RBW Economy Changes

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 Input

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 Input

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 Input

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

Very Aggressive Input

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.
  • 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.

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