In addition to (and separate from) the recently proposed Buyback & Burn system, we propose embedding further deflationary mechanisms into Crypto Unicorns’ tokenomics. In conversations with the LG team, there is a mutual desire to explore building a burn mechanism based on player-driven, in-game spending activities.
We propose that when $CU is used in-game it is burned from supply on a weekly basis.
Motivation
Deflationary tokenomics are straightforward to understand and can attract more participants to our ecosystem. To date, over 64.8M $RBW (6.48M $CU) has been utilized by players in the game. Linking token deflation to in-game usage naturally reduces the total supply of $CU, aligning with increased activity across our growing ecosystem.
Details
$CU has extensive utility throughout our core game loops. Here are some examples:
Marketplace Purchases: When players buy Berries or any “buy only” item from the Rainbow Token Marketplace.
Marketplace Fees: When players buy or sell items via the Rainbow * Token Marketplace (RMP) Automated Market Maker (AMM) in-game.
Unicorn Breeding: When players spend $CU to breed unicorns.
Unicorn Evolution: When players spend $CU to evolve unicorns.
Crafting: When players spend $CU to craft in-game items.
If this proposal is approved, we will begin with a significant retroactive token burn, removing approximately 6.48% of the total supply (edited from 6% previously to include the Shadowcorn Rituals figure h/t @timetraveler). These tokens will be burned from the Treasury and Staking pools. Moving forward, we will burn $CU on a weekly basis based on in-game activity.
Conclusion
Implementing a system that ties token burn to in-game usage will further strengthen our tokenomics by creating a deflationary model, supporting the value of $CU, and enhancing our ecosystem’s appeal. We encourage the DAO to vote in favor of this proposal.
Updated Staking Impact for visibility from the comments:
Before Shadowcorn loop was messed up I was spending 5k rbw a day. After about 2.5k rbw a day on rituals. I think I have spent 400-500k RBW on rituals. And I spend far less then the ultimate SC. How would this effect the SC loop. Burning tokens sounds interesting to me. I can see the benefits. Also what was meant by tokens being burned in staking pools. lp pool culp pool. both pools. thanks
Yes. SC loop is another example of $CU being spent. I don’t know that this was included in the calculations, but that is a nice source to think about. I’ll let someone from LG handle the answers on the specifics of the pools.
Who or what will be responsible for the token burn operations? Probably some bots/scripts?
Do we know how $CU (currently $RBW) is stored inside the game? Because as far as I understand, buying something on RMP doesn’t directly go into gamebank balance as it’s off-chain so must be stored on backend.
Do you consider tokens (rake) from second party games like RR, etc. also to be burnt? Or just main loop.
Adding to TT’s question, what do you mean by “Staking pools” as there is no inflow into treasury (if I understand correctly), unless LG team has their own tokens staked and want to burn a part of it.
This is a good point. I’d advocate for including $CU spent on Rituals in this Utility Burn proposal. We should include all sinks across the First Party games imo. @jbp3 thoughts?
Regarding your other question basically JBP3 is advocating for a retroactive burn (as if this proposal was live before we launched the game). Had we started with this burn mechanism we would have burned ~ 6% of the total supply. Rather than just have this proposal implement the burn going forward this allows us to get a large upfront decrease in the total supply of the token. We should add a table with the specifics I think before this proposal goes to vote. This way the exact amount of $CU is known.
To do this retroactive burn we have to get this ~ 6M $CU from somewhere. We have about ~2M in the Treasury given we’ve had to send tokens out for Market Making, Exchange listings, etc. So the proposal here is we’d pull the remainder of tokens need for this retroactive burn from the staking allocation.
It’s an opportunity to have a high upfront impact hopefully followed by a strong ongoing burn that increases with the usage of $CU across our product suite.
Yes, we’d setup some bots / scripts to run this on a set cadence.
$CU is sent to the game bank contract when it’s stashed into the game, spent on breeding/evo, etc. Tokens spent in the marketplace are already in the gamebank so no issues there.
I think it makes sense to burn $CU from ecosystem games that have rakes to the treasury. Otherwise we are just back to one day “recycling” those tokens. Makes more sense to burn them.
I’m talking about the $CU in the Gnosis Safe allocated for Staking Rewards.
as the saying goes when drinking around the campfire…
“it all burns”
I support any and all places that sinks are happening in-game. And yes, let’s get a table together before the vote so everyone can see what we’re talking about.
I am very happy to see this proposal coming forward. Always disliked the fact that the tokens that we sank were getting recaptured and redistributed to re-add inflationary pressure on the token price. If this proposal get passed it will be extreamly bullish for CU price. I am fully supportive of this proposal.
Looks fine i guess. 4m tokens being pulled from staking allo is a good chunk. Will that effect current/future staking apr to the point it becomes completely unattractive? When increased LP rewards are done, will there be any strong incentives to lock up tokens?
Hello. We just did a calculation and found that Rituals account for 4.8M RBW sunk so far. Adding this, we should expect to burn a total ~64.8M RBW or 6.48M CU.
While I fully support a burning mechanism, I have some questions:
It’s unclear to me what % of CU spend by the mentioned actions (and others) will be burend. Is the proposal to burn 100% of all fees spend in main game loops, or another %?
The fact that the retro-active burn is pulled from staking allo does not sit right with me. Would the intention be to re-fill this with funds from the treasury over time?
At current rates we have years of staking rewards left. More than enough to fully fulfill obligations. Certainly enough time for anyone staking $CU to decide if they want to re-roll or not.
In a future where $CU appreciates we’d be able to distribute less and less annually which would further extend the runway of available staking rewards.
Ultimately, our ecosystem needs to scale. Tokenomic changes will only take us so far. I make this point to reinforce that we need to look at what we can do today to create the right conditions for new participants to enter our economy.
It’s 100% of all $CU spent via the mentioned actions.
It is not necessary to do the full retroactive burn. We could just burn the ~2M $CU that’s the the treasury. We could also pull from other pools like P2E or the Ecosystem Fund. CC @jbp3 it’s worth considering these as alternatives.
Burning staking rewards and the impact it would have on stakers was a concern. Aron says, it won’t be an issue for years. If that’s accurate, then I support the proposal.
I think the idea is not to lower staking rewards. But since there is many years of rewards in staking pool to use some of allocation that wont be used for years. I maybe wrong. But this is how I read it.
Yes. This is my intention and understand as well from my conversations with the team cc: @cuppy and @RXIS.
The staking contract has 20m CU that unlock over 60 months. This proposal is suggesting that we take the retroactive burn and pull from the Treasury and the Staking contract. So maybe instead of the staking contract lasting 60 months, it will now only last for 52. Basically, pulling from future stakers to the benefit of the current players, DAO and ecosystem. And yes @IslandGurl the table detailing all of this out is coming.
So to be clear. I staked a large position for 12 months like many of you. I am not coming after our precious rewards. If for some bizarre reason that did end up being the case, I’d pull the proposal immediately.
The thought process here is that we want to make a big splash with this proposal (and the other burn proposal) so the retroactive burn is intentionally set as a large number for the headline appeal. So that’s why I’m suggesting that we keep the 6.48m CU burn (adjust based on @lgManicUnicorn comment).
Of course we can reduce the ~ 2M CU just from the treasury, but it loses some of the marketing appear. I’m not saying I’m completely against that, but burn 6.5% of total token supply is a much bigger headline than 2%.
I’d suggest we get the full details of the table and then can make the adjustments as needed. It may be that we want to pull some from P&E allocation or Ecosystem fund instead of all from Staking, but that can all be discussed.