Counter Proposal: Policy Towards Maintaining A Fair And Profitable Gameplay Environment

In order to provide LG with the tools to react to and control the potentially harmful effects of exploits, while simultaneously preserving the Integrity of the DAO; This proposal seeks to grant LG the rights to control/seize/ any and all NON blockchain assets. Which includes but is not limited to: Boosters, Materials, Seeds, Berries, Tickets etc etc.
And excludes but is not limited to: Lands, Unicorns, RBW, UNIM, lootboxes. (regardless of stashed/gamelock status)

There have been some good points made on the subject of bans and the implication of asset/wallet banning on the CU ecosystem. Most community members have somewhat agreed to the need for economic safeguards, however the community as a whole is drastically against the anti-decentralization and somewhat draconian approach of seizing NFTs.
And rightfully so. As such this proposal seeks to clarify LGs role in moderating the game and it’s player base as well as help provide the powers needed to ensure a functioning game economy.

It is important to keep the following in mind when granting LG authority, below are some key take always from both the community at large and LG which were taken into consideration when writing this proposal.

1.) WEB3 stands for decentralization and TRUE ownership
2.) As we grow then the chance of bad actors coming along is not only a possibility but an inevitability
3.) Safeguards need to be put in place in order for LG to be able counteract these bad actors (i.e) exploiters/hackers/cheaters
4.) The term bad actors in itself is vague and and can result in uneasiness among top players as it results in a lack of clarity of what constitutes fairness as top players put in much more effort than the average player and so gain much more in terms of rewards.
Therefore these top players are afraid of unfairly getting banned for excelling.
5.) Delegating to some type of ‘bad actor’ and being punished for it.
6.) Bans and unbans being a popularity contest amongst whales
7.) An exploiter could cause serious damage to the CU ecosystem and thus LG needs powers.
8.) And arguably the most important point, the community fears possible false positives.

First of all there is very thin line between extremely optimal meta gaming and exploiting.
This may even differ amongst community members opinions.
When speaking specifically about CU we need to be very detailed in the meaning of an exploit. For clarities sake I shall list the types of exploits we may be vulnerable to.

1. Unethical creation of new NFTassets
2. Mass upgrading of existing assets by mass producing materials in an unethical way (a way that was not intended by the design team, and thus is unfair to other players)
3. Creating more powerful assets than are achievable through traditional levels of gameplay ( traditional meaning: players playing very optimally but not abusing said exploit)
4. And finally we shall leave defining an exploit as something that is at LG’s discretion, but should be in the spirit of whatever the intention for the exploited feature is. i.e if a feature was intended to help new players, continuously getting a reward for it may constitute an exploit. Same for multi accounting on the leaderboards, if the spirit of the leaderboard is to reward individual active wallets. Then abusing it may constitute an exploit at LG’s discretion.

This proposal is based on the assumption that the contracts themselves are as secure as possible (and if not they should be audited regularly), and that the main vulnerabilities lie within the creation/upgrading of new blockchain assets through the use of exploits/hacks that somehow allow one to abuse non blockchain items (berries/boosters/materials etc)

It is important for us to define what abilities LG is given to regulate a fair gameplay environment. The current proposal (by LG) seeks to give LG the ability to influence NFT assets regardless of the wishes of the owner, and as such is in gross violation of 1.)
That being said LG cannot be powerless in the face of bad actors, as such I propose that LG be granted full authority over the regulation of all NON NFT items.
This includes but is not limited to Materials, Boosters, Seeds, Potions, Tickets etc etc etc. Doing so as long as the exploit is detected early enough then it can be dealt with and the damage mitigated, as all exploits should in some way trace their origin to in game loops.

For example if someone were to ‘abuse’ and create a method for obtaining infinite materials or boosters, it would be within LG’s authority to remove the materials and or boosters from the exploiters account but they would have no authority whatsoever over NFTs. Seeing as it takes time to use non blockchain items this would give LG the opportunity to step in and stop exploits before they affect the ecosystem.

Steps for implementation:

  1. LG creates accurate tools which allows them to monitor any abnormal gameplay activity (if they do not have these already) Alternatively LG can release these tools for the community to take advantage of, the current tool is of little use to the community as it often gives inaccurate information.

  2. LG updates their policy to clearly indicate that they have full control over any non blockchain based asset. And will take action on accounts (though not NFTs) that find ways to abuse the economy through unfair or unintended gameplay actions (unintended is key here). This should be LG’s primary means of maintaining a fair and balanced ecosystem.

  3. LG resigns themselves to not having control over the NFT assets regardless of game lock state or of whichever kind of abuse was used regarding the NFTs in themselves.

  4. LG continues with it’s current policy of imposing global limits on NFT edge cases that have been found to create an unfair gameplay environment.

Offense - Unintended gameplay
Consequence - Removal of items that were created/obtained through nefarious means.

Offense - Creation or upgrading of assets in a way which results in an asset which cannot be obtained through traditional gameplay. For example lands with berry farming bonuses in the hundreds.
Consequence - Global stat capping of assets at LG’s discretion

Offense - Leaderboard Abuse
It needs to be stated that playing with multiple wallets does not constitute ‘abuse’
playing with the same blockchain assets across multiple wallets in an effort to circumvent the capped rewards however circumvents the cap imposed upon by LG and thus constitutes abuse.
Consequence - Removal of leaderboard rewards from all affected wallets.

Offense - Any exploit or abnormal gameplay which creates a large number of desired non blockchain items without engaging in the gameplay loops which are traditionally associated with the creation of these items.
Consequence - Removal of all exploited items from said wallet(s)

Offense - Abuse of events in a way which grants an unfair advantage or could have larger implications to the economic stability of the CU ecosystem.
Consequence - Removal of all rewards without thought of compensation for time spent.

Offense - Any attempt at hacking or otherwise exploiting the CU servers/database and anything associated with the security of the ecosystem in an effort to bypass gameplay loops and harm the economy in any shape or form.
Consequence - The immediate removal of any and all non blockchain assets/materials. Note this should only be done if it can be proven that the hack/exploit/cheat was somehow linked to the wallet in question, if this cannot be proven 100% then the consequence should simply be the removal of said items in order to avoid the possibility of someone faking a hack in an effort to have another user punished.

Offense - Automation or usage of 3rd party tools
Consequence - None; Except in the event of leaderboard abuse (Match3 being a recent example) in such cases if this is detected then leaderboard rewards should simply be removed.

A closing argument on bots/scripts. Fighting automation is a losing battle, LG can make it so it is difficult to automate but it would be a tremendous waste of funds to attempt to crack down on this particular practice. No gaming company has so far won this war, and in it’s current form CU exists in a vacuum where it does not need to wage this war due to the nature of the gameplay.

It is important to note the usage of the term ‘Unintended gameplay’ this is made purposefully vague in order to cover a wide variety of possible scenarios, allow me to provide an example that is purely hypothetical:

If a user discovered unicorn poop that had somehow glitched onto their land and didn’t disappear upon collection thus making it possible to obtain an infinite amount of seeds that would qualify as “Unintended”. The action of clicking poop and gaining a seed is normal gameplay. We cannot even say the game was exploited in anyway, however the result was not within the developers intentions or expectations. As such even though the fault lies with the developer and not the player, the items must all be removed to prevent harm to the economy.

Another far less hypothetical example:

If an event was created in order to incentivize unique wallets towards jousting and instead resulted in community members spreading assets around multiple wallets in an effort to complete the events simultaneously and infinitely. Although the fault lies entirely with both the developers and the QA team, the resulting non blockchain assets should be removed as they were a result of unintended gameplay. Again it must be stated that in this particular scenario the players are not necessarily to blame, however the responsibility lies on LG to rectify their mistake as that was not the intended usage of said gameplay.

The point of the above proposal is to create an environment where LG has the ability to do gameplay moderation, protect the economy and our investments from bad actors, while simultaneously protecting our integrity as a leading WEB3 project.

(post deleted by author)

Let me summarise what you proposed:

  1. IF someones “STEALS” something and we DO catch him, we take back whatever we can from the account(some berries probably), but we don’t touch his assets, so he can try again on another account.
  2. IF someone “STEALS” something and we DON’T catch him, he can go along just fine, since there is no real threat even if we do.

When I got to the end I actually understood the reason, I quote:
“Offense - Automation or usage of 3rd party tools
Consequence - None”

Under the claim that fighting bots is expensive (lol) , we are supposed to let them going.

Just to make it clear for EVERYONE, we do have NOW bots playing the game. And this is what they can do better, compared to a honest player:

  1. FARMING: be online non-stop and plant each and every farm exactly when timer ends, thus extending no of farming cycles from 3 to 5-6 => more berries, more RBW extracted

  2. GATHERING: be online non-stop and start another cycle immediately, even rotating lands to reduce gather time, thus going from 7 cycles/week to 8.5 => More UNIM extracted

  3. WORKSHOP: be online non-strop and same as for Gathering, keep workshop busy non-stop => more RBW extracted.

  4. Collect poop as soon as they show up => more RBW extracted

  5. SELL everything automatically => more RBW extracted

There is a false claim, that games gave up on fightings bots because it is expensive. Of course, with this claim you also admitted that banning bots is something to fight for, being expensive or not.

To summarise, I see this proposal aimed at protecting bot users on 2 fronts:

  1. IF bots are banned, make sure Assets are not banned, so they can move them and try on another account.
    Just have Laguna remove some berries as punishment and they get away free, since UNIM and RBW will be long gone in another wallets as soon as they are extracted :wink:

  2. IF bots are legal Game On, they don’t care about anything. Go MAX extraction and even sell bots to other players for more profit.


Im sorry but I cannot take this seriously. This is not about web3 and protecting users. Its about protecting bots.


Let’s log in with a username and password and add the ability to manage hundreds of wallets under one account. Otherwise, it looks ridiculous about the limitations of the leaderboard. We’ll get to the KYC check so soon.
And to be completely honest, let’s count the metrics, like DAU, by account holders, not wallets.

1 Like

Regarding the NFT, we can not block, but freeze, let’s say for 2 weeks, hardly anyone wants to continue to do bad things if his assets stop working for a long time. A person can dispose of assets, but until NFT’s are unfrozen, NFT’s will not be able to be used in the metaverse.

1 Like

I completely agree with Neviolo’s statement.
He laid out in his post everything discussed in Serious.

@TheGenji On your wallet you own your assets and can do whatever you want with them (hello web3), when you connect a wallet somewhere, you agree to the terms and conditions of the service where you connected the wallet


I stand with LG on their stance against botting. If the creator and distributor of the bot software currently being sold wants to come forward with their own proposal of how they can work WITH LG and the community I would support this. Show everyone a potential positive economic impact around a 3rd party automation service and I’m all ears. Currently there is no positive impact to botters in our ecosystem and even a single account being banned/blacklisted/given warnings til it stops, is a win for all of us(minus the ~10 of you abusing automation).

While trying to protect your friend is admirable, writing a tedious and jumbled counter proposal to point the blame to everyone and everything besides the automation being used is insane. Thanks for trying to protect decentralization and true ownership of our assets, I do appreciate that. However the true motivations of this proposal are quite clear. Lets stop making excuses for those abusing automation who have made everyone else feel like they’ve wasted their time clicking this last year. There’s some very squeaky little mice running around CU and my cat Laguna is very hungry for some justice.


To protect players and prevent abuse, I suggest the following measures:

Implement effective monitoring tools: LG should develop accurate and reliable tools to detect suspicious gameplay and identify exploits early. These tools should also be made available to the community to ensure transparency and build player trust.

Clear Policies and Communication: LG should provide clear and understandable policies to clearly communicate to players what types of behavior constitute exploitation and what the consequences will be. Open and regular communication with the community is important to avoid misunderstandings and to maintain the trust of the players.

Fairness and Balance: LG should ensure that any counter-exploitation measures are fair and balanced. This means that players should not be wrongly penalized if they did not intentionally engage in exploitation. A thorough understanding of the intent and implications of game mechanics is required to make appropriate decisions.

Transparency on penalties: When players break the rules and engage in exploits, the consequences should be reasonable. LG should disclose what penalties are imposed and why. This helps promote player understanding and confidence in the system.

Regular audits and security measures: To ensure the security of the game and the economy, regular audits of the contracts should be carried out to identify and fix potential vulnerabilities. In addition, adequate security measures should be taken to prevent hacks and exploits.

Community Involvement: Involving the community in the process of making decisions and improving game mechanics is important. LG should take players’ opinions and feedback seriously and make adjustments to the rules and policies as necessary.

By implementing these measures, LG can create an environment that protects players while also fighting against abuse and providing a fair and balanced gaming experience.


This is about protecting bot players and the benefit they get from automating vs. actually playing like a person is supposed to play. Essentially this is a proposal to continue to allow people to rake in money using bots without actually playing the game. Sunflower banned bots and is doing just fine without them and policing them. Botting is not beneficial to the community… in fact it is detrimental as it allows some individuals and not others to flood the market with resources they would not normally obtain, and it establishes a lower floor on everything that primarily the botters control. Definite NO to this this proposal is where I’m at.


Agreed 100%. Automation should be 100% banned from a game with a real money economy. The money earning potential should be in the grind. Not automate everything and just collect your money once a day. That defeats the purpose of playing and punishes honest players who hustle as much as they can to get where they are. There is no “even play field” if there are bot players. They will extract twice as fast compared to the best grinders in the ecosystem. Even the ones that are setting up alarms in the middle of the night to wake up for a fourth cycle of planting or to try to push back another cycle of gathering will fall behind. Unfair advantages are just that - unfair advantages and it should not be allowed.


100% agreed on this one. ALL automation should be PROHIBITED, no some some excluded.

Let’s remind everyone that this is a game. All your programming stuffs and knowledge should not be used here because we are PLAYERS in the game, this is our only role here and not a PROGRAMMER/BOT CREATOR. If you develop things and stuffs, there should be a formal application or membership that they are the only ones in the community that is allowed to develop/use things for the benefit of LG. And if your not in the list and you’re using any bots (simple or not) that is not registered or known to other players and LG, then you’re clearly making an advantage to other players no excuse.

Just imagine riding a motorcycle versus a top leaderboard number one best cyclist champion in the whole planet, who would you think will win? Wen fair?


I invested in the project expecting it to set the standard for all web3 games and communities. If the essence of the project is a farm simulator and other simple games, it looks dull.
I understand that most people only think about their wallet and that they could take money out of the project for as long as possible. For me it’s something more and I hope we can make decisions that will perpetuate the project in history, and not just keep the grinders who will be with us while the project has money, and then the project will be forgotten.
For me, the gaming part is still weak, we have not yet been able to make exciting mechanics and fun, but the foundation of the DAO and the community in the discord give hope for a brighter future.

1 Like

Hello, everyone. I would like to let you know that this proposal has been withdrawn by the author. As such, this proposal was not moved to council review this session (June 15th). Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion.