RBW and UNIM Breeding Changes

[DefinitlyDABOZZ]

Summary

We have been communicating with the community in the forum and on Discord, and have made changes based on feedback to our proposal. For those getting caught up to speed, the original idea post can be found here and the first revision of the idea can be found here. This is our third (and hopefully final) revision based on community feedback. To summarize the most recent community concerns:

• Don’t implement until we some some data from pre-season jousting
• Make the RBW fee dynamic based on breeding points remaining
• Separate the LVM RBW input costs component and RBW breeding costs component into 2 different proposals
• Consider UNIM as well when making changes to RBW breeding costs

Additionally, we came to the realization that this proposal will directly affect the player base. As such, we put together different options to provide a variety of alternatives.

Motivation

This post will focus on RBW and UNIM breeding/evo costs, with an LVM RBW input cost proposal to follow shortly after. The sentiment within the community has been rather mixed around how drastically the RBW breeding input costs should be changed. On one hand, we have community members advocating for a 5x increase in breeding / evo costs to maximize RBW burn, on the other hand we have community members saying this will hurt new players far too much. A solution to appease both camps is to implement a dynamic breeding fee based on the amount of breeding points unicorns have remaining, similar to how UNIM breeding costs are calculated. An additional problem laid out by community members is related to UNIM. As the unicorn population grows, so too does the total amount of UNIM emitted each day. Therefore, we have come up with the following scenarios (Conservative, Moderate, Aggressive, Very Aggressive) in an effort to address every community member’s concerns.

Please note that each option compares the current RBW and UNIM breeding costs per unicorn (current breeding cost per corn for rbw = 25, for a total of 50 RBW) and current RBW and UNIM cost for evolution against the proposed change for each respective scenario. As of 3.16.2023, there were 85,076 adult unicorns according to Hawku’s marketplace. In order to provide a basic overview, we set out the amount of UNIM and RBW burned to date compared to how much would have been burned if we had been operating under each of the respective scenarios, assuming that the same number of breeds per unicorn would have occurred.

Details

Conservative

Tl;DR - Leave evo costs unchanged, slightly increase UNIM costs to breed, and introduce minor increases in the RBW breeding cost as breeding points are used. The ‘Conservative’ scenario would have increased the amount of RBW sunk by ~4M RBW, and increased the amount of UNIM burned by ~19M UNIM.

Moderate

Tl;DR - Leave evo costs unchanged, slightly increase UNIM costs to breed, and introduce moderate increases in the RBW breeding cost as breeding points are used. The ‘Moderate’ scenario would have increased the amount of RBW sunk by ~6M RBW, and increased the amount of UNIM burned by ~80M UNIM.

Aggressive

Tl;DR - Slightly increase the evo costs for UNIM and RBW, aggressively increase UNIM costs to breed, and introduce aggressive increases in the RBW breeding cost as breeding points are used. The ‘Aggressive’ scenario would have increased the amount of RBW sunk by ~7.5M RBW, and increased the amount of UNIM burned by ~144M UNIM.

Very Aggressive

Tl;DR - Increase the evo costs by 50% for UNIM and RBW, aggressively increase UNIM costs to breed, and introduce very aggressive increases in the RBW breeding cost as breeding points are used. The ‘Very Aggressive’ scenario would have increased the amount of RBW sunk by ~12M RBW, and increased the amount of UNIM burned by ~281M UNIM.

Conclusion

As discussed in the initial Draft Proposal, the supply of baby unicorns has grown from a market share of ~13% in June 2022 to ~30% today due to players not evolving baby corns with undesired genes or stats. Prior iterations of this proposal suggested lowering the evolution costs, but many community members pointed out that this is NOT a problem and instead acts as a significant sink for UNIM despite the growing population of babies. Based on this feedback, we removed the reduction in evolution costs.

Additionally, we began with a 5x increase in breeding RBW costs in our first Idea post but changed it to ~1.5x in the Draft Proposal. However, many community members pointed out that this did nothing to address UNIM and hurt new players while giving an advantage to incumbents with unicorns that have solid stats/genes. In an effort to find compromise between all of these groups, we changed the RBW breeding fee to reflect a similar design as UNIM: A dynamic scale based on how many breeding points a unicorn has remaining. As you can see in the above across all proposed options, the cost differential is minimal for unicorns with 8 breeding points remaining. This is intentional to address concerns of hurting first time players/breeders.

In order to address concerns from community members who are demanding higher RBW and UNIM sinks across the board, we proposed much higher costs for unicorns with fewer breeding points remaining throughout the various voting options. This makes sense for multiple reasons; breeders who own corns with advantageous stats/genes must pay more to keep the bloodline going, and the change will likely encourage the use of high tier boosters as breeding unicorns with less points remaining becomes costly. This accomplishes higher UNIM and RBW burn from serious breeders who are making high profit margins on their top quality bloodlines.

As you can see, a lot more UNIM and RBW would have been sunk had one of the proposed changes been implemented since day 1. The numbers are not perfect, but they should give the community a feel for how this change could positively affect the CU economy by providing more value accrual for UNIM and RBW. With jousting live and many other game launches imminent, we feel these changes set CU up for success long term.

The vote will be a single choice vote between the options presented in this proposal and the option to make no change to breeding costs.

Thank you to everyone who gave feedback to help with the third iteration of this proposal. We look forward to the community’s response!

[lgManicUnicorn]

Related Discussions:

Proposal Idea: Tokenomics Changes

Deferred Proposal (LVM and Breeding+Evo RBW Changes): RBW Economy Changes

Other RBW Change Proposal (LVM RBW Changes): LVM RBW Changes

[swmartin19]

Not sure which i option I like best yet, but I do know there is need for an increase.

Had a blast co-authoring this proposal with DaBoZz and reiterating a few times after hearing community feedback. Hopefully now there is an option that everyone supports!

Let us know what you think.

[RickyRy]

These burns rates are based off of an average of current breed/evo rates and assuming they remain constant? Or what exactly are these burn rates based of off?

[VonNuemann]

I vote for very aggressive

[WINTER_AND_SUMMER]

1. Honestly, too many topics are being created. In my opinion, all discussions should be held in one topic. Just get tired of it (this is my subjective opinion)
2. It would be nice to immediately create a poll, as Kaiser does, to have an understanding of the activity on the forum, and how the proposal is perceived (which option is more like it)
   I’m for the Moderate option (Only in it I would change the UNIM figures upwards)

[TeacherSteve]

1. way too aggressive and will discourage breeding out high energy corns imo
2. breed and evo has already been adjusted last year from 5 RBW to 25 RBW per corn
3. changing this fundamental now will unfairly affect new players while meaning older players have cheaper corns to sell in market
4. another way to balance supply/demand issues is to burn corns somehow
   conc: I will probably vote to keep current tokenomics in tact and wait for more game loops & burning mechanisms via shadowcorns

[inb4emotion]

The base framework I’m working from:

We have to tighten RBW/UNIM circulating supply to ensure that the token doesn’t drop down steeply. Down only is a given at this point, so our goal should be to survive till market conditions improve. So far no project has proven they go against macro trends, so the best we can do is slow the decrease.

We also have to keep in mind that the team has a packed roadmap. Trying fancy unproven things will come at the cost of adding time to the current roadmap, and the results are unproven. Ideally any proposal should try to keep things simple, unless there’s an extremely convincing argument to try something brand new and risky.

Personally I feel that this proposal fits within this framework. I like the “aggressive” sub proposal and in dollar terms the difference is not that much, but it seems to tighten the belt in a meaningful way. This proposal also highlighted that currently RBW doesn’t scale with breeding points. There’s no real reason it shouldn’t. It seems like an easy way to increase the burn.

The path of least resistance is to do nothing. And we can continue down this path and see where it leads but I think its pretty obvious where that leads looking at the charts.

[inb4emotion]

1. Breeding out high energy corns is mostly done by high stat breeders. It makes no sense to breed farm corns to high energy. And that should sort of be the goal? We should try to move the average stats of corns up. If you want corn quantity, 2-3 is self sustaining and really cheap. You can breed the best ones and have a stock of high energy ones.
2. This is not relevant. What was the price of RBW then, and now? What was the cost of breeding then, and now in dollar terms?
3. This seems fine to me? If you’ve been sinking $$$ from the very beginning, you are bound to accrue some advantages. This isn’t monopolizing the corn market.
4. See my framework above. This feels pointless to discuss because we are atleast 2-3 months out on any brand new idea being implemented unless we want to move Delegation/Tribes/Shadowcorns further down the road?

[aume27Rrpmp.nft]

Even tho I will admit that short term a increase wouldn’t hurt the RBW price and the increase wouldn’t be to hard since RBW is at a fairly low price.

Here’s a couple worries I have.

1. This is highly in favor of master breeders already having evo6 production up and running and a lot of corns.
2. This structure doesn’t stop High stats unicorns to be breed, it only disincentives breeding the higher breed points. Same as in axie infinity where breeders only bred to 3 points unless the axie was a top 10 meta. But people can just print 3 first breeds and keep the bloodline going, wih a fairly low risk of losing the good genes if they use the cloning strat using two classes.
3. What happens when RBW find back its price from the IPO, getting a 10energy corn to get out lvl 9 and 10 buildings will cost around 300+ $ maybe more. I doubt any game experience would justify such high prices meaning it will most like reduce adoption and DAU. I know some people think unicorns valuation is based on free market but I can see many scenarios where it just doesn’t add up to a positive sum for our ecosystem.
4. I relation to my third point, this structure would gate the end game loops of the farm since 6 energy, 10energy corns are needed to max out buildings. Crafting evo6 boosters require 12energy and they can’t be bought.

Overall yes I think slight increase short term can help, but it quickly turn into a pain point and a negative element when RBW gain in value. This is definitively a short term solution and will lose its beauty long term. Unim part is already dynamic and RBW cost is basically a protocol fee pay in exchange for increasing unicorn supply. I sort of get the feeling that this is some sort of yet well thought out still pump and dump strategy that will end to a negative sum on the user adoption and DAU and favoring towards a small elite.

Some options would be to;

• The curve go to high on the far end. maybe the curve need to smoothen on the end with 100, 112.5, 125. Be more aggressive on the UNIM side.
• have adaptive pricing mechanisms that track assets value.
• Have pricing based on stats. the better the total stats point of a corn the more expensive it is to breed it.

These solutions could even create arbitrage opportunities between breeding and sweeping markets.

All in all, I will vote for the conservative or no change at all depending on the community votes near the end of the voting period. I strongly suggest to maybe have workshops or more active discussions towards a more adaptive and strategic breeding pricing system that encourage breeders and player to hold their RBW instead of selling them.

[aume27Rrpmp.nft]

Here’s a list of other conversation around this topic “Breeding and evo pricing mechanic” I want to aggregate together to find them in case of future workshops:

• Increasing the Breeding and Evolution Costs 2.5x - #4 by Segarion (Has some great takes on the topic)
• Conversation around fixed prices in RBW + UNIM in discord
• RBW Economy Changes - #26 by aume27Rrpmp.nft

Let me know if you have additional resources to add here. Thank you.

[inb4emotion]

1. I am not a “master” breeder but the dollar costs are modest increases for conservative and moderate. Maybe my initial support of aggressive is a little too aggressive of an increase and would deter enough people to make a meaningful downward impact on breeding numbers. Perhaps we could make the first 3 BP increases very small % increases and exponentially increase the rest like you suggested? This would be beginner friendly for self sustaining corn production but if you want to create higher level items and higher stat corns you are going to have to spend a little more.
2. But in CU keeping the bloodline going with just 3 breeds is not guaranteed at all. Even with the boosters some people get only 2-3 from all 8 breeding points, so it doesn’t seem to be an issue? Maybe a pro breeder can weigh in on this.
3. This is a pointless argument. We can change things when we get there. Imagining crazy what ifs gets us no where. We have to deal with the cards we are currently dealt and in the future we can deal with the cards we are dealt then. The new cost structure is not going to be enshrined in stone forever.
4. That’s sort of the point? Crafting evo6 and maxing out building should not be easy. If we take this sentiment further then why gate anything with higher tier mats? Everything should be priced in raw wood planks and just increase the number. Why have artisanal wood? This way everyone can easily reach level 10.

have adaptive pricing mechanisms that track assets value.

Practically, what exactly does this mean? Does it mean you see current market prices and change the costs of breeding? If yes, isn’t that what we are doing right now?

[aume27Rrpmp.nft]

@inb4emotion

I am not a “master” breeder but the dollar costs are modest increases for conservative and moderate. Maybe my initial support of aggressive is a little too aggressive of an increase and would deter enough people to make a meaningful downward impact on breeding numbers. Perhaps we could make the first 3 BP increases very small % increases and exponentially increase the rest like you suggested? This would be beginner friendly for self sustaining corn production but if you want to create higher level items and higher stat corns you are going to have to spend a little more.

The 3 first breed amounts seem pretty legit, What seem unrealistic is the last 3 breeds costs from 260 RBW and 14k UNIM going up if you count it as double for the two corns. It’s not really a little its a lot more imho. Seem pretty high. But overall yes what you say make sense.

@inb4emotion

But in CU keeping the bloodline going with just 3 breeds is not guaranteed at all. Even with the boosters some people get only 2-3 from all 8 breeding points, so it doesn’t seem to be an issue? Maybe a pro breeder can weigh in on this.

I’m not yet advanced in breeding. But even the babies that aren’t keeping the exact bloodline will most likely not be total trash , i would assume ,maybe i’m wrong. They will probably be a bit worst and then can be recycled to go back up. Axie infinity too has mutations that can mess your gene bank and all that. One thing is sure is we saw it in other breeding games, the setup will incentives using 2 to 4 breed points most likely.

@inb4emotion

This is a pointless argument. We can change things when we get there. Imagining crazy what ifs gets us no where. We have to deal with the cards we are currently dealt and in the future we can deal with the cards we are dealt then. The new cost structure is not going to be enshrined in stone forever.

It’s not a pointless argument. Projecting our selves in multiple scenarios is important, even more in a blockchain game. When there’s human time consumed to reach consensus and all these factor. The proposal state that it hope to resolve an issue long term. It only make scene to project our selves in multiple scenarios.

Looking at this setup in a scenario where our token have regained a healthy state around 1$ or even 3$ doesn’t seem too far fetch when we think of what is planned for CU generational IP. The initial release price as a reference is not at all a crazy scenario it is a very real metric and I think a very achievable economy state.

I’m with you we need to be work with the card we are dealth now, that’s why i said I will probably vote yes depending on the community sentiment. I stay open and flexible, also curious and interested in exploring all options an ideas. We need to built a reactive system that doesn’t take multiple weeks to attend situational affairs like these.

@inb4emotion

have adaptive pricing mechanisms that track assets value.

Practically, what exactly does this mean? Does it mean you see current market prices and change the costs of breeding? If yes, isn’t that what we are doing right now?

Has my reply just above state its about building something adaptive and reactive long term. Passing by the DAO each time these parameters are put to doubt and challenged is counter productive. I think in the long term we need to build something a lot more efficient. Just looking at the time spent at the moment by all participant is a good example, imagine doing this whole process 1 or 2 times a year based on RBW and UNIM price, unicorns supply and other factors. This is a lot of time.

@inb4emotion

That’s sort of the point? Crafting evo6 and maxing out building should not be easy. If we take this sentiment further then why gate anything with higher tier mats? Everything should be priced in raw wood planks and just increase the number. Why have artisanal wood? This way everyone can easily reach level 10.

I’m not gonna push that point further. Feel a bit alienated there.

[inb4emotion]

I’m not yet advanced in breeding. But even the babies that aren’t keeping the exact bloodline will most likely not be total trash

Nope - if you don’t inherit you re roll. They can easily have trash parts. Breeding has quite a bit of RNG in CU thats why there’s a high breed limit.

They will probably be a bit worst and then can be recycled to go back up

Not really because once you have a trash part you are trying to replace it. So every time you breed with another you risk that part being passed on, and with boosters theres a high chance you inherit that trash part since you can’t pick which parent to inherit from.

It’s not a pointless argument. Projecting our selves in multiple scenarios is important, even more in a blockchain game. When there’s human time consumed to reach consensus and all these factor. The proposal state that it hope to resolve an issue long term. It only make scene to project our selves in multiple scenarios.

It is if you follow along the path furthur. What if RBW reaches $10. Do current breeding costs make sense? Should we reduce right now to start preparing for it? I should have been clearer: It’s a pointless argument to be making right now. There are a million what if scenarios depending on token price paths. We will be paralyzed if we think of every scenario and how it affects that.

Looking at this setup in a scenario where our token have regained a healthy state around 1$ or even 3$ doesn’t seem too far fetch when we think of what is planned for CU generational IP. The initial release price as a reference is not at all a crazy scenario it is a very real metric and I think a very achievable economy state.

See my above point. What if UNIM is $1. Should we think about that too? Then on the opposite side, what if UNIM continues down its current definite path and ends up at $0.00001. Which scenario should we plan for?

We need to built a reactive system that doesn’t take multiple weeks to attend situational affairs like these.

Multiple weeks seem fine? Token prices won’t run away from us within weeks. Right now everything is a slow grind, and you have some time to decide. If we are in peak bull where the price is going up 30% every few days, I’m sure LG will intervene as they have done many times before when things are urgent.

Just looking at the time spent at the moment by all participant is a good example, imagine doing this whole process 1 or 2 times a year based on RBW and UNIM price, unicorns supply and other factors. This is a lot of time.

I agree this process needs to be smoother for such a small change. It could also be the initial inertia. Once we’ve done this one or two times, it might become faster, but yea I agree a change like this should be made more efficiently in the future. I’m chalking it up to mostly initial inertia and sticker shock.

[aume27Rrpmp.nft]

To answer;

@inb4emotion

Nope - if you don’t inherit you re roll. They can easily have trash parts. Breeding has quite a bit of RNG in CU thats why there’s a high breed limit.

and

@inb4emotion

Not really because once you have a trash part you are trying to replace it. So every time you breed with another you risk that part being passed on, and with boosters theres a high chance you inherit that trash part since you can’t pick which parent to inherit from.

Maybe I miss understood. I thought using different classes and breeding boosters with one sided class outcome using berries create a cloning strategy which highly reduces risks of failure. I have cloned a couple corn this way. But it’s sure not without risk, which makes sense.

To answer;

@inb4emotion

It is if you follow along the path furthur. What if RBW reaches $10. Do current breeding costs make sense? Should we reduce right now to start preparing for it? I should have been clearer: It’s a pointless argument to be making right now. There are a million what if scenarios depending on token price paths. We will be paralyzed if we think of every scenario and how it affects that.

and

@inb4emotion

See my above point. What if UNIM is $1. Should we think about that too? Then on the opposite side, what if UNIM continues down its current definite path and ends up at $0.00001. Which scenario should we plan for?

Just saying… Pushing someone’s argument to a ridiculous extreme and then saying it is irrelevant or invalid isn’t really a healthy way of interacting in a DAO. Comes up to alienating them. To be clear, I’m not saying we should not act, I invited people to explore other options further down the line while still going forward with this proposal…

To reach 10$ we need to pass by 1$ (Prices around where it was when originally released, I don’t have the average price of the token at release in hand) I didn’t throw random numbers. A token can only go up or down or stable, There aren’t that many scenarios to consider. Throwing some random UNIM prices to make it sound silly is pointless tho, the suggested approach would cover both scenarios… Programmatically adaptive pricing would take care of both upward and downward scenarios. Regardless of what parameters we decide to use as arbitrary values and the parameters we set around it.

Overall I was not coming with a “Mr. Doomsday” approach that would paralyze us. I’m coming with a very rational approach and I spent time turning the question upside down and also making sure my contribution was done with a positive and flexible attitude. I even said I would still vote most likely yes in a first place.

@inb4emotion

Multiple weeks seem fine? Token prices won’t run away from us within weeks. Right now everything is a slow grind, and you have some time to decide. If we are in peak bull where the price is going up 30% every few days, I’m sure LG will intervene as they have done many times before when things are urgent.

Couple weeks if token go to fast too high is enough to scare plenty of new users while we try to react, other way too if token go too low too fast, it gives plenty of time to mass mint corns for cheap to someone. It’s something that happened in the past. It doesn’t mean we can’t act and we need to panic or be paralyzed… it’s just less efficient and still carries some risk so it’s worth keeping exploring other systems. Hence a very reactive Adaptive pricing mechanism would resolve a lot of that. Parameters can definitely be discussed and modified in workshops.

Also LG and Crypto Unicorns are already exploring these types of mechanics with LVM and the bonding curve. So what’s suggested here isn’t too far out of this world…

An option we can look at is Decentralized Finance protocols, like 1Inch, where there is a dashboard and DAO can vote on protocol parameters per epoch without having to pass by the whole governance pipeline. The voted parameters are enacted by code at the start of each epoch

@inb4emotion

I agree this process needs to be smoother for such a small change. It could also be the initial inertia. Once we’ve done this one or two times, it might become faster, but yea I agree a change like this should be made more efficiently in the future. I’m chalking it up to mostly initial inertia and sticker shock.

Another option, is like you say, to simplify the voting process around tweaking parameters so that we can manually manage it through the main frame of the DAO faster. And yes this is the easiest path forward I approve of and I’m not arguing over it. I’ll just say it’s gonna consume time from all levels of the dao, where programmatic solutions can be Conceived > coded once > but in action and less often upgraded when significant changes are suggested. So having a framework to price, with parameters and then apply it programmatically would be a very interesting way to go about it, even though we can’t do it short term without dev resources. Hence why I say the current proposal has its place, and I pointed to doing more workshops and discussions in the future without interfering with this proposal even more.

[inb4emotion]

Maybe I miss understood. I thought using different classes and breeding boosters with one sided class outcome using berries create a cloning strategy which highly reduces risks of failure. I have cloned a couple corn this way. But it’s sure not without risk, which makes sense.

Cloning is only useful if you already have the genes you want. A lot of times you want to combine the genes to make a much stronger corn. All the top stat corns originated that way. When you combine them you can sometimes get a combo that’s worse than the parents. Also even while cloning there’s a chance you re roll parts, which means the babies again ends up being worse than the parents. I said this mainly to refute your point that babies can be salvageable. Babies can only be salvageable if you’re cloning 3+ level mythics because there’s a high chance the others are some kind of mythics.

Just saying… Pushing someone’s argument to a ridiculous extreme and then saying it is irrelevant or invalid isn’t really a healthy way of interacting in a DAO. Comes up to alienating them. To be clear, I’m not saying we should not act, I invited people to explore other options further down the line while still going forward with this proposal…*

That’s fair and I apologize. I think I’m frustrated that most don’t address the proposal directly, offer some vague “other” solutions or say that they are unhappy and leave. Its extremely unproductive and doesn’t add any value. Obviously you’re not in that camp. We just get stuck in decision making limbo. When a proposal gets made, as DAO members its our job to address the proposal. If you don’t like it you can create an alternate one and point people to that. Diverting attention away from whats in front of us just gets us rolling down a path to nowhere.

Couple weeks if token go to fast too high is enough to scare plenty of new users while we try to react, other way too if token go too low too fast, it gives plenty of time to mass mint corns for cheap to someone. It’s something that happened in the past. It doesn’t mean we can’t act and we need to panic or be paralyzed… it’s just less efficient and still carries some risk so it’s worth keeping exploring other systems. Hence a very reactive Adaptive pricing mechanism would resolve a lot of that. Parameters can definitely be discussed and modified in workshops.

As it stands right now, we can pass something and maybe you could propose a reflexive system that gets updated on a set cadence. I do think it’s important that we pass something for now and work on the reflexive system later but I can see that other system taking way longer to get consensus on.

Also LG and Crypto Unicorns are already exploring these types of mechanics with LVM and the bonding curve. So what’s suggested here isn’t too far out of this world…

An option we can look at is Decentralized Finance protocols, like 1Inch, where there is a dashboard and DAO can vote on protocol parameters per epoch without having to pass by the whole governance pipeline. The voted parameters are enacted by code at the start of each epoch

See the framework I posted above. This is all fine in theory - but it’s the dev work thats involved. Every new thing comes at a cost. What are we willing to push back in order to prioritize this? I think it’s really important to keep this in mind. If we are to seriously consider this, there has to be a concrete plan on where this fits on the roadmap, and what we are sacrificing for it. I’m sure LG will want consensus on the sacrifices as they did when delegation was prioritized.

[lgManicUnicorn]

FYI: As with everything in the DAO, any proposal we implement today can be changed by writing a new proposal. For example, if today, we agreed to implement this proposal, the RBW and UNIM cost can still be changed again at a later time by writing another proposal.

[DefinitlyDABOZZ]

For clarity, the vote will be a single choice vote between the options presented in this proposal and the option to make no change to breeding costs.

This has been added with an edit to the proposal as well.

[WINTER_AND_SUMMER]

I don’t think it’s right.
Leave all the options and let people choose the one that suits them
The option that most people support is the one that applies.

[Sky1s]

I support the very aggressive proposal, at least as long as we don’t have a burn mechanism for unicorns