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.
THIS IS A LONG READ, IF YOU ARE NOT INTO READING THEN THIS MIGHT NOT BE FOR YOU.
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
- 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.
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
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
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?
- 25% Author’s Choice
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.