Staking and RBW/ETH LP yield adjustments

Draft Proposals
1

Summary

The Crypto Unicorns DAO has seen record RBW staking with its high APY to date. While a reward for staking and governance participation is important we believe the DAO is overpaying significantly. To correct this we are proposing a series of changes including an overall reduction in emissions as well as a reallocation toward the RBWLP pool.

Motivation

It’s clear from an analysis of on-chain behavior that a large portion of stakers simply farm and dump their RBW rewards. They do this at a much higher rate than active players. While Staking v2 takes an important step toward directing staking rewards toward active and engaged players we still think the APY is too high. This creates imbalances and unnecessary headwinds in an otherwise healthy in-game economy. Our goal isn’t to reduce emissions, but rather redirect them through a series of proposals to properly reward the active player base in a sustainable manner

Details

We propose reducing the single side staking rewards by 75% from 690,410 to 172,602 RBW/week. Single sided stakers are being materially overpaid for their contribution. While governance participation is certainly important, those that want to participate are already being rewarded by having an increased voting weight. The high yield mostly benefits the dumpers.

In tandem, we propose increasing the RBWLP rewards by 100% from 78,211 to 156,422 RBW/week. It’s critically important to increase secondary market liquidity to accommodate new player growth.

image

Both of these changes combined lead to a net reduction in RBW emissions of 439,597 per week. These changes are simple to implement and require only an operational change.

We think weekly or monthly leaderboards would be a more productive way to redirect emissions towards active players. These can include:

*Most jousts
*Most jousts Won
*Highest rated jousters
*Most breeds
*Most evolutions

We believe these types of leaderboard based rewards are more economically stimulative than purely quest based ones because of the transactional nature of quest based rewards. Whereas leaderboard based rewards can have a much higher ceiling in terms of impact.

Conclusion

The first half of 2023 is critically important for the Crypto Unicorns DAO. We must inflect growth and activate the economic flywheel. The current emission plans need to be recalibrated to reward the more deserving player base and bolster the economy to sustain the coming demand. We believe this proposal best positions Crypto Unicorns for the coming growth we hope to see with the launch of Jousting, Unicorn Party, TeamRPG, Tribes, and more over the course of 2023.

EDITS

Hey all, really appreciate all the feedback you’ve provided. We understand the concerns from the community that the staking emission reduction could be viewed as taking rewards away from the community, which is certainly not what we want. What we can to curb those concerns is shift those emissions to leaderboards. That way it’s still going to the community, but it’s going into the hands of the active userbase instead of the passive one.

The specifics of how much each type of leaderboard should be rewarded can be figured out in another proposal.

13 Likes
2

I think your highlighting a major issue with the current RBW token emissions, and the negative price action we have seen.

Although the whitepaper outlined a specific token unlock structure, and specific staking rewards payments, I believe the purpose of the DAO is to be able to make this exact type of change if and when its needed for the good of the whole community.

I would fully support this proposal, as long as the following two things are addressed within the official snapshot.

  1. How long will the staking emissions be modified or is this a proposal to make a permanent change.

  2. Exactly where would the extra RBW be allocated to. Personally, I think a portion of this RBW should go to the community fund, while the other portion goes towards in-game rewards.

3

With Staking Version 2 starting in approximately 2 weeks I do not think this is the time to make any adjustments to staking emissions. Team has spent months setting up V2 and this will side rail all their hard work. And quite likely delay it by months. Will Jousting coming very soon we need team fulling concentrating on their plan. As a staker since day 1 of copper launch I read the white paper and all pertinent information before taking my risk. I have weathered buying at up to 3.00 to see it below .03. Any change in the set agreement when hitting confirm for staking for 12 months would be a blow of trust. We all took a chance because we believe in the project. We have kept our end of the deal. I only expect the same. If we cant trust a staking contract to not change mid stake what can we put trust in. I am willing to reconsider my thoughts after V2 staking and Jousting has launched and had some time to mature. Currently I see a big push by large wallet holders who already made their RBW in rewards and want to see emission cut as it will pump their bags quickly. This is what I see in this proposal. A group of people coordinating to pump and dump. If I am wrong I am very sorry. This observation is not directed at the author. More what I have seen and heard from private chat groups. So humbly a no here unless someone can change my mind. And yes I know many intelligent larger holders will disagree with me. Just how I see things. This is not the time and place in my opinion. If I was wanting to dump my bag I would 100% vote yes on this. But I believe it will be another nail in the coffin if passed at this time. I believe in this project and want to see teams vision succeed and if team continues there work I believe it will.
Thank you for your proposal. I am a big no at this time.

3 Likes
4

And simply put APR is currently 87%. Next week 85% Week after 83%. It will go down as more people enter pool. Pool is working exactly as pool was and should work. In a few months it will be at 50% and people will ask for it to go up. IMO no changes are needed.

3 Likes
5

Hello, nftgibby. I can answer number 2. The RBW will not initially be reallocated to anything yet. Yan suggested to reallocate it to some leaderboard rewards in the future. That’s one of the options we consider to reallocate it back to players but I think this is pretty much open to discussions in this thread. The DAO can have the dialogue an agree on Yan’s proposed reallocation to the leaderboard or not.

Note that it will also not delayed the existing Staking unlock schedule. Instead, it will just delay the disbursement/distribution.

1 Like
6

A big yes from me; this should have been done sooner…

Finally, we will acknowledge and reward our players by reducing it from passive investors who have not contributed enough to receive these rewards in comparison to the entire ecosystem.

I am overjoyed to hear from Delphi because it allows me to see that this carefully considered proposal is more than just a proposal.

1 Like
7

Do you feel comfortable having cut of the rewards go somewhere undefined.

1 Like
8

If it goes somewhere undefined, I don’t feel at ease.

But it makes sense if it goes to our loyal players.

edited my msg

9

Version 2 staking does just this. But it accounts with clear accounting.

10

Do we really want to alienate a bunch of out stakers. They are part of the community. How much DAO/DAU
do we have to lose.

2 Likes
11

Nothing is undefined here, more like it’s a dialogue that the DAO should be having as a collective, TT. This proposal thread itself is where the DAO can discuss where to potentially reallocate. If you have suggestions, please share it.

12

Is Staking version 2 still on time as medium article illustrated today.

13

Hey TT, I have some rebuttals or counter points (IDK how to word it lol)for the arguments your making here:

“With Staking Version 2 starting in approximately 2 weeks I do not think this is the time to make any adjustments to staking emissions. Team has spent months setting up V2 and this will side rail all their hard work. And quite likely delay it by months. Will Jousting coming very soon we need team fulling concentrating on their plan.”

The proposed change would take minimal amount of work from the team. I dont know the exact contract structure, but in theory, its as simple as executing an existing function of the contract. I’m going to look at the staking contract myself to confirm this piece out of my own curiosity. I also dont think it side rails their work, or makes it a waste. Just the opposite. If we lower emissions, then it makes badges EVEN MORE valuable. Right now, at 80% and extra 1% isnt even noticeable. But if you are only making 10%, an extra 1% is a big deal.

" I read the white paper and all pertinent information before taking my risk. "

If you truly understand the risk, then you must understand that the whitepaper is not set in stone. I’ve seen you make comments previously, about how there are things in the whitepaper that have still not been delivered on. IMO, the whitepaper is just a guide. Hopefully a guide as accurate as possible at the time, but as the space changes, the team must pivot and change.

Also, your staking your tokens into a project, that has made VERY clear from the get go, that this is intended to be a DAO, and eventually a community owned IP. Knowing this, there has to be an assumption of risk, that he community could pivot entirely away from the whitepaper.

“Currently I see a big push by large wallet holders who already made their RBW in rewards and want to see emission cut as it will pump their bags quickly.”

Cutting emissions will do nothing to the token price immediately. It removes a lot of negative selling pressure each day, which in theory should allow the token to hold steady or rise. But the only way it goes up is with new buyers. Lowering staking emissions does not guarantee new buyers.

" If I was wanting to dump my bag I would 100% vote yes on this. But I believe it will be another nail in the coffin if passed at this time. I believe in this project and want to see teams vision succeed and if team continues there work I believe it will."

This seems like your contradicting yourself. If it is true, and there is a motive to dump, then wouldn’t it still be a huge benefit for the project to have the token pump in the first place? The only way it pumps is with new buyers.

1 Like
14

They’re two different items. Staking v2 will still be implemented regardless of the result of the voting for this proposal.

15

Nothing is undefined. Yan suggested to reallocate it to leaderboard rewards, but as stated in my response to nftgibby and timetraveler, this is a discussion within the DAO. The DAO may agree or disagree to the proposed reallocation or suggest an alternative. The only reason I said it’s not yet reallocated to anything is because it will depend on the course of this discussion and if the proposal will be approved.

16

And one more quick counter, this proposal is actually the EXACT type of thing you agreed to potentially happening by joining a project where the DAO can make proposals for direct actions.

There is not trust being violated IMO, the community is taking an action (a DAO proposal) that we all are able to do, and is also a foundational aspect of the project.

1 Like
18

I find your rebuttal thoughtful and well written. I just honestly do not see a problem with how staking is working. APR will naturally go down as new players stake more. Are you interested to see the effect new players staking with their badges will have before we change things. I do see people feeling this is a emergency. How will this attract new players. The RMP has been pumped. Where would people put their rbw now. This all feels like a power move by big wallets to me. No offense to big wallets. I am in awe whenever I see one. I just have a tendency to protect the little guys. Always have. Just doing and voicing what I see best for community and team and investors. I understand if you dont agree. I respect you none the less :heart:

2 Likes
19

The reallocation makes sense to me; I wish it had happened sooner because our players deserve better than passive investors.

20

As your name is not familiar to me in CU discord. May I ask are you a player/investor/staker. I understand user names here dont always match discords. Thanks timetraveler

21

Really appreciate all the responses.

For some additional context, we at Delphi are massive supporters of Crypto Unicorns but most of it has generally been behind the scenes. We were big proponents of extending investor and founder unlocks back a year for a host of reasons and we regularly chat with Aron and the team to try and be as helpful as possible. I personally play the game quite a bit (have some maxed plots and hundreds of corns that are regularly deployed) because I truly enjoy the game and because a thorough understanding of the mechanics is necessary in order to provide constructive feedback.

We’re incredibly focused on the long-term vision of the game and we couldn’t be more bullish on what’s to come. It’s still so early.

6 Likes