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:
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.
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.
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.
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.