EDIT: A REVISION OF THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN POSTED BELOW IN THIS THREAD.
Following extensive discussion of our proposed changes to RBW Tokenomics on the forum and on Discord, we are adjusting our proposal to reflect the feedback. In our new proposal, we are proposing a 1.5x increase (reduced from 5x increase) in the RBW cost of breeding. In addition, we are proposing to adjust the LVM RBW cost by 4x for common lands, 8x for rare lands, and 12x for mythic lands. We will be removing any adjustments to UNIM QE entirely, per the community’s request.
Motivation
While our proposed changes to the LVM RBW received no opposition, the breeding cost change received mixed reactions from the community. The main criticism was that the change was too drastic at this time. We still believe that tokenomics changes to RBW are necessary to create a positive flywheel, so we are adjusting our proposal as detailed in the following section.
We are proposing an overall 1.5x increase in the RBW cost of breeding and an additional shift of costs from evolution to breeding. The rationale behind shifting the breeding costs is that the cost of the evolution is too dominant in the current process and actually encourages breeders to keep unwanted corns as babies. Breeders who breed should not be discouraged to evolve their babies into adult corns by higher costs. The growing number of Baby Corns, both nominal and relational, visualizes the issue. Baby corns represented just ~13% of the unicorn supply in June 2022, but has grown to ~30% today. By frontloading more of the cost to the breeding and lowering the cost of the evolution, we want to address this issue and at the same time create a better foundation for the RBW tokenomics.
For the LVM, we are proposing to increase the RBW input cost for minting common land 4x, rare land 8x and mythic land 12x as seen above.
Conclusion
Our proposal has been the subject of both fruitful and divisive debate on the forums and in the discord. To reflect the feedback, we are moderating our proposed breeding changes from a 5x increase in the RBW input cost increase to a 1.5x total increase. We are also proposing a shift from the evolution costs to the breeding costs to encourage evolution and create more RBW treasury inflows from the breeding itself. We believe that jousting and the upcoming PvP gaming loops are a golden opportunity to get the CU flywheel moving and our proposal should help to achieve this by strengthening the RBW tokenomics.
We are excited to hear the community’s thoughts on our revised proposal! Please join the conversation below and let us know what you think.
@DefinitlyDABOZZ and I originally advocated for a 5x increase for breeding and evo costs, LVM RBW input changes, and UNIM QE removal. After discussing with the community, it was too much to include in one proposal. So we removed the QE topic and focused on breeding/evo/LVM RBW costs.
After hearing community comments/concerns, the original 5x was far too drastic, so we settled at 1.5x.
DaboZz and I believe we have the perfect set up right now to begin accruing value to the RBW token in a more meaningful way, and with Jousting and other launches this could set us up for a lot of success. So excited for the next few months fam! Let us know your thoughts or concerns.
My first thought still stands. I feel this is 2 different proposal.
To begin with. If 2 proposals were created.
For increase in LVM costs.
Increases in Breeding costs and reduction or increase in evolution costs.
For proposal 1. I would be in full favor of increase to LVM costs. As is pretty much everyone I hear.
For proposal 2. It is a little more complicated on this one. I will need more time to consider the benefits vs the risks for this one at these levels. I am not a yes or no on this. Simply need more time to think about it.
But for the benefit of moving the proposal 1. ahead quickly I think seperating the 2 proposal ideas would be helpful. We would not want one to hold the other back or vice versa.
The cynic in me feels like your previous idea was just to create an anchoring effect and this is the real proposal.
In any case, this is an easy yes from me The increase is negligible enough where it’s not going to deter casual breeders, but meaningful enough to cause a difference. I also like the idea of enticing people to evolve their corns with a slightly lower cost.
Explain to me why this sentence and the last sentence only talk about RBW?
Why is there no discussion of the UNIM token? Which also needs to be dealt with
@WINTER_AND_SUMMER Hello. The author of this proposal seeks to address the effects of RBW in the economy. This is the scope of this proposal. Anyone else is free to write one for UNIM, of course. If you think UNIM also needs attention, please feel free to write one for UNIM!
In my opinion, this question should stand from the beginning, and the changes in reproduction and evolution, as far as UNIM is concerned, should be in the same sentence.
Considering that the author and his co-author repeatedly raised the question of what is produced QE UNIM, and yet he ignores the issue…
Based on community feedback, we were trying to make too many and too drastic of changes within one proposal, so we tried to focus in on just 1 topic; RBW.
I agree that changes will eventually need to be made in reference to UNIM as the unicorn population grows (more UNIM emitted), but given how important stats will be after jousting… we think for now the increase in booster demand will offset much of the growth in UNIM emissions.
idk about you, but im sinking a TON of UNIM for tier 6 boosters haha
I know what the main subject of proposal is. So just added this as one thing to think about while changing LVM. While I do agree with raising price. We do need to think of all things connected to LVM mainly meaning keystone aspect. Yes its not the Rbw. But they do connect.
While on Subject of LVM. Keystones are a part of the LVM. They work as they are being used to mint land. But the economic principle behind them I believe failed. We were supposed to be able to specialize in them. I spent a lot of time crafting them. Only to find out I had completely wasted all my time and resources because the key stones were flooded into the market by loot boxes and rewards from leaderboards. They are effectively worth a fraction of what they cost to produce. I believe this was done so people would not hit a barrier to enter game. Prelaunch it was thought keystones would be in demand as players would have to make them and then be willing to sell them. But keystones were minted out of air for rewards killing their value and reason to make. These are the costs to make keystones. They were 100k unim to make a mythic. Reduced now. And no freebies in carts now to build off and craft only the parts you need. Can anyone think of a fix for key stones. Being worthless to craft and not worth the time to sell. Should they still be a thing. Are they one extra barrier to minting land. Should UNIM and RBW and Weth be the only cost of a keystone.
[12:29 PM]
Common Keystones: (such as a Cloud Common Land Keystone): 500 UNIM + 5 Dew Drops (375 UNIM) + 3 Cirrus Flakes (1605 UNIM) + 1 Ice Cubes (2135 UNIM) for a total of 4615 UNIM Rare Keystones: (such as a Light Rare Land Keystone): 2500 UNIM + 1 Cloud Keystone NFT (4615 UNIM) + 1 Heart Keystone NFT (4615 UNIM) + 1 Rainbow Keystone NFT (4615 UNIM) for a total of 16345 UNIM Mythic Keystones: 10000 UNIM + 1 Light Stone (16345 UNIM) + 1 Wonder Stone (16345 UNIM) + 1 Mystery Stone(16345 UNIM) for a total of 59035 UNIM
So part of what I am getting at. Is if we fix distribution of key stones. Keystones will become rare and only minted on demand for land. This would add another craft able loop back into game. This was always intended to be a sink. In game sink that creates fun and economic value in game.
Dont get me wrong I am for increasing cost of LVM. But why not both. Would increase value of land and keystones and bring fun and value to farming gameloop.
I’m super concerned about the experience for a new player coming in. I myself have 16 lands and 160+ corns and struggle to breed daily after all the nerfs to RBW emittance. Imagine what a turn off this game would be for a new player coming in right now with a handful of corns and 1-2 land.
I do agree however that jacking up the RBW costs across the board is probably a good idea, but I donät believe in “taxing the poor” so to speak.
The only way I would vote yes for this is if we (kudos to @kora in discord) scale the RBW cost similar to how unim scales with breeding points. 50, 100, 200, 400, 800 etc. or whatever formula you’d like to use. The point is though that the first breed should feel cheap to give a first time breeder a good encouraging shove into the ecosystem, get the to try breeding early on and experience the joy of hatching an egg.
Take it or leave it though, I’m fine pushing this in its current state to a vote, though I will vote a hard “no” in the current form.
The game has (imo) the friction of sandpaper currently, don’t add even more for new players.
Past change already hammered in game emission of RBW without any update on UNIM emission and in retrospect I think this was harmful for the economy. We are again trying to push changes for RBW and totally ignoring UNIM.
As CU is a dual token economy, I think the equilibrium should be respected, and trying to create scarcity to one the assets will crush the other one.
What are your predictions about UNIM if that proposal pass ?
Due to the difference in opinions in any DAO, I would discourage double proposals.
Let’s adjust breeding and evo costs immediately, yes.
Let’s take the LVM proposal as a separate issue and deal with those numbers in due course.
tldr ; fine with it but it would have been a better timing if its after pre-season as we can get more data from the jousting experience. If we can approve the proposal and have the expectation to apply after pre-season events. the best option. LVM would be “okay”.
I personally would vote Yes for the RBW changes. but for the LVM i think it needs to be a separate discussions.
It’s a good proposal, the data checks out. if we can have the following maybe we can get more yes on the proposal.
Possible Cause and Effect after proposal has been changed.
Given expected data on how much Land is being printed.
I really think the LVM is needed to be a separate proposal. The RBW increase is “Fair”.
One only big concern i have here is the timing.
If we can have this After the pre-season i think its a good timing as we can already see how jousting will impacts the breeding etc. I personally prefer we grab what the devs econ plans are first in pre-season then we adjust on this proposal after pre-season accordingly.
If we can set that expectation to everyone that will be great!
I’ve also asked several players about jousting and I feel like the Hype for Jousting is “Assumed” way too high for current market and currently a bull on those who are “active in discord”. In my radar, there seems to be several players with connections who are “bear” on jousting or will not participate. I am not sure if this has been in the consideration of the proposal.
Some tip: if we can apply this after pre-season you’ll have the new players and the current players have some type of preparation before the increase happens. this way its more of a soft increase and more of like a season change.
Don’t implement until we see some data from jousting during the preseason (this shouldn’t be a problem considering next round of draft proposal reviews will be end of month, and it will take time to pass council, snapshot, and be implemented.
Make the RBW fee dynamic with breeding points
Separate LVM RBW input costs and RBW breeding costs into 2 separate proposals
Consider UNIM as well
@DefinitlyDABOZZ and I are working to amend the draft proposal to reflect these requests by the community, but NOT outlining implementation timeline because we believe this is 3-4 weeks out anyways. Thank you all for your input!
The increase is negligible enough where it’s not going to deter casual breeders, but meaningful enough to cause a difference. I also like the idea of enticing people to evolve their corns with a slightly lower cost.