insert meme of Bart writing lines on the chalkboard.
“I must not argue with morons on the internet anymore!”
4 Likes
I thought about this again, but all things considered increasing the escrow period would be a way better choose I believe (talked about this a lot in the other discussion).
Also gathered some data from the top stakers behaviour in the last 31 days (I think the period is super important as this was a mini bull example) and seems like that the current top 25 stakers representing 58% of the total SRBW were a net buyer of close to 1M RBW in this run and staked more than 5M RBW.
There is no doubt that stakers in the past dumped a lot of RBW and hurt the price, what I am trying to tell that seems like staking also a RBW demand driver in a risk on period, so its way more complex as first might seems and we might just make things worse. Thats why I support a less drastic change with just the ERBW change, but will still think about more deeply about this and the best possible solution.
2 Likes
I always feel team is 10 steps ahead of us and pretty darn smart people. I am curious with team tracking supply and demand. Why we got to where we are right now?
- For full discloser purposes I would like to ask has Team and or Investors been buying RBW in Business or Personal wallets during this low priced period.
1 Like
Thanks for putting this idea forward.
I think the flaw in your system is the RMP.
We (LG) are not the market makers in the game. So people spending RBW in the game isn’t directly going to the treasury (beyond the 5% fee) it’s going into the AMM pools. So spending is really more trading amongst players. As asset prices get pushed up other players will sell against that curve.
So it’s not as cut and dry as you indicate and the other games you reference don’t have AMMs inside to my knowledge. Having a seesaw of emissions based on in game activity I don’t think is the solution especially when that activity isn’t a straight sink. Balancing the game is already hard enough with the high level of player agency. This adds another thing we have to try to predict and tune against. Would be a struggle imo.
I think a straight emission cut is the simplest proposal we can implement today with the highest level of impact. Overtime I expect we’ll continue to explore new distribution mechanisms especially in a post growth environment.
We are approaching 100M RBW distributed to our golden cohort of loyal players which feels very fair and means this group of people stand to benefit the most from new player growth coupled with us constraining supply.
Hi TT,
I remember one of my first interactions with you in discord was around the Zed Run scandal and you asking what our internal policies were. Nothing has changed since then but I’ll paste the summary copy at the beginning of our Employee Policy:
LG has a hard line policy forbidding employees and contractors from using their insider knowledge of game mechanics to create for themselves a competitive or economic advantage in the Crypto Unicorns metaverse (including the game, the token economy, or any of the NFTs). If an employee or contractor abuses their position and harms the community and the integrity of the game, as determined by the company, they will forfeit their gains and lose their jobs.
1 Like
This is a great policy to have and it builds and keeps trust. Thank you for having it in place 
1 Like
I think emission cut remains the best way to set us up for growth. Extending eRBW lockup rate is something we can do as an additional measure in the future. Only extending the eRBW lockup rate now just kicks the can down the road and reduces the incentive to compound RBW return which we see is a frequent behavior amongst stakers. Emission reduction increases this incentive and again I think best serves the community today.
Appreciate all your feedback.
3 Likes
As always, Schmitty answered everyone but me=) 
1 Like
-
What do you mean? We’d immediately change staking emissions. There are no changes to growth and marketing strategy regardless of whether or not this proposal passes or fails. This isn’t Laguna vs the Community. It’s everyone’s responsibility to try to grow this community.
-
What do you mean? Growth is necessary regardless. I literally carry the weight and responsibility of this entire DAO every single day. That does not change regardless of this proposal passing or failing.
-
No, this is not feasible with the current smart contract and I won’t advocate for anything that will force more work there + audits, etc.
Thanks for you questions. I’d invite you to read all of my other responses where I explain why I believe this to be a necessary change.
1 Like
If the community vote does not support this proposal, will Laguna vote the votes that were identified earlier and used in the investor/team rescheduling?
I’ve read all the answers both here and in a neighboring thread at Jan.Delphi.
Having this thread just might be perceived as shifting responsibility to the community.
The current situation reminds me of the situation with market, when Laguna wanted to hold their contractor as well.
In this case, the proposal and voting were carried out in a very short time, which is still done =).
About marketing, with starter packs, how is marketing successful? How many objections have there been to this… Is there a result? There is – negative, as many have said.
My opinion, if cutting APR will have a result, I’m willing to vote for it.
But, Laguna has to take responsibility if things don’t get better in say 6 months.
And what kind of accountability is a good question. Because too many words always go to the AMA.
I have stated it already in the previous forum and in discord, but I am STRONGLY in favor of this proposal. I have participated in a majority of community AMAs for over a year, the TGE, play the game every other day, and have been a positive supporter of CU in general since the day I began contributing my time, effort, and resources.
If this prop fails, there is a strong chance I exit the economy entirely. I understand the community push back because from some perspective we are reducing our respective ownership of the 1 Billion RBW tokens while investors + team keep their same share… but the token is literally going to 0 without this prop.
It’s really not very complicated. Weekly RBW inflation is currently FAR more than the ~200k/week being pulled out of circulation into the treasury via 5% rmp tax, Evo, and Breeding. The current DAU is hardly enough to consume the current P&E allocation, thus there is no need to reallocate the adjustment until DAU grows.
The ~1400 DAU now own nearly as much RBW as seed investors, and half that of the team that literally made it possible. it’s the value of the tokens you hold at this point, not the quantity. Even with the 10% take rate from jousting, we would need millions of RBW in entry fees to make up the deficit every single week. If price goes down, there is less incentive to Joust.
We have a real shot here to make a splash by reducing emissions at the same time Jousting releases, casual 3rd party games roll out, etc. which will bring in a lot of players. At the same time, Macro back drop has improved… Crypto prices are rallying (cough cough, not you, RBW. Dont you wonder WHY?)… Starbucks Odyssey, Reddit, y00ts, etc. NFT projects showing great promise on Polygon, zkEVM just around the corner. Let’s do ourselves a favor and not blow our chance at timing this. All the pieces are in place… farm sim vastly improved. We can ALL win together by reducing emissions now instead of changing escrowed RBW lock time which as Aron says, will simply kick the can down the road.
“HUGE INVESTOR AND ERBW UNLOCK COMING SOON” is all you will see in discord if we don’t just bite the bullet and tighten the RBW supply source. Perfect opportunity is now, let’s not blow it. Your level 8-10 lands, your double mythic corns, your stock pile of RBW and UNIM, etc. will all stand to benefit if this prop passes.
13 Likes
Just take a good hard look at other Polygon games and ask yourself “Is it as high quality as CU with a controlled supply of its commodity token (UNIM equivalent)?”
The answer will be no. Polygon is home to a lot of users/gamers and one of their sole goals is to make it the go-to destination for blockchain gaming. But don’t take it from me, take it from Polygon Labs President Ryan Wyatt
We are THE game that can help that vision come to fruition! It’s exciting, but drastically reliant on this prop passing imo.
7 Likes
I’m in firm support of this proposal, and truly think it is one of the best options currently available to help stabilize RBW.
2 Likes
As stated in the discord, I am strongly supporting this proposal.
This proposal is sending a strong signal to the market that the value of RBW matters. Together with the upcoming catalysts like jousting and third-party launches, restoring investor confidence in RBW through the proposed emission changes could mark a major inflection point for CU which is why I believe it is of extreme importance that this proposal passes.
8 Likes
I should have fleshed that out more but in defence I never said it would be easy, actually to the contrary, I said
Yes it would be harder to code but are there any other reasons why this isn’t being considered?
I understand the RMP is just a back and forth between players with a cut for LG. What I should have said is the complexity of the business logic around RBW would make this challenging but still an algorithm could be built to get a fairly good idea of how much RBW is being spent in game versus cashed out for fiat / Stable coins. The code to detect activity would need to monitor all activity which wouldn’t be perfect.
I respect your experience in this and hence why I asked the question rather than demand it but RBW has tanked to date, hasnt risen in the face ofa massive crypto rally so would think some consideration to revamping the model of the two token system would be put to test.
Personally I would remove all RBW from in game costs, transfer everything to unim. Only thing to spend RBW on would be breeding and heavily reduced to 2-3 for each stage and then tie emissions to RBW spend. VC’s would love that, players will hate me for suggesting it cause most of think, the more I get given the better but in reality they don’t understand that this huge amount of free RBW being pushed out daily is the reason we are at 3 cents and not $300
1 Like
Did forget to say: I highly support the reduced emissions over escrow.
2 Likes
I don’t like RBW to be on RMP. Extraction players definitely going to sell RBW to fiat. Isn’t that more sell pressure on RBW? I am more concerned with delegation, it will only add more extraction and sell pressure on RBW.
This is another topic that is worth discussing after emission reduction. @darthschmitty13
2 Likes
If this or the other proposal passes Council to be voted on. Will LG be voting with their SRBW. Just trying to figure out if community has any influence on outcome of vote or if LG is just passing a premade decision on in the form of a proposal. Wish a good weekend Aron. Thank you for always listening and be patient with me.
1 Like
Could this proposal deter players from participating in the DOA. Since to have SRBW to vote you have to stake RBW. Do you think that people seeing how Stakers are treated could deter new stakers and drive away current ones. Have not checked around lately. But the proposed APR for this proposal seems very low to attract any new interest. Could this proposal cause more people to simply sell their RBW and flood the market. Is there a plan for this if stakers all exodus the project. Can you share what team would do if market was flooded in this manner. Thanks as always for your time.
2 Likes
Another concern I have with this proposal is it feels like it villainizes stakers. Stakers are a part of community who the team courted and convinced to invest in the project. In return for staking the team offered a return and the ability to participate in the DOA. My concern is community being divided by one class of player being deemed the problem. While stakers are the focus in this proposal. It could be farmers in a few weeks. Then another branch of players. I have heard team is okay with letting some players go to make room for new players. But is this really how we grow a DOA and Community. I feel bad actors should be dealt with individually and that a lot of good people/players will be effected if we start making a broad changes to deal with a few people.
Forum would not let me post again. So adding another question here.
Another question. Team is avidly trying to attract new players with marketing. I wanted to pose this question. We currently have over 10,000 Stakers last i looked. When we started staking the white paper and team had advertised and planned to have jousting, racing and Team RPG completed in 2022. What is the chance that some of these 10,000 stakers were people who wanted to play one of these game loops. Since we had delay after delay they may just be waiting for the game loops to be made to start playing. As we all know farm loops are not for everyone. In my opinion these 10,000 stakers are people the team should be once again courting and convincing to join jousting on release. Thank you for your time. Trying to get as many questions and thoughts out there before council votes.
3 Likes