Thanks Wasper,
Please see my response to TT as well as to others on the Forum. 
2 Likes
Hey Segarion,
As the person who came up with the name Crypto Unicorns Iām biasād toward keeping it. The name change came up a few times during the bear market as a way to distance ourselves from the crypto space. I didnāt agree then and I donāt agree now as I believe crypto will ultimately be something the vast majority of the world adopts. With the market beginning to return to a bull I think we stand to benefit way more by aligning ourselves with the very space we are built on.
Itās always been my dream to be one of the top remembered projects in the space Crypto Kitties ā Crypto Unicorns, etc. So I would sum this up by saying that now is the time to double down on the space and not look to hide.
As for whatās wrong with āRainbow Tokenā. It doesnāt directly associate the name with our project. If you look at most GameFi tokens they very clearly have the project name in them.
4 Likes
Migrating RBW and Converting to CU Token - #21 by darthschmitty13 - Response here.
Thanks for the thoughts,
We are definitely in agreement here. Iād also highlight your key point - " we are nearing the fatal mark of the 0.01" with RBW. So much of the space is all about perception and this one carries some pretty negative connotations. The conversion gives us an opportunity to fix this.
1 Like
In-game rewards will simply be adjusted to match what we currently have post migration. In some cases weāll need to adjust bundle sizes, etc but the goal is to keep things consistent and just adjust what is necessary.
I understand @Eyolis and otherās concerns around a āstealthā nerf but that is not the desire.
With regards to UNIM we currently donāt have any plans. We still have a situation where we donāt have enough circulating supply to even meet the demands of our current economy. For example, thereās more UNIM needed to evolve the babies we have currently than exists in our entire circulating supply. With new demand we would be able to restart that side of the economy. Iām not ready to call the two token experiment a failure just because other projects are making changes.
Post migration we can continue to evaluate UNIM and itās place in our economy. A change down the road is not something Iām 100% against but I do want to see how things play out in a growth environment.
This was what I thought in 2021 when I designed the token. I donāt believe this thesis has been true and making the token even cheaper per unit is a big mistake.
Unit bias cuts both ways and I believe @GoliathRulz says it best. Look at the top GameFi tokens and scroll down the list. What do you notice as you get down to where $RBW is today.
Any thoughts about adding a CU token burn component along with the currently proposed 10:1 change?
1 Like
Please see all my answers above. The tl;dr is simply:
- An order of magnitude change is simple and makes the math easy.
- Unit bias cuts both ways and weāve seen the negative side of that.
- There is no scenario in which a token having a higher price is a bad thing.
- In-game rebalancing is possible via tuning and shouldnāt be cause for worry. If there are specific concerns please lmk.
Now things are getting interesting!
Itās certainly possible to add this mechanic if the DAO wishes. My position on buy back and burn strategies is still largely negative however.
I just canāt reconcile the idea that buy back and burn actually punishes active players who spend RBW (hopefully CU soon!). Those who just passively stake and compound earn more overtime via rewards get that plus the burn benefit. Granted, an active and skilled player who earns significant amounts of RBW/CU would also stand to benefit.
Iām open to opposing opinions and ideas. I know @skmd has had similar thoughts before. Ie. we take 50% of treasury revenue and buy back + burn RBW. Itās important to consider that this would reduce treasury runway but perhaps thatās something the community is ok with.
Unless thereās strong support for this Iād advise not complicating this proposal with an additional mechanism. We can do a separate proposal for this down the road. It will be important to consider operationally how weād make that happen and avoid challenges like front running, etc.
1 Like
Pre-XAI grant runway extension, runway could have been an issue. Seems like less of a concern now.
It could be an interesting narrative to add in with the migration timeline. But agree, letās not complicate this proposal with it. But would love to hear others thoughts of including a burn mechanism when we migrate to XAI.
2 Likes
The unit bias does not work in a bear market because it mostly applies to retail and retail bails during bear. That is why it did not work for RBW. However, right now we are at the beginning of a risk on environment and it is during such environments (particularly during full bull when fomo hits) that the unit bias has benefit due to the presence of retail into the market.
1 Like
Having a ācheapā token is a mistake for all the reasons I articulated above.
People may actively seek āwhole coinsā with respect to BTC / ETH and other blue chips but I donāt believe this to be relevant for gaming tokens.
In addition a 10:1 conversion would mean $CUās value is approximately ~ $.20. This doesnāt put having many whole CU tokens out of reach for players and holders alike.
What feels better ($.20 or $.002)? Look at where tokens below $.01 sit on the global GameFi charts. Thereās a patternā¦ itās the bottom of the chart.
Looks like weāll be disagreeing on this one but I think it would be an extreme mistake to convert 1:10 and I will vote against any proposal that attempts to do so.
1 Like
I personally wonāt hold down the proposal if LG votes are against the 1:10 version, thatās for sure. But for what itās worth unit bias couldnāt have worked during bear and does work during bull, that is why Justin Sun (hate him or love him but he is a great marketer) added lots of decimals to the Huobi conversion. That being said, letās get this proposal rolling and on to the next one 
1 Like
The Justin Sun Huobi reference is a good point.
My counter is that things are different with exchange tokens. You could also say the same of the Merit Circle to Beam conversion which made the token the payment token for the Beam Chain. I just think there are different situations than our setup and worth looking at alternative directions.
A good example is GRAIL which we will have rewards for post liquidity migration. They have a very high unit price per token which doesnāt seem to have created any negative drag.
Thanks for all the feedback!
2 Likes
I am heavily in favor of this proposal. The push back against the 10:1 conversion is silly.
As a newbie, does a token priced at $0.02 or a token priced at $0.20 look more attractive? Itās obviously the latter, even though technically it doesnāt matter at all lol. I also love changing the ticker to CU from RBW for rebranding purposes.
10:1 is simply easy math for everyone, just drop a 0. This is an extremely negligible thing to debate, and I view the push back as drawing attention away from the main point: we are migrating!!! Donāt get caught up in the details. Letās show Arbitrum that our DAO isnt a shit show and get this passed lol
4 Likes
What liquidity do you plan to pair with CU?
And is there an understanding of the amount of this liquidity?
1 Like
Looks like it may of been answered in proposal above. If this answers your question.
- Withdraw the DAOās LP position from the Balancer 50:50 RBW/wETH pool and deposit an equivalent amount into a CU/ETH pool following the successful deployment of the new CU token contract.
2 Likes
Hi ArtToRich,
I plan to pair wETH with CU tokens just like we have with RBW/wETH on Polygon.
The amount of the liquidity should be equal to OR higher than the current amount of liquidity which is ~ $1M USD.
As mentioned in the last Town Hall Iām also planning a liquidity bootstrapping event designed to further incentivize staking of CU/wETH LP tokens to earn XAI, ARB, GRAIL, and CU rewards. This will both be a base yield coupled with an additional leaderboard event. More details to follow in March.
2 Likes
Correct! I added more color above as well.
1 Like
Hereās a thought. what if RBW used to breed was burned. the single burn mechanism for our token. at least the advertisement to investors is that a burn mechanism does exists but in reality it really isnāt much of a drain from the treasury. also every time a player breeds its an immediate burn baby burn moment.