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
Fewer moving parts has been one of our core principles to follow when drafting this proposal. Obviously looking to build something more sustainable and decentralized is of higher priority. Hope the examples has been helpful to understand our model. Primarily we proposed to disctribute newly issued AGLD according to Loot’s and mLoots’s value proportion in the market.
More people minting mLoot only for getting airdropped AGLD is not good news for the ecosystem. They will mostly be speculators and do little on contribute long-term value.
LOL ahahah love that “lack of imiagination” comment. Loot is really fascinating for the unlimited imagination it brings to me. Just that when it comes to designing a token model, I wish to choose something people are kind of familiar with, and battle tested. Newly minted Ethereum is distributed to miners via PoW for now (perhaps a lack of imagination given it’s similar to Bitcoin), but the innovations on Ethereum is not only innovative but also rewarding.
Hi @Hill and thanks for replying.
Actually I disagree to your statement. The key point in my outline is the exact opposite of “have a DAO control everything and give everyone a lot of money directly”.
- I propose that AGLD govern the AGLD universe and nothing else, Let Loot be Loot, it is already uncoupled, and I think it is beneficial to have several different coordination centres. AGLD would be one (very prominent).
- I’m directly against airdropping tokens to Loot/mLoot token holders. At this point utility, growth and ecosystem is most valuable as a whole. Not token distribution to current Loot holders.
- I think its way too early for complicated tokenomics. Keep it simple until its not possible to keep it simple anymore
“Also minting 10M of AGLD monthly will lead to massive inflation and AGLD dump to destroy value. Predictability is key here.”
I disagree again. It’s too early. Value in both the greater Loot-verse and in the smaller AGLD-verse comes from ecosystem growth at this stage, not plan economics. Tokenomics is for a time when there is a clear design goal. What are you designing for?
The first target (primary?) in the proposal above is “AGLD is to become a core component of a LOOTverse currency stack that aims to be a ready made set of strong currency tools to be used in LOOT related games and to be used across them to help tie together a single metaverse economy.” If this is the primary target, then design for that.
I actually don’t see how target two "to make Loot & mLoot a yield generative NFT; stake Loot & mLoot to get AGLD yield" supports target 1, in my mind it’s contradictory at this stage.
Also, the last statement in your reply to me “Predictability is key here.” has been falsified several times over the last years, e.g. both Synthetix and Yearn removed fixed token caps which greatly accelerated ecosystem growth and network value.
I’m happy to discuss holding/dumping incentives among builders vs airdrop target if anyone is interested (hint: builders have a much bigger long term interest to maximise value).
I hope you take this feedback the right way, it’s just that reading the proposal is not what I think is the best course of action given best practices in venture funding and previous real world examples in the crypto space that aim for maximum growth.
If you have previous examples and experience where pre-product staking tokenomics accelerate ecosystem building I’m very interested to learn more.
1 Like
For those 3 points mentioned:
- We are aligned. The AGLD we proposed is an incentive token for Loot & mLoot, not governance.
- WE are not entirely aligned. We believe that growth & ecosystem is the most valuable, but a good token distribution plan is a must-have to achieve that. Distributing to Loot holders is the fairest way and with all kinds of benefits mentioned in Adventure Gold Tokenomics Proposal v1 - #29 by Hill.
- We are kind of aligned. I assumed that your opinion is our proposal is complicated. We believe it is not since it only covers the supply side and it’s just distributing according to Loot’s & mLoot’s respective market cap’s proportion. Just that those formulas may seem complicated.
On design goal: target 2 supports target 1. By having AGLD as the “income currency” of Loots & mLoots, currency tools can be made with AGLD. If people’s income is paid in USD, places to spend money will have a high chance to use USD. Then policies that influence USD will be more effective.
On predictability: removing hard-cap does not necessarily remove predictability. If the AGLD community would want the hard-cap removed I believe a proposal would be passed. High inflationary issuance has been discussed from the very first day and from our feedback the community is not in favor of that.
BTW we do not have a stake AGLD to earn AGLD incentive, only staking Loot & mLoot. Just like any liquidity farms out there, people are staking useful assets in return for governance token. The success of Defi has that proven already.
Thanks for your feedback and it is great that we have critical participation from the community. Really appreciate it.
Still prepfer rewarding participants for minting activities of mloots instead of staking lotts/mloots. Minting will birng more users to the ecosystem, although with the price of inflation of ALGD, but acceptable, as it benefits for the logn term of ALGD. With more users or stake holders, the coin will have a higher chance of becoming the consensus coin for gaming. Staking reward is too little to incentivize new entrants.
Can you elaborate on how stuff can be built on AGLD? I thought we should encourage built on top of Loot and if AGLD proved to be a scarce resource it will align with greater loot community as an incentive currency.
1 Like
The loot project has got the attention of Coinbase!
Now we need to find a use case for AGLD…
1 Like
I like this proposal.
We agreed to open the AGLD vote at 11: 00 today.Why can’t the webpage be opened now?