needs to be done it need to be done with a much more understanding of the enviroment we are in.

  • This working solution is not a 1’s and 0’s, its not a fix all but its an attempt to do something about the situation rather than not doing anything at all.

DATA : Yield Discussion

For reference we are using this calculator: you can also use this to check with numbers.

The 2 proposals suggest 75% Yield Decrease in RBW with 100% Yield Increase in RBWLP. with an net reduction of : 439,596.50 RBW’s which has a divide on if we are to use it on other means and keep it for long term.


Some community members were suggesting a 65% Yield decrease in RBW [while keeping the same effect] so that we can provide a better rewards still for the stakers. but what if we only reduce it to a 55% Yield decrease. how much will it be and on how far we can work on it?



This is the Net Reduction for 65% and 55% respectively.



The only difference you have from 65% and 55% is 69k RBW which is just nice.

For transparency :
At current RBW Price We are saving :

  • 16,173.7 USDC at 75% Per Week
  • 13,685.7 USDC at 65% Per Week
  • 11,179.3 USDC at 55% Per Week

Please respond to this poll to see which one you’ve prefer between the 3. options 75% 65% and 55%

With the data provided above, What should be the proper staking value decrease?

  • 75% Keep it like this
  • 65% Community Suggestion
  • 55% Author’s Idea

0 voters

DATA : RBW Provision

Since the second proposal discuss about 100% to the pool. 2nd proposal is left out here. this portion will focus on the portion on how much should be provisioned to the active participation and how much should be kept.

This information below is running on 55% as a Yield decrease calculation!

In my review. the 70% portion of the net reduction should be kept in staking allocation for future use and 30% should be on the Players Active participation [leaderboards, jousting, special events etc]

Which in line still give us a 211,060 RBW per week in the staking pool.

In 52 weeks [1 year]. the amount that is still allocated for the staking pool allocation will be 10,975,128 RBW’s with 4,703,626 RBW to be dispersed in Active participation.

Why we shouldn’t put more than 30%?

  • We already have an allocation for the rewards. This is just an additional/supporting to the current reward set that we are getting. putting more than 30% seems sounds “greedy”. even on further numbers you can bring it down to 20% 0r 25% with a much studied fine tuning.
  • Additionally it breaks the idea of “Reducing emissions” if we are dedicating a high amount just to re-direct emissions to player activity

Respectively here is the data if we use 25% and 20%


Active Participation : 3,919,689 RBW [in 52 weeks]
RBW In Staking Pool for future : 11,759,066 RBW [in 52 weeks]


Active Participation : 3,135,751 RBW [in 52 weeks]
RBW In Staking Pool for future : 12,543,003 RBW [in 52 weeks]

Those Reward incentimes are still considerred high for “supporting the current allocated rewards” for Active Participation.

What does the community believe as a better % amount to allocate for Active Player Participation?

  • 30%
  • 25% Author’s Choice
  • 20%

0 voters

DATA : RBW Provision for Active Participation

Once we have decided how much we want to keep in the pool. we can also discuss how much per section be provided.

This information below is running at 25% Reward for Player Active Participation

I’ve created a quick example for Active player participation. since these numbers “should be adjusted based on the Team requirements” this is just a concept.

I created a portion for the following.

  • Leaderboard : 30%
  • Jousting: 60%
  • Special Events [discord, twitter, other in-game related events] : 10%

The bias for Leaderboard and Jousting is because we do not have the other percieved game loops yet. once they are, then we can probably segregate this again for another change.

This is the table that came up to that value

From the leaderboard example. if we run the same event structure for the Winter Leaderboard which runs in 13 weeks this will be how the reward structure will look like.

There were several increase of rewards in the span of the 13 weeks we saved and will reward the active participants of the said game loop.

It may look like it’s not much but that reward increase would be good enough and reminder that this is only for the Leaderboard portion. we do not have the reward bracket on the jousting yet.

Let’s say we have allocated 200,000 for jousting rewards every 2 months and have not used the special event rbw’s as we have enough for our normal allocated events.

This would be how our Net reduction data would look like and our balance sheet for this allocation.

This chart alone should show the impact of our changes and the staking pool.

This is also our Final balance from what we have taken from the staking pool.

We still saved 16,198,443 RBW which is 607,442 USD at this price. in 52 Weeks and will still depend on how conservative are we at these numbers.

Please share your thoughts. it is important that we can have a decision.

thank you!


Thank you for submitting such an information proposal; I think we can all agree on one point.

  • I want players to get the most out of this ecosystem, and players are more likely to be stockholders, investors, and involved than passive investors.

  • I also want current investors to understand that lower yield rewards indicate a value increase.


Appreciate your effort in putting all this together.

Personally I think the objective of LP yield adjustment can be as simple as, discouraging passive farm-and-dump token holders and redirecting rewards to active players. I don’t really count on this to move the token price. (If that’s what some of us are thinking about)

No matter how much the rate is to be adjusted, I don’t think we will know the impact until we eventually implement the adjustment. So, 55% vs 65% vs 75% or 20% vs 25% vs 30% all those figures do not look that much different to me. As long as we are reducing how much those passive stakers extracting from active stakers+players, then I am happy. I don’t know how hard it is to implement, but the rate itself can be dynamic, why not review and adjust, say, every quarter?

If someone who’s counting on this to move the token price organically, I would say the better shot would be about attracting new players.

It could be side-tracking a bit but I would like to see big prizes from Jousting to get new players attention and participation, with a fairly low barrier (without the need to input much time and effort but still got a (slight) change to win the jackpot!)

A mechanism like accumulating participation / number of matches to increase the winning chances may encourage players to keep coming back and try their luck again, and again, for some attractive prize.


Hi Keizer,

I really appreciate you putting all the thought and effort into this idea. I’m happy to see the level of engagement these proposals have brought to the community.

My notes below:

  1. I put forward my proposal because reallocation of the reduced emissions from staking is unnecessary. We have plenty of tokens in the P&E pool to properly incentivize our community for years to come. Our design team has already proven they can structure compelling leaderboards via the Fall and Winter events. There’s no question we’ll be able to do the same for Jousting, etc.

  2. To make this clear - I will vote no on any proposal that attempts to reallocate the staking rewards to P&E. Again, this is unnecessary given what’s left in the pool + the design team does not need to involve the community at the level of structuring leaderboard rewards. This is a perfect example of where I draw the line along our path to being a fully decentralized DAO.

Clearly the community supports a cut to staking emissions. This is an idea that has been voiced for months and I do not believe we have rushed this process in the slightest. We can endlessly debate decisions like this or we can make changes, evaluate and make further changes down the road. I favor action vs endless debate and look forward to seeing the results of the next snapshot vote.


Hi @darthschmitty13,

If we have enough in P&E as an allocation for the rewards. it just make sense to not put staking rewards to P&E. which also means it is a deliberate move from LG to protect the long term goal of the project.

These are things that we do not see as a totality in the community. I think this is a gap even though it might have been mentioned before. I think on specific discussion like these, its important for us to re-view those information so we can see much clearer.

If I have known that we have enough for P&E and that these are deliberate moves to protect the project for its long term goal. I would have never even have to do this in the first place. I’m still glad I did.

But with this information now in here, it is very important that the community should understand the reason behind your proposal and why DD pulled out theirs. it makes more sense.

regardless of which, I think this idea is a good thread for LG to know what the community feels and that LG can have further understanding of the situation.

At the end of the day :
Community prefers

  • a Decrease of Yield on Staking
  • with a value of 75% almost tie on 65%

Which also means that your proposal fits into the requirement that the community needs and I will move it for snapshot.

Thank you!


This topic was automatically closed 5 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.