After reading and reflecting on all that has been said in both forum posts here’s my thoughts. I will try to attend to these topics; proposal approach, RBW valuation, touch on breeding, and other mechanics that relates to the value of RBW. My hope is to bring an other perspective and approach toward RBW value topic.
Proposal structure concerns;
- I think it is the wrong approach to separate UNIM and RBW topics relating to breeding since they are both integral parts of the breeding system. The part that was creating a negative reaction was the numbers suggested (x5/ x8 and such big increments) and touching LVM at the same time than breeding while they are two separated mechanics as @timetraveler says.
- Titling the proposal “Rbw economy changes” is making it feel lot more heavy when its is only touching two aspects of the overall economy. Each mechanic should be focused separately to be afterward implemented in the broader RBW economy since RBW is the fuel of the whole ecosystem. At the moment this proposal is at its core focused on RBW value and short term solution focused around the breeding mechanic and Land minting. I think the proposal
Narrative around the DAO
Putting emphasis on the fact that it is the community that determine some development decisions through twitter post. For example posting “We as a community decided to make this change”, or “ After long discussion in our DAO, we are moving forward with this proposal. Be part of the creation of the CU ecosystem, join our DAO”. Maybe have a Substack Newsletters blog that outlines evolution of the projects and DAO activities on a monthly basis.
Rework of the breeding system
Key concerns on this proposal:
- A flat increase of costs will always penalise new users, and less fortunate users. Where a true restructuring would be more digestible and justifiable.
- A falt increase is a short term solution to a long term mechanic and system.
- We should wait to see how the market react to jousting and 2nd party experiences before judging if a flat increase in breeding costs is needed.
- Minions, Tribes and Shadow corns mechanics aren’t implemented which are hinted to impact unicorns supplies. Unicorns supply control mechanisms haven’t been detailed yet, which makes it hard to assess the necessity of increasing or reducing breeding costs. We know in any case that at some point there is going to be too much corns if there isn’t any supply control mechanisms, but this is a topic for an other conversation.
Suggestion: - Tweak the breeding system by setting breeding and evolution RBW cost to the same value.
- Make UNIM costs adaptive. I would set the cost in UNIM on a bonding curve based on the supply of UNIM and supply of unicorns. More unim in circulation = cost increase, more usage of unim means cost decrease. This creates an incentive to burn UNIMs to reduce the cost in UNIM for breeding. A similar pattern could be applied to crafting where the more materials in circulation the more unim it costs to crafts creating arbitrage opportunities between buying materials or crafting them.
- Set the RBW cost to a fiat based variable that get updated daily, e.g a breed/evo cost 1$ in RBW. The value of the token going up means we need less tokens to breed. Right now RBW gaining in value is a disincentive to use it in-game, meaning everytime RBW gain in value it become more interesting to dump the token than spend it in-game. The main advantage to this structure is that we can estimate that for each unicorn breed and evolved 2$ have been either offset from sales on the open market. If we take example of axie with a supply of over 10M axies now, we would have 20M in value removed from sell pressure on RBW, thats not counting the UNIM offsetted. The second advantage is an indirect incentive to not dump tokens and protect our token value.
LVM Changes:
The topic of the LVM, Keystones and the Land economy is a different topic. I approve we could increase costs for crafting Lands it wouldnt hurt.
Personally I think keystones will get all their value when we touch max supply. For now it is still a great system creating arbitrage opportunities between crafting lands or buying them.
Conclusion
I support a comment from the original thread that we just made tweaks to single staking, and other changes which we haven’t seen the results yet. Also there is jousting and teamRPG coming. I feel this proposal touch an important topic which is great, but rushed and could be set on standby for a couple weeks until we see more result and gather more idea on how to make breeding a sustainable system.
Personally I will vote no on this proposal in its current state, because in my opinion its not the right time, there is still work to do on the way to tweak breeding, and the mechanics around RBW.