The Delphi Proposal has kicked off a much needed discussion inside the CU DAO. While their proposal is a good first step we believe the reallocation of staking emissions to game leaderboards is unnecessary.
Motivation
We believe constraining the daily emission of RBW tokens is necessary to properly set up our community for growth. Reallocation of the reduced staking rewards to game leaderboards is not necessary as we have plenty of rewards in the P&E pool to properly incentivize engagement. Thus, we suggest simply reducing RBW emissions to the Single Side pool.
Details
Reduce weekly RBW emissions for Staking by 75% from 690,410 to 172,602.
Increase weekly RBW emissions for RBWLP by 100% from 78,211 to 156,422.
This will result in a net reduction of 439,597 RBW per week.
Conclusion
The first half of 2023 is critically important for the Crypto Unicorns DAO. In order to inflect growth we must stop the decline in token price driven by oversupply. Tightening staking emissions will work in tandem alongside the design team’s continued in-game economic tightening measures. 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.
I’m glad you asked this question as I see this narrative a lot in discord and it’s kinda ridiculous.
Look at AXS, Apecoin, and MAGIC which have all gone through investor / team unlocks. Did any of those tokens enter a death spiral? No.
Yes, the team / investor unlocks start in March of 2024. The idea that we’d start to dump is silly given we have 24 months to fully unlock our tokens. Looking at other communities which have already gone through their unlocks… they sure look healthier than RBW today.
You can not deny that Stakers are dumping tokens. This is a fact. The team and the investors pushed back their original unlock date by a year and now do not receive the last of their tokens until March of 2026. Who has the highest incentive to see CU succeed over the long term? The Team and Investors certainly do.
I believe your fear to be unfounded and not supported by what we see happening in other projects in the space. Let’s not forget we are already approaching a distribution of 100M RBW directly and exclusively to our community. How can anyone argue (especially in a low growth environment) that we have not be extremely generous in rewarding our early supporters?
Thank you for your question and allowing me the opportunity to provide an alternative perspective.
Those are good points.
we’ve been busy chatting in the discord on this topic. What about locking the escrowed RBW for 6months-12months instead of 7 days?
Before I start, RBW allocated for staking stays the same right? Just the high emission is cut off? So it means, we still getting same total allocated RBW from staking but just takes a longer time.
I’m all for this proposal. VC investors already put their part on saving RBW by extending their unlocks for another year (12 months). If they didn’t believe in the project, they could just have their token unlock and take a little loss from their initial investment as their purchase price is at 0.033 (if I’m not mistaken)
Personally, cutting emission is not a bad idea specially there’s little to no RBW sinks yet launch in the game aside from breeding, evolving, and crafting.
With how others discuss this matter, it looks like it’s becoming stakers vs VC investors.
And it’s pretty weird that the community is worrying about the team who develop the game will dump on their own project.
This is certainly an option but moving eRWB to 365 I don’t think solves the problem. Will just massively increase pressure next year. It will over the short term reduce emissions but I think it’s a temp fix that could create the same problems next year.
Correct, the overall allocation of RBW to staking remains. What the emission cut does is it really extends the runway of the staking pool to continue to provide rewards beyond what it could at the current rate.
My only thing I’d ask people to consider is the double whammy of delivering new player demand against a constrained supply. I see others making the point that new player demand is all that’s needed and with the coming game loops all will be well. They are right to a certain point but can not deny that if we simultaneously constrain supply we will see greater value accrual than if we make no changes. Everyone who’s been here accumulating stands to benefit enormously if we pull this off. We need positive price action to help drive players to the game and increase their confidence in giving us a shot. There is too much supply per day for new demand to eat through. People should really consider this when making a decision.
Then I really don’t see a problem for the emission cut. Whoever is here for the long run will benefit a lot more if RBW gets more traction due to this change. Where do I vote?
I absolutely agree with this proposal. I don’t understand why people staking or just holding big amounts of CU assets are against reducing of emission. They will benefit the most from this change, as well as active players, who receive RBW from gameplay and in game activities.
Machiavelli claimed that man has 2 animal aspects, the noble lion and the cunning fox. In crypto, we are half bull half bear, none of us can escape this double edged sword! The bear is concerned if RBW price doesn’t go up because game loops never arrive, but if that happens then the project is dead anyway. The bull agrees with you, that cutting emissions specifically from dumpers and giving it to active players who tend to sink more anyway does increase the bag value for everyone
Can’t the emissions be tied to net RBW spend in game? To make RBW truly sustainable it must emit <= to the total amount consumed over the long run. Maybe the emission can be tied to this performance (Rainbow marketplace Spend versus Sell).
Example:
Net RBW Spent — Total next day
In Game -------- staking pay-out
Set a minimum amount that will be emitted but also a maximum which will stabilise the price.
I support reducing the RBW emitted but it seems like its being done right before the VC vultures get unlocked and its a ploy to satisfy them, not the players.
Create sustainability through an incentive fly wheel:
Players receive large amounts of low value RBW from staking
Players purchase cheap RBW due to low price and spend their emissions in game
Emission pool increases
Players receive large amount of rewards and due to increasing price, stake it.
Emission pool decreases due to staking activity and so does RBW price
Players purchase RBW and spend more emissions in game
then repeat steps 1 (not perfect but you get the picture)
VC still get value if the price goes up and the players staking get more if we spend more in game.
Something along these lines, but why hasn’t tying the staking rewards to in game activity been considered? What are we missing for this to be ignored on multiple occasion its been suggested so far? Yes it would be harder to code but are there any other reasons why this isn’t being considered?
Other than the tremendous work this would require I’m not sure if this is even worth it. For example:
is something that’s already happening. People are receiving very cheap RBW.
is clearly not happening enough. And those who do 2 look more and more like they are being taken advantage of.
Since 2 won’t happen, this won’t happen
Those who stake and don’t play will dump it. That’s whats happening now - I’m not sure how you suddenly see that changing.
5/6) If emissions pool reduces and and price starts a downtrend I’m struggling to see when we get back to 2). This system is no different from what’s happening right now. If your theory is right, people should be purchasing tons of RBW right now to spend in game, but that’s clearly not happening. Dumpers will dump and players will play. This seems like it would only make things way more complicated.
Something along these lines, but why hasn’t tying the staking rewards to in game activity been considered? What are we missing for this to be ignored on multiple occasion its been suggested so far?
Isn’t that what the badges are a proxy for? Literally, they are a way to tie staking rewards to in game milestones.
I support reducing the RBW emitted but it seems like its being done right before the VC vultures get unlocked and its a ploy to satisfy them, not the players.
I’m not willing to kill my bags just because I spite the ones who bought earlier than me. I think the fact that they extended it was a whole year is enough signal for me.
Ill spell it out for you step by step so you can understand.
Firstly, this system has been implemented to great effect on a number of other projects. One example is Spider Tanks. I did suggest this system to LG back over 12 months ago and even before I knew of any games implementing it but since then my theories have been proven to be true. Spider Tanks a game of just 1k DAU with no growth and their token has held pretty firm.
So let me point out the cracks in your opinions.
RBW is being bought hence why the price goes up some time. What is causing the constant down pressure though is the sheer amount of emissions coming through staking and the inevitable dumping of it from the Whales. One particular Whale has dumped 5k worth of RBW almost every day since the game released.
Emissions > spend is a problem because
It’s guaranteed to drop the price of the RBW. If you reduce the emissions to below or on par to the spend it removes the downward pressure on RBW. By tying the emissions to spend you are FORCING people to either A buy more RBW or B develop a lot slower than they are. If a whale comes in and spends big, everyone is rewarded for it.
Isn’t that what the badges are a proxy for? Literally, they are a way to tie staking rewards to in game milestones.
This was in context to stable RBW emissions, not the badge system, that system should be kept as well imo. You don’t seem to understand the dynamics of economics and supply versus demand. If you have an Apple and I have an Apple and the demand to sell apples in the world is 2. Then we can sell them for $1 each and everyone is happy. If we both get one more each(staking emission), and the world still only wants 2 that doesn’t make us richer, we just compete to sell our apples and just makes our 2 apples worth half as much (half of $1 is .50 cent, just in case you didn’t know.).
I’m not willing to kill my bags just because I spite the ones who bought earlier than me. I think the fact that they extended it was a whole year is enough signal for me.
Yeah there going to kill your bags for you if you like it or not. This system wouldn’t stop that from happening but it would help soften the effect when they inevitably dump on you. Nothing we can do about that but at least create a sustainable RBW emissions for the long term.
And I wonder, if this proposal is adopted, what time frame does Laluna put in place to remedy the situation?
If the situation does not change in this time frame, what steps will be taken? Will there be a new proposal to reduce the remuneration from steaking? (Yes, and in general, are you willing to take responsibility for this proposal of yours?)
Would Laguna be willing to consider unlocking tokens before accepting this proposal? (bring it to the community for consideration) So that disgruntled stackers can sell their assets.
It does not solve the whole problem but it will provide enough time for the team to deliver more stuffs out and build enough demand for RBW that it can grow in a sustainable manner. It is a bandaid only if team fails to build demand for RBW in a year with more games and loops which I think is unlikely. On the other hand, if successful, it can be considered a strategic decision which is easy to implement while ensuring satisfaction for all parties involved.
“half of $1 is .50 cent, just in case you didn’t know” or "You don’t seem to understand the dynamics of economics and supply versus demand. " or “Ill spell it out for you step by step so you can understand.”
there seems to be a massive misunderstanding of economics from your end. The first hilariously wrong example:
If we both get one more each(staking emission), and the world still only wants 2 that doesn’t make us richer, we just compete to sell our apples and just makes our 2 apples worth half as much
What happens then is only 2 apples get sold but at a much lower rate. Excess goods don’t get magically consumed unless they are substitutes for another good. They just end up being wasted and the demanded amount gets sold for less because there is excess supply. Not sure where you learnt your economics.
To connect it to CU, if someone comes in to build some sort of set up, if RBW is cheap, they arent just going to buy more RBW. They will execute their set up for cheaper and not buy any more. If a couch you wanted was on sale, would you suddenly just buy another couch because you got the first one 50% off? Exactly…
Your cognitive dissonance is palpable. You mention how one whale is dumping 5k RBW per day since the game launch as though it’s not that bad but your biggest priority is stopping the big bad VCs who haven’t sold anything yet. There are tons of people who are actively dumping since launch, but they somehow seem like a much smaller priority just because they aren’t “VC”. imo these whales are probably significantly worse because they are just taking advantage of the community and pretending like they are supportive of the community but they are actively causing the price to go down. But never mind them, lets focus on the people who haven’t even’t caused the damage.
