@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!
1 Like
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…
2 Likes
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.
When was last time anyone crafted a keystone?
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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 ?
1 Like
I like this idea. Would for sure be larger sink and at same time not discourage new players.
1 Like
What’s “LVM” exactly? 
1 Like
Land vending machine
2 Likes
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.
5 Likes
I agree with this, as I assume the level of LVM usage isn’t that high.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
This change will effect new plyers for sure, but think of the old times, i entered when rbw were 0.5 USD. What about the unim ?
1 Like
in favor of both proposals
1 Like
Thank you everyone for the input!
To summarize concerns:
- 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!
6 Likes
In favor but only if you at least 5x the cost of breeding and 2x the cost of evo . … bring the hammer down imo.
1 Like
RBW Economy Changes - Revised
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.
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.
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.
Final Thoughts
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.
Thank you to everyone who gave feedback to help with the third iteration of this proposal. We look forward to the community’s response!
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.
1 Like
Hello, everyone. The author has requested to close this proposal in lieu of a new draft proposal he’s just submitted. This new proposal will cover only UNIM and RBW changes. The LVM fee changes, as I am told, will be an entirely new proposal.
New Proposal (RBW and UNIM Changes): RBW and UNIM Breeding Changes