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
Hi HugoFurioso, really appreciate your detailed comment. Love the reasonings and constructive comments like this is tremendouly valuable.
The core idea behind this proposal is to make AGLD and incentive token, the currency of the Loot metaverse, and to provide a basic layer of income for Loots & mLoots, so that they become yield generative assets and attract applications to be built upon, like how businesses in real life are built to attract people and entities with income to spend their money. Numerous community members including you have mentioned the idea to feed inflation into a DAO and fund projects (instead of issuing to Loots & mLoots), and we have considered that route as a starting point for a long time. I will explain below on why we didn’t issue the money to a treasury/DAO directly, and why incentivise staking instead of airdrop.
On funding devs: we understand that the community desparately needs incentives to go to builders, but since a few critical shortcomings were identified, we decided to not direct 100% of new issuance to that, but to establish a separate treasury mechanism:
- The issuance will become unpredictable, just like how central bank works, very bad for a decentralised economy. It sounds easy that people can vote in the DAO so the DAO can make good decision on what infra / tools / applications are worth funding. In reality, all kinds of politics will be going on within that DAO. Perhaps the DAO will decide to give out a ton of tokens within weeks (money printer goes brrrrrr), but for the next few months no new grants may be given (gov shut down kek). This whole process can be easily gamed by 3rd parties.
- Inflation to DAO will lead to more dumping. Imagine a few teams proposing to build a few incredible games using Loot and mLoot. Surely they are welcomed and received grants to build. The only option for them to pay employees is to dump those AGLD grants, either beforehand or following any applicable vesting schedule. We now have txt files + a few games, not a real economy with circulating liquidity. It’s like AGLD is the new gold mine, and the community has built a mining town on it. After the mine is fully extracted, the mining town ends up becoming a ghost town. However, if the inflation is more predictable (issuance always according to curve, no matter how many Loots & mLoots are staked), and that the projects provide services to revenue generating assets, builders are much less likely to focus on providing real value for Loots & mLoots in the long run, not focusing on gaming the system and getting that juicy grant.
- Central planning does not create a good economy. New token issuan should only be conducted in a credibly neutral way. If we look at what the Loot community has achieved, it’s absolutely impressive and all the early Loot holders & builders deserve that. mLoot is surely a great and welcomed addition to the community and deserve a piece of the pie. Given it is almost impossible to come up with an accurate market cap for NFTs, we believe that distribution according to the average floor market cap is the most fair and credibly neural way to reward those who have contributed value to the ecosystem. If Loot contribute 99% of value, Loot holders deserves 99% of rewards. If mLoot grow strong and capture just as much value as Loot in the future, they will deserve 50% of rewards within that future epoch. I understand the frustration to make the rich richer. However, the rich will always get richer in every system except for communism. A good system make the rich richer in a fair and constructive way. By doing so people are incentivised to build out stuff that’s valued by the market so they can be richer and have higher efficiency to capture value.
- We are already talking to community members / builders / projects on providing defi services to Loots & mLoots, such as marketplaces that save us from high fees on OS, lending platform that uses Loots & mLoots as collateral, and many more. The application will contribute some fees / revenue from those applications, and use the accumulated fees to fund projects. In return, users will have AGLD incentives to use those services, just as if their NFTs are staked. Whether it is fair for users of these projects to receive the full staking yield is still being discussed and we would love more inputs from the community on this. This should a great way to support good projects that the community actually wants: if people like the application with their Loots & mLoots, that project deserve part of the income those Loots & mLoots are entitled to, + the income they somehow generate from their own fees. Part of the fees generated will feed back into the value of AGLD, whether via buy back and burn, or goes to treasury. This creates a positive virtuous cycle that: Loots & mLoots income increase by receiving AGLD =>Loots & mLoots value increase => good projects income increase => feeds more value into AGLD => Loots & mLoots income increase.
On airdropping to mLoot:
We initially considered airdropping newly issued AGLD to Loots & mLoots, given that’s how AGLD were distributed in the 1st place.
- We believe that printed wealth (newly minted AGLD) is better off going to the bottom level of the economy than the entire economy.
- The market will decide where the wealth will flow to afterwards, but to kick start an economy, financial supports need to be given to those that need it the most. Loots & mLoots bought near floor price are the perfect example. Chances are, compared to their more expensive peers, they have less scarcity and probably fewer utilities in games & applications. Instead of having them sitting in wallets doing nothing, or getting listed on OS and dumped, staking is the perfect utility for them.
- By rewarding staked Loots & mLoots rather than airdropping to all, we contribute more economics resources to the bottom level of the economy, which helps solidifying the value floor of the ecosystem.
- Tho all Loots & mLoots are able to stake if they choose to, APR wise it make more sense to stake your Loots & mloots when you are bought cheaper.
On math problems: the long break-even time is intended and unbiased for both Loot & mLoot. You can download and play around with the curve here: AGLD Inflation - Google Kalkylark
AGLD staking reward looks very similar to an unemployement check: if they are too high no one would be working, if they are too low people will be starving. Looking into the numbers used in the example, you can find that on floor price, a Loot is 1300X more expensive than an mLoot, but only receives ~100X the reward. Primarily this is determined by the % of Loots & mLoots staked. Given Loots & mLoots different positionings, we believe that in the long run mLoots will be used in more applications while Loots will be holded by diamond hands. Therefore, staked mLoots should be looking towards a much higher APR% than staked Loots. Also the size of the check should not be a hard-coded number, which sets unrealistic assumptions for the future conditions of the ecosystem. Rather it should be adjustable according to the market and the utilities of Loots & mLoots. If for some reasons mLoots picks up traction and very few mLoots are staked, those staked should be entitled to a very high APR to reflect the market demand on mLoots. This helps the market to adjust the mLoot demand and supply quicker, consequently pricing mLoots more accurately, which leads to a fairer and more sustainable economy for mLoots in the long run.
Overall, we belive that having a predictable supply of new currency, distributed in a fair and flexible matter, partnering up with a market-driven treasury can help ensure Loot & mLoot a successful and sustainable economy, which has a much greater potential then give all of them solely as grants, or via airdrop. Hope the above explanation helps address your concerns and again really love the detailed reasonings.
3 Likes
oops probably just commented not replied. Please check the above comment.
Thanks for the detailed answer.
I understand the concerns involved in having a DAO, although some DAOs have been very successful.
I also understand the attractiveness in having Loot being a strong asset that generates yield, it strengthens the value of the token and therefore the ecosystem.
But for it to make senses , the yield generated (AGLD) needs to have value. And its value will come from utility, and utility come from Devs.
Devs will be way less inclined to dump on the market than Loot stakers. They can actually use the funds for jackpots, incentive to play their games etc, i.e. AGLD would trickle from Devs to Players. If you give AGLD to Devs, they will also find a way to give it utility ! Enter my dungeon for 1 AGLD, earn 3 AGLD if you can beat it. And just like that you have an economy.
Having Loot holders stake, then dump AGLD on an exchange because why would they need 1000 AGLD / year for, is not a way to kickstart an economy.
Once an ecosystem is built I’m ok not giving out grants and have Loot being staked for AGLD. But it’s not the priority. Priority is building utility.
4 Likes
I agree with you that utility is very important. And the community is working hard to bring that. However, devs and the utility they bring will only go to a sustainable system. We are facing the chicken and egg problem. Without a predictable and credibly neutral token issuance system, devs will never be sure if this is the right place to build. Simply giving out a lot of money does not work. Making the money predictable then give them money works!
We are together building the foundation of a prosperous economy, where devs are comfortable that the money is generated in a fair and predictable way, that will feed into the system to those who needed it the most. There are plenty of complicated ways we can explore to consume/burn AGLD, but its supply should first be fair and decentralized in a simple but robust way.
1 Like
Isn’t the most predictable and neutral way forward to create no new issuance of agld and burn the keys?
I understand the need for supply side token design, but why can’t that take place in currencies built a layer above AGLD? On that plane, there can be healthy competition on products and on token design built in the Loot/agld ecosystem. The market decides which will win. A central DAO controlling AGLD creates an entirely different ecosystem.
Right now, we have a base layer Non-Fungible Token (in Loot) and a Fungible Token (in AGLD). To me, there is good reason to treat these as primitive layer assets and currency which are entirely decentralized, and thus go untouched.
The funding, the incentivizing, the sustainability can all get built (and is being built rn) on top.
Would love responses and alternative viewpoints to this. Thank you so much!
2 Likes
1
I totally agree with you Matthew, hopefully they will burn the AGLD keys soon and we will be able to focus on what to do next.
1 Like
Obviously, anyone can create any token on top of Loot or AGLD. Just for now AGLD is widely listed, has great attention from the community, and most importantly, has been circulating for a while and the majority of the speculators have SOLD their AGLD already. It’s been picked up by people bullish on the ecosystem and planning to build on it.
BTW if AGLD’s keys are burnt, AGLD literally becomes a useless ERC-20 token. It cannot do anything beyond pumping & dumping on token holders. That will kill the effort that the community has contributed to AGLD. It would be a huge shame.
“If AGLD’s keys are burnt, AGLD literally becomes a useless ERC-20 token”.
Can you expand on how this is the case?
Bitcoin has a supply cap that has not changed since its original issuance design. Plenty of people seem to think it is a useful token.
By burning the keys, you create a digital asset that we can trust. Burning the keys allows builders to use a token they know for certain is scarce (capped at 80m tokens) and secure/immutable (no one can take control of it and change it). This allows builders to design their own utility and meaning around AGLD, without having to keep constant tabs of governance and updates happening to AGLD at a central base layer.
If 100 games / worlds get built on top of Loot, with their own currencies and economies, and if they use AGLD in their economies in some way (to represent gold, SoV, or anything else), then suddenly the central AGLD DAO would have to govern in such a way that takes into consideration every single one of these economies, and how they relate to AGLD. This is a completely unscalable path forward.
The design space around AGLD is massive. If the keys are burnt, that design space stays infinite. And different projects can compete on how to use it, and the market will decide which ones are the best. If a central AGLD DAO is stood up around the AGLD contract, those design possibilities shrink down to 1. That is to say, it shrinks down to the one token design that wins some vote that is deemed source of truth and is implemented by the contract signers. And then the entire ecosystem is forced to follow that choice, or attempt to fork into a token that is most likely never going to receive the same perfect storm success that AGLD has received.
The fact that AGLD has received such wide adoption is the very reason why we should burn the keys.
Appreciate having this conversation with you all, thanks.
4 Likes
- Projects can always choose their own way to use AGLD, regardless of whether the AGLD keys are burnt.
- Burning AGLD keys will eliminate any possibility of future upgrades. Unlike Bitcoin and Loot (arguably) that they are better off by having no changes in the future, AGLD needs to be available for future upgrades when the demand shows up. Just like the need for a sound economic system showed up and it requires those keys to implement a new token design.
- AGLD receives adoption because stuff can be built on it, not that it will never change.
1 Like
I would suggest replacing floor cap weighted staking distribution with equal distribution of AGLD regardless of Loot or mLoot in order to make incremental participation in the ecosystem equitable and not be constrained by timing of entry.
To add to this point - Loot holders already have 10k AGLD per Loot in posession from free claim. Ones that sold out should not be further rewarded by floor cap weight. Floor cap weights discourages broader participation to ecosystem by mLoot holders.
At the end we are talking incremental 20mm issuance of AGLD thru staking. Make the new distribution equal.
1 Like
Hi! Thank you for all the time and thought that you put into giving AGLD and the Loot-verse the best possible chance of success.
Having said that, I’m more with @HugoFurioso and would like to give a contrarian view on this proposal. Based on the current discussions in LIP-0 my line of thinking is:
Let Loot burn the keys and become a scarce asset without any kind of governance
Loot is what it is. Loot was created without any vision, roadmap, governance, leadership or set of rules, That is what makes it special. Let it stay that way.
The community is already building, and there is enough VC interest to fund projects using Loot (and probably mLoot).
Examples: Spencer Noon at Variant https://twitter.com/spencernoon/status/1436822175722491911?s=20 and Kyle Samani at Multicoin https://twitter.com/KyleSamani/status/1434408502714376197?s=20
Loot is what it is.
Use AGLD to supercharge a community built Loot-verse
AGLD is just one derivative of Loot. It has a very special position and strengths, but it cannot and should not aim control the entire Loot-verse. In my mind the most important aspects of AGLD is that it is ERC-20, has a wide spread, fair distribution, large marketcap, is listed on CEXs and DEXs and has a large traded volume.
My basic train of thought:
- Do not complicate things, especially early on. Complicated tokenomics at this stage does not make a lot of sense.
- The value of AGLD (and Loot/mLoot) will come from usability. Never look at what is today, and don’t aim for status quo (which I think this proposal is). Only what can be created.
- Use the strengths of AGLD. It has value, can be transacted and can be minted. Use that as an advantage.
- Aim for maximum Loot-verse growth.
- Aim for alignment of interests among AGLD stakeholders (Loot/mLoot holders, AGLD holders, Loot-verse builders)
One concrete contrary proposal to “AGLD tokenomics v1” would be:
- Form a separate AGLD DAO. Let the DAO control minting of AGLD.
- Issue new AGLD and use exclusively to fund new Loot projects. Grant participants should have maximum alignment to the long term success to Loot and AGLD. Example:
* AGLD funds new projects with max the equivalent of 50k USD for 2 months. After 2 months, progress is demonstrated and continued funding is discussed.
* Any further funding is vested. Max 50% up front, the rest is released after 2 years. - Be generous with grants. Maximum growth and usability is much more important than early stage inflation (this is classical VC thesis). Loot already has product/market fit, it is in the scaling phase now.
- Current market cap is 193M USD and a volume of 78M USD. It would not be strange to mint 1-10M USD worth of AGLD PER MONTH to fund projects. Remember, maximum utility and growth is the goal!
I’m handwaving many details here, but I hope the core strategy is clear. Use AGLD for its strengths, aim for maximum growth, value comes from utility (we all want to play!).
4 Likes
We are very aligned here with your train of thought. This proposal is exactly built to incentivize the growth of the Loot ecosystem and benefit AGLD stakeholders altogether.
Looking at your contrary proposal, I noticed that it again falls into that “have a DAO control everything and give everyone a lot of money directly” category of proposals. We believe the current proposal is a better mechanism for the reasons stated here: Adventure Gold Tokenomics Proposal v1 - #29 by Hill
Also minting 10M of AGLD monthly will lead to massive inflation and AGLD dump to destroy value. Predictability is key here.
looks like I commented but not replied, again… Please check the above comment ser.
Thanks for the time of drafting this proposal. Feel it is too complicated. Can we just address one most important point in the porposal?
My two cents ate, NFT is not like a typical ERC 20 token. Staking them may prevent them being used in the future games. Instead of staking, i proposal just to airdrop, say, 1000ALGD to more loot holders, just like what ALGD did for Loot holders.
The key is to get more people into the loot ecosystem. Loot has 2.5k owners. More loot has 20.7k owners. It is a bigger pool, but the speed of minting more loot is slow. By airpdropping ALGD to more loot holders, it will motivate more people into the loot ecosystem.
Disagree. This Stake-Reward mechanism just like DeFi, not LooTverse.
It’s a bad idea, and lack of imagination.
LooTverse is a universe, come and interact with it, you should be rewarded, not just staking.
1 Like