This is the first well thought out proposal I’ve read that benefits the entire loot, mloot, and algd community. all the incentives are alligned. i support this proposal.
2 Likes
This is a AGLD tokenonmics proposal. If the proposal is to reward Loot staking and ultimately dilute AGLD holders, wonder if this has been agreed by AGLD holders first? Also many projects are offering LOOT holders stuff, AGLD is one of them, there is no need to seek LOOT holders consentment here via proposal because the decision should be within AGLD holders. I am just confused.
If there is a very tight integration between AGLD and LOOT then it is different. But giving yield to LOOT holders already happened.
Great point. The purpose of including LOOT holders is to strike the most common interest between two communities. AGLD stems from Loot eco and should contribute to loot eco.
This makes a ton of sense and is extremely reasonable. We as a community should rally behind this and move the project forward.
1 Like
I think we should put this proposal to vote.
4 Likes
This is a good proposal because it ties Loot and mLoot together.
However, my one criticism is that the “floor price” of mLoot will always be roughly 0.01 ETH (Aka the gas price it costs to mint new mLoot). The fact that mLoot is inflationary means the floor price will never change. Everyday you can just mint more for the gas price. This essentially breaks the staking calculation for AGLD that is distributed to mLoot holders.
Not sure what the solutions here is. Perhaps staking rewards for both Loot and mLoot should be driven by rarity.
Like this proposal guys! Believe we could garner even more support from AGLD and LOOT holders if we not only created staking rewards, but also tied them to additional actions – i.e., created a play to earn reward system.
I believe this will several big advantages for AGLD holders:
-
Reduce inflation because new tokens will only be issued to real players who actually earn AGLD (XP) – vs passive stakers
-
Transform AGLD into a “user acquisition tool for the LOOT ecosystem” – which is a much more compelling narrative for the token than “staking rewards”
-
Help us juice actual engagement in the LOOT ecosystem, which should benefit both LOOT and AGLD holders just as Axie’s numbers caused AXS and SLP to catch fire
-
Make it easier for us to create deflationary sinks for the AGLD token, like “pay AGLD to play a new game,” or “pay AGLD to get a new weapon” – which will again accrue value to AGLD holder and the LOOT holders who are playing to earn AGLD
-
Better set up the grants committee to pay AGLD to partners and contributors since the token will have a clear in-game value and already be seen as a valuable user acquisition / marketing tool.
If we want to reward LOOT or mLOOT holders at a group level, we can just give them a “bonus multiplier” so that they receive more XP than other users when they complete a quest.
2 Likes
Here is the proposed inflation curve since the link hasn’t been included. Feel free to download the spreadsheet and play around with numbers. Love more feedback. AGLD Inflation - Google Kalkylark
There is a lack of long term vision for AGLD and LOOT together to become the ETH of metaverse. AGLD needs to be the loyalty currency for LOOT. This proposal is going to be liked by Loot holders for short term benefits -staking APY but for this there is no need to get buy in by Loot holders first. The lack of strategic partnership for long term is an opp missed IMO.
2 Likes
Slightly disagreed, but what do I know and I assume we are out of choice. So go go bullish!!!
Instead of using mcap floor to calculate the distribution, I propose that we use a weighted mint percentage for Loot and mloot to distribute.
Assuming Loot is 100% minted, we can assign 50% of all staked rewards to Loot.
mLoot being minted 96,620/1,300,000 at the time of writing, only 7.43% are minted. So taking a 50% weightage, only 3.72% of all rewards will go to mLoot.
The difference in %, which is 46.28% will go to Loot as stake rewards, thus totaled at 96.28%
| Currently, | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| difference in mint % | total rewards allocation | ||||
| Loot percentage minted | 100.00% | 50% | 50.00% | 46.28% | 96.28% |
| mLoot Percentage minted | 7.43% | 50% | 3.72% | 3.72% | |
| 92.57% | 50% | 100.00% | |||
| If mLoot minted at 25% | |||||
| difference in mint % | total rewards allocation | ||||
| Loot percentage minted | 100.00% | 50% | 50.00% | 37.50% | 87.50% |
| mLoot Percentage minted | 25.00% | 50% | 12.50% | 12.50% | |
| 75.00% | 50% | 100.00% | |||
| If mLoot minted at 50% | |||||
| difference in mint % | total rewards allocation | ||||
| Loot percentage minted | 100.00% | 50% | 50.00% | 25.00% | 75.00% |
| mLoot Percentage minted | 50.00% | 50% | 25.00% | 25.00% | |
| 50.00% | 50% | 100.00% |
This distribution will guarantee Loot at least 50%, while also encouraging new minters of mLoot with a higher percentage; albeit a increasingly larger circulation supply.
Agreed. What we need to grow the value of the token is to attract new, engaged users who need the token to play games. Practically speaking, this means creating a play to earn AGLD economy and charging AGLD to do things like buy weapons, enter new games, etc.
I would say AGLD is the cross game currency, just Eth has many pairs with different ERC20 tokens. Huge space for value creation here. Hope we get there.
2 Likes
Hello everybody,
I have a few questions in my mind and I’d love if I could please hire your brain guys.
If $AGLD is used as in-game currency for the whole Loot metaverse, what about the security of the system? Who secures and controls the transactions between maybe millions of players in real-time? And also is this system decentralised or not?
it’s probably a silly idea but I was thinking that $AGLD could be used for a proof of stake system?
AGLD in this proposal is exactly built to allow strategic partnership to happen in the long run, by making Loot & mLoot yield generative assets and solidifying their value basis. So they are more than just words on black background. Partnerships will be established by rewarding Loot & mLoot users to use an application with AGLD if that application also give back to AGLD, like fees to buy back & burn, or contribtue to a treasury that funds infra, tools & other future developments needed.
ser I am not sure if the spreadsheet’s format shows up correctly here in the comments. Any chance you have a link for the calculations? Sounds like an interesting proposal. The unreasonable point I see in this is that it’s solely determined on the % of minted NFTs, not their value, etc. Probably wouldn’t be fair enough?
The mechanism is designed attract new users to use Loots & mLoots to play games. Allow me to explain:
Yields are only indicative for Loots & mLoots at floor price. If one NFT is bought at 5X the floor price, its respective yield is only 80% than one purchased near floor. That encourages it to look for a better place to earn yield.
AGLD issuance is the fundation of an AGLD economy. Our proposal works kind of like a social security system, that guarantees a source of income (tho can be quite low) that other economies can be built upon when people have income to spend with. Integrating a very specific game mechanism into the issuance system can involve too many moving parts and compromise interests in the long run.
mloot 已经失去价值,因为他发行太多了
1 Like
This proposal seems great! Good job guys
Hello,
I think that while you spent significant time developping this idea, which I am grateful for, it has some evident shortcomings.
With your current plan, you are proposing to have emission of new AGLD to Loot and mLoot stakers. This In my opinion will not help build a better ecosystem. What we need foremost is funds to help devs build a universe around Loot. We should aim to gather or mint funds for grants to kickstart the Lootverse as a priority, not have inflation go through Loot and mLoot holders which will just result in a dumping by the Loot holders.
- Loot holders will receive 99% of ALGD emission. This will not change significantly in the future because while Loot’s floor can keep increasing due to being the “OG” Loot and having historical value, mLoot on the other hand will tend to be at the very most just above gas price to mint new tokens, because bots will arbitrage on Open Sea if that’s not the case. Therefore mLoot floor will realistically not exceed 0.005 ETH or something similar (it’s currently 0.003 ETH). FloorMarketCap will rise with the minting of new mLoot, but then you are competing against that many more stakers… so for the individual mLoot owner this will make no difference.
Taking 2 minutes to look at the numbers in your exemple, and they appear to not make sense. like I said the mLoot will floor will be most likely never go above minting price. Half your 0.01 floor number. You take 1000 loot stakers vs 10 000 mloot stakers when it should really be 125 000 mLoot stakers to have a better representation of the current split in number of token in circulation (8k Loot vs 100k mLoot)
This gives you closer to 0.03AGLD distribute per mLoot staked per Epoch. Currently that’s not even 10c. Considering the gas costs of staking (wich is not significant for Loot stakers given the rewards they will gain), it would take probably something like 300 epochs (7 years?) just to break even ? You could argue that because of this less mLoot holders will stake their token, but the reality is even if only 10 000 stake theirs, they will need 24 epochs (6 months) just to break even…
mLoot holders have nothing to gain from this proposal, and Loot holders everything to gain. This will only antogonize the community even more, and the rewards will push Loot’s floor even more, increasing the disparity even more.
- You mention the fact the staking will filter out by projects by providing motivation to develop games that are more economically beneficial than staking.
I would argue that it is very likely that future games will require interaction with the NFTs in the form of staking or transfers, otherwise why not just use synthetic loot? Having your NFTs staked will deter people from participating in the ecosystem, especially Loot holders who will just become Rent seekers.
Again… 100% of the AGLD supply was airdropped to Loot Holders. Now you want to give them 99% of the future emission ? What for ?
IMO this proposal need to be revised.
- Numbers need to be better though out. Right now this is just making the rich richer.
- We need to find a way to get the money to developpers, not holders.
- Staking is not the solution in my opinion, because it keeps you from participating in the ecosystem.
My proposal would be
-
Mint X number of AGLD (10 million?), with a Y year vesting period (10 years?).
-
Have airdrop to mLooters a tiny amount of AGLD, low enough so as to not encourage bots from minting new tokens. Something like 5 AGLD at current AGLD price. Qty of AGLD airdropped would be lower if the price of AGLD in ETH increases, but always capped at 5 so that people that mint later on don’t get 10 times the amount early adopters got. Only one airdrop per wallet. Currently there’s 20k wallet so that’s 100kAGLD inflation, not ultra significant.
This is to allow mLoot holders to participate in the ecosystem right away.
Loot holders were already aidropped 100% current supply. If they sold well then they can afford to buy back a bit to enter the Lootverse.
When all mLoot are minted, this will probably result in 1.3m new tokens minted, considering current mLoot minted/mLoot holder ratio (5 mLoot per wallet on avg)
- Have 100% of the rest of the funds locked with a vesting period be managed by a DAO, that would vote on grants to allocate to fund development of new projects benefitting the lootverse.
Happy to discuss further
5 Likes