Right now it seems the emissions are only stated up to epoch 59 , if they were further halved at that point in addition to some of the measures you are proposing + other things that would be in place by then (duels, other pet hatchings, crystal quests which would burn the jewel gas etc) what is your opinion on the balance at that point from tokenomics pov?
I duno, I just donât get it I guess. I feel like the devs know what theyâre doing, they have plans to curb inflation going forward but halting emissions isnât it. Crystalvale was a massive inflation add and got released at just the start of the bear market, thatâs an issue but we canât take it back. That happened. Itâs time to look forward and theyâre looking at incentivizing holding out on unlocking locked Jewel and ways to incentivize reinvesting in the game. Theyâre already doing things like youâre proposing.
Things also need to have time to play out. I get that it feels bad to see an investment goes down but I really donât think the tokenomics are at fault for the massive loss in value.
I mainly accredit the fall to massive speculation, timing of bear market starting + CV release and stopping of incentivizing the holders in the Serendale banks. The massive airdrops they were doing early on for the game for Jewel whales in the Bank was also massive increasing the amount of speculative money in the game. When the bear market came + they stopped doing airdrops + emissions going down and the price started going down the flood gates opened and an exit doesnât fit everyone.
That all is history now, it happened. Theyâve sold already, I donât think changing the tokenomics NOW does anything. I believe the game will grow and be great going forward and I also believe it wonât go down as much as it has, it was everyone running for the exit at the same time. I believe from now on we will have much better price action.
I donât agree here. There are many obvious indicators that our ecosystem within the game is imbalanced. It is not a knock on the dev team, at all. This stuff is hard.
When BTC is flat, there is little price action, generally, across most of the major assets. This is particularly true for the LPs that help dictate the price of JEWEL. With those assets remaining flat, due in large part to BTC being flat, the price of JEWEL falls at a pretty steady percentage. This is due to LP rewards. The LP rewards are a major source of revenue and participation for many players in the game. Simply removing the rewards in and of itself is a terrible idea. That would all but halt the game. Liquidity is important.
I donât agree that the fall is due to speculation and bear market+ CV release. We saw a pump when CV was released, but the price chart for JEWEL is clear: the emission are not balanced by what the economy can consume. The AMMâs that control the LPâs effectively dictate the price of JEWEL - LP prices, particularly JEWELâs track a conservation function defined by the AMMâs that govern the LPs themselves. There is no room for interpretation there - the price of JEWEL tracks along a given curve and the only way for the price to move the way is has is:
- Overall depreciation of assets
- Imbalances in the LPs
When the assets are not depreciating, as has been the case during this version of a crab market the last couple months, we have seen massive JEWEL drops that far outpace any market movements. Likewise, upward market moves have resulted and will continue to result in more tepid JEWEL moves. It is clear that there is more JEWEL in the ecosystem than is sustainable and this needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed as a whole system solution, not just turning one knob.
Each day we see 2-4% price decreases. The game itself needs to have suitable recursion (spending kept in game), JEWEL sinks (JEWEL uses aside from selling) and still maintain the identity of the game as a P2E.
With the JEWEL unlocks coming and with the expectation of continued price drops the decisions trees are short and simple: You should sell your JEWEL since itâs likely to be worth less later than it is now.
Hopium is incompatible here. You cannot believe or trust things into existence. There is no wave of 100,000 (made up number) active users entering the game all at once. Those users will arrive when DFK (which it should) demonstrates superior tokenomics on top of its stellar gameplay and deep storylines/balancing it already has.
1 Like
It becomes very hard around then, in my opinion. DFKâs value proposition is that you can play a fun and engaging game while making money. There has been A LOT of JEWEL emitted in an imbalanced manner that will take time to consume. With APRâs dropping to decreasing emissions there are only two possible outcomes:
- LP holders remove their positions and look to find better yields elsewhere
- LP holders have a reason to keep their holdings in DFK
With an imbalanced economy, a deteriorating price of JEWEL (no sinks) and uncertainty at the overall cryptocurrency market level this is a bad situation to be in. If my reward token, as an LP holder, continues to drop in value and I use DFK as a passive income stream as most large farmers do, Iâll need to sell more and more (versus holding and hoping) to keep a revenue stream. If the rewards are reduced, what incentive remains to keep that liquidity in DFK? We need liquidity - this is a P2E game. E=Earnings=there will always be selling. Imbalanced selling is why we are here, and it is a problem plaguing most GameFi situations right now. Burning is not a viable option until the ecosystem is balanced. The captured fees/JEWEL has considerably more value re-deployed into the ecosystem rather than burned at this time.
Selling is not bad. Knowing exit liquidity exists is essential - users need to feel unencumbered with regards to entering or exiting the game. However, for DFK to be more than just a farm, the gameplay needs to outpace (and handily) the rewards provided by the LP farms. Different rewards can be provided to LP farmers that have in-game value. JEWEL can be made scarce (this is a hypothetical situation and one that needs much thought as to how it would/could/should be implemented) by issuing varying LP farm rewards as items for in-game use. Farms can issue rare or common items that can be sold to in-game users for JEWEL through a marketplace.
This adds a buffering layer between JEWEL sells. It is not the total number of sells (somewhat) that is the problem. Itâs the rate of selling we need to address through ecosystem changes first. If in this item farming scenario, for example, there were farms that offer rarer items or boosted rewards (etc.) - there is a built in-incentive to re-deploy any acquired JEWEL rather than selling. Quests can be structured to require certain items only obtainable from farmers. This creates a buy-use relationship between players and farmers. Parts of the game can require farmed items. For game players there is now a major dual incentive to NOT sell rewards in a case like this - you need certain items, you can get them from farms.
The above is not a proposal for a solution, but again, one of the many types of things that exist when pairing gameplay and use with the economics of how the buy/sell decisions within the game work.
1 Like
Part of my proposal involves Coordinating with the DFK Tokenomics team with our implementation of PVE content starting with Dungeon Content.
Would you be willing to work with my team to advise as an Economic/Tokenomics Dev?
Please DM on Discord for more specific information if interested.
Bless#9326
V/R
Iâd be happy to learn more about what your proposal entails to see how I can help.
1 Like
Feel free to DM me anytime, I am available now to discuss.
The emissions obviously have an effect on the price as it should. I disagree in that itâs as impactful as you say it is. Itâs very noticeable in an already bearish market and drives the sentiment down when things are as they now are. I still donât believe the majority of the price drop comes from the tokenomics though.
Weâve had the supply increase with far less than what has been sold. Iâm not saying youâre wrong in that it has a negative effect on the price, I just think itâs not only tokenomics fault weâre down 99%. I also think that changing the tokenomics can have a positive effect but also a negative one in the sentiment and trust for the devs. Changing a public contract like that can have a hugely negative effect on the sentiment from the community.
I think keeping the tokenomics like they are now and incentivizing people to not dump more in the future is a better way than changing the devs - holder contract in the emission schedule / Jewels. Adding to it is a much better way to go than removing emissions imo.
Iâll take a stub on this as I donât want @Master_of_Coin_CB to appear that heâs arguing this on himself.
I just think itâs not only tokenomics fault weâre down 99%
That is correct, and that is not what MoC has claimed. weâre down 99% due to mostly external conditions.
Changing a public contract like that can have a hugely negative effect on the sentiment from the community.
Showing inability to react and adapt can have an equally huge negative effect on the sentiment as that would render DFKâs leadership incapable of ⌠leading. Especially considering weâre not a DAO, so the responsibility lies entirely with the leadership of DFK.
And to add to that, the reality and whole point of this topic, is that should leadership not take action now to course correct, one way or the other, we are mathematically heading towards a crash. These are not assumptions, opinions or estimations, these are the numbers speaking as MoC has very well laid out.
To this point, I have only seen sentimental responds to MoCâs arguments.
I think keeping the tokenomics like they are now and incentivizing people to not dump more in the future is a better way than changing the devs
Letâs break this apart a bit.
So what you are claiming here, is that Jewel, trickles down because people are dumping. And the solution to that, is to incentivise people to not dump.
I wonât argue against what you are saying, because it is true. Some people are dumping. They are selling their positions of Jewel and moving on.
This however, happens while Jewel has high emissions, which combined with the fact that people are dumbing, means, that there is no market to absorb Jewelâs inflation.
So, we have now established that you are both right.
Letâs see within this model weâre now dealing with, what it means to incentivise players to not dump. Suppose you achieve that goal (questionable on itself whether another raffle for Land or Gen0s will be enough) - and there is no more dumping.
Question we need to consider: Who will buy the emissions?
If Total circulation of Jewel is 100 and the mcap is $50 - we have a price of $0.5 for jewel.
NOBODY sells, emissions keep going, couple weeks come to pass⌠Jewel circulation is now 120 and mcap is $50 - price is now $0.41.
Now enter Jewel Unlock, come SeptemberâŚ
I wonât draw that picture, Iâll leave it to your imagination.
2 Likes
This is a brilliant proposal & I agree whole heartedly with everything in it. A reduction of pool emissions needs to happen. This is clearly why the price of Jewel & Crystal keeps on falling disproportionately to other cryptocurrencies. This review needs to happen immediately, otherwise itâs going to be game, set & match very quickly.
1 Like
Thank you for taking your time do develop this proposal. We really need to do something about the tokenomics, people are just selling everything out of the plataform and Iâm afraid that we will not survive this bear market.
So letâs cross our fingers and hope Devs will do something to address this situation.
1 Like
I am still hoping to get a meeting with the team. I understand that the team is busy, but I am unsure how to move forward.
I reached out on 6/3 and have received sparse communication regarding setting up a meeting.
If the team is not interested in what I have to offer I would prefer to be informed of this rather than waiting. Iâve deferred some other project work in hopes of working with the DFK team and community.
3 Likes
I hope a meeting can be set up for you to express your ideas. Sunbear did say in his announcement thread they were trying to get everything looked at by the end of this week so hopefully that happens. As the market calms down from the volatility, hope all the grants with potential can get going and we can further dfk
1 Like
Now that the feedback site is up, perhaps your proposal/ idea on there would give it more eyeballs and a chance for those who think its important to upvote it
edit: bless seems to already have done that for you, good looking out
2 Likes
Letâs also make sure to use the talk site where the community can engage with it and vote it up to potentially give it more traction. talk.defikingdoms.com
I have also resent this thread to the tokenomics committee.
1 Like
Hi Sunbear, are you referring to the rapidr site to vote it up? This got posted there then taken down by bolon who said to not post it there. That type of miscommunication and the amount of time itâs taken for the team to get back to these proposals is where some of the frustration lies with the community at the moment. We all just want to do our part to pitch in and help but itâs been extremely hard to be heard out
1 Like
@Master_of_Coin_CB / @JinTheMage And I are hoping to continue talks with Kingdom Studio to help bring positive change to the DFK Economy from a avid user perspective.
Hope to get in another meeting with @SunBear this coming week.
1 Like
It seems to me that a suggestion or recommendation for tokenomic changes does belong there (talk.defikingdoms.com). I will reach out to Bolon to see what his thoughts are. Maybe we need to coordinate on format? Not sure. But I do know that suggestions for the game or or Kingdom Studios are not build initiatives and so they arenât for the build site. Thanks!
A recent article on gaming economics.
Tokenomics
- This is not just for gaming, but basically any protocol in crypto now needs to find out how they will be a net profitable business (incl token emissions).
- The most sustainable way to do this in gaming is to have in-game purchases done in stables or ETH, while all project revenue is distributed back to token stakers
- With some room for mild token inflation in the beginning to encourage game usage + retention
This should be highly relevant to dfk and I hope the tokenomics committee and master of coin can come up with creative and better ways to transform dfk from a token farm to something with a more robust in game economy
I think this thread and my proposal(s) have been sent via you, here, etc. every which way the team can receive them. If the team hasnât cared about this topic/proposal until now, do you feel that it would be a good use of time and effort to submit this on yet another site/avenue?