Hi CU fam,
The title says it all, really. We have a RMP fee of ~3% right now, but the game bank has seen RBW balance decline from 1.21 million (the day after the transfer to treasury) to 840,000, per the attached photo. I view the game bank as a solid health indicator of people cashing out versus those having fun and reinvesting in the game.
There is nothing wrong with users looking to cash out for their efforts, but I think it should benefit the wider community as a whole. I think the RMP fee should be set by the council on a weekly basis to create more or less revenue for our treasury. This will also add another game within the the game (forgive me, I am rewatching game of thrones right now). But it will add a layer of politics to our community - some will advocate for higher taxes, some will advocate for lower taxes… and every re-election period for the council would be very interesting. There is a reason sovereign states have implemented taxes on income and consumption for thousands of years… to benefit the entire community.
When taking into account the drastic inflationary pressures brought on by juicy RBW staking rewards, I believe it is important to have a heftier supply sink for RBW. I am clearly a supporter of a higher tax rate on the RMP. Those who grind in game need not worry, but those who buy their progression and sell the fruits of their labor would be paying for the heavier RBW supply sink.
In sum, I believe this would add a fun political element to our community, help offset RBW inflation in the case of increased taxes at the heels of value extractors (RMP sellers) and pay-to-win players (RMP buyers), and empower the community to be an additional monitor of the economies health.
Curious everyones thoughts! Please comment below
Not saying I am for or against this but would have to think about it. I use multiple accounts because of land limits imposed. I stash out often and transfer it to another wallet to purchase things in game or breed with. Higher fees would double tax me in this. Which would take away incentive to sink RBW and UNIM breeding. Only thing other then CU I sell RBW I have stashed out is to buy matic to do breeding with. That’s my situation. Good to hear others perspectives.
We have to do something about RBW inflation.
Up to and including the consideration of moving the unlock from investors .
On the one hand it is understandable that Aron wants to be able to dive into the game at the start. On the other hand we are starting to devour ourselves.
At the expense of tax regulation by means of the Council - it’s just a game . You can try it, as long as it does not take a lot of time from the developers.
Regarding you stated concerns, a Stash Out fee should be considered instead of changing the RMP fee.
The in game economy has a lot more to it then many people seem to understand. Without sharing too much I will point out in some cases it is more profitable to craft item A, sell it and buy item B vs crafting B directly.
Then you have players like TT and myself with more than one Wallet.
For multi account players, and to enhance overall game play and the robustness of he in game economy before implementing a Stash Out fee there should be an in game mechanism to trade items between players.
Correct me if I am wrong. Was there something like a 1.2 million withdrawal from game bank to remove liquidity. If so was this decline not designed to happen. My other thought was would a fee to withdrawal not discourage anyone new from adding rbw to game. Why would I add rbw to game if I would not be able to remove rbw without a loss. It would make far more sense to stake the rbw and receive a return then stash in.
The team removed 400k RBW or so from the game bank and put it in the treasury (see the decline on June 22 in the photo)
Also, I dont think there should be a withdrawal tax. Just a tax on consumption (users buying in the RMP to progress more quickly) and sellers (those extracting value from the game)
This topic was automatically closed 5 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.