Those are short-term problems related to token price lag and immediate value depression not, long-term economic sustainability problems. Based on current tokenomics, mint supply will run out anywhere from 3-8 yrs after the birth of each colony. With only 144mil representing the max supply in that timeframe and assuming at least 40% burn with full mint in at latest 10yrs, again, you have a REALLY BAD long-term supply issue. It purely has to do with the nature of the tokenomics. The current clny framework is a great store of value but makes a horrible denominative currency for exchange in a large and evolving ecosystem. There are way better money supply frameworks for this, as the team understands somewhat in concept through their expressed vision for stable-coin lending. The current clny tokenomic framework is heavily deflationary in the long term, even if new releases and the mint process are relatively inflationary in the short term(though we have seen that is not really an issue for our price sustainability so far, even with little to no dev to back that price). Speculation and vision carry the entire project early on and that is how it should be. Individuals not understanding that if this project lasts 100 years, the most lucrative thing you could ever do in the ecosystem would be to accumulate clny, is something that is glaringly palpable and very concerning. It is like fishermen in the early 1900s thinking the abundance they experienced could never end and that overpopulation of fish and whales was an issue that needed dealing with(don’t know if it happened just a hypothetical)…again, just look at Bitcoin’s growth cycles and imagine a smaller supply, a shorter time frame to full mint and WAY more deflation
Ok .I like this idea the most.
I try to vote but it doesn’t work
I like this idea, my vote is YES (but I can’t vote)
The long-term goal is to merge CLNY tokens between all Colonies. It’s like a union between all colonies. It will allow having multichain, multiplanet liquidity currency. But at the same time, every Colony will have autonomy in deciding product features and priorities (imagine USA or EU economic structures)
So in the long term economhy of these colonies should be merged, but the decision of merging should be made by the governance of each colony.
Thats one of the best opportunities of MarsColony, the colony can set up own priority.
Since you are extrapolating one extreme, would you rather pay 0.005$ for a candy bar or 6599$? Rhetorical question, but shows that the numerical digit assigned is not of critical important to the value. Our modern brain acclimatizes quickly and arrives at the rational value much quicker these days.
But I do partially agree with
Maybe instead of burning it, its sent into purgatory. Like a heat exchanger. Erasing an entity in its entirety again is not sustainable in the long run. I’m yet to see the grand scale of economics in it’s full glory, though I’m learning and hope to get there.
Spend a little time, look around read and learn, then you too will be able to vote.
After 10 years the growth will slow down. Your explanation is right there. But that is alright. Growth and development will slow down, case in point see the difference between 1st world and 2nd world countries.
The slowdown is not the long term worry. The systemic view that growth should in the least happen at the same break neck speed and ideally the growth rate should constantly be increasing; is what is unsustainable.
Case in point, The current environmental issues we are dealing with. The world economy is unstable, bubbles burst, recessions loom.
It is not about having a limit on growth, but the philosophy of unrelenting constant growth that could be a problem. If you look at new schools of thought in the Environmental domain, there is a new concept called ‘De-growth’ that is gaining traction and attention from the scientific community.
Also considering each new Mars system (on new chains) will lead to a CLNY injection into the economy, the extreme levels of deflation that you highlight has a relatively small probability of occurring. Unless a certain Mars chain colony community opts not to be part of the multichain liquidity pool.
Would love to know your thoughts on my comments.
um. I’m voting for 3A please
I can’t vote, but I would vote this proposal if I could.
I strongly am in favor of keeping just CLNY token. Plus, the other proposals doesn’t have the whole vision the team seems to have in mind.
Hey folks, how do I vote here? I am currently unable to cast a vote on either of the proposals.
Seems like I’m unable to vote as I do not have the required trust level.
Yep it’s not the whole vision, the proposal is about the particular case and releasing P2E module.
Hey guys, looks like only users with trust level 1 can vote. To get the trust level is quite easy to be active on the forum. Share ideas and opinions about everything you find important.
Fortunately, you will be able to vote on-chain soon
interesting thought ? … sending it to purgatory could it be revived ? and if so what would be the reasons to and not to >?
It can be resurrected . Like Jesus on Easter.
“The Law of Conservation of Mass”
Reason is having a limited resource being burnt may be counter productive. There is only an out, not an in. Even purgatory might not suffice. For growth (slow or fast) we need a continuous stream of resource (or value entity).
Thinking about it now, maybe a CLNY mining model would be more sustainable. No hard cap on total supply (applies for CLNY or any other secondary token), but a control on generation. The Ethereum model is a good parallel.
Is there any concern that new players without land would be turned off by the fact that they’re trying to earn a token that landowners are getting passively? They also end up sharing other rewards such as resources and if resources aren’t a vehicle for profit in a p2e game what is the incentive for players to spend CLNY in the game? And what is the incentive for landowners to sacrifice their CLNY emissions and employ other people’s avatars for a percentage of rewards if there’s no clear benefit?
This is the current economic system. Large owners generate passive income without participation from workers/players who cannot own property themselves due to high cost. ‘Owning’ a land/property/home is goal in life and thereby propels the workers to be productive. This system seemingly works.
But what if there is no passive/non-participative rewards. What if it requires at least a certain amount of work, involvement and connection.
- Land prices fall as large owners looking for passive income exit.
- Floor gets swept by active players who are taking part in the world.
- Massive incentive to new players to join in and existing players to stay on.
- Old players who now have made enough money, no longer want to be active can exit. Land floor drops, to be picked up by players wanting to become owners but unable to afford.
- Cycle continues. Newer players have a timeline to achieve a land from their work which is the reward at the end of it. Older players who have made enough move away, else they stay putting in the hard work and participation to earn.
The above hypothesis is based on having a functional gameplay and earning mechanism from land as well as quests. It leverages upon new players/workers/participants wanting to come in but unable to due to lower ROI on their work. This parallels the existing social world where we have a new batch of working class citizens every year, looking for opportunities.
Active income is the driving force. Not wealth. Work, be involved is the only requirement.
Current land owners and initial investors are going to order a hit on me
I appreciate the line of thinking here. I would be open to discussing something like this further as I do believe its too good to be true that you can just earn forever by just buying in early and never having to participate in the game. I am willing to have to “play” to earn my colony token in some fashion. Also, if land owners feel this is too harsh maybe we could keep things the same pretty much but add a “moon” with land plots or something like this where the only way to own a plot is by playing the game extensively. I am not a tokenomics expert so I am not sure how that could be handled. In retrospect it may have been a cool idea to keep 5,000 plots unsold and could only be had by playing the game in whatever way the devs set that up. Maybe something could be done with the upcoming Polygon expansion? It is def worth putting yourself in the shoes of a new Mars Colony user who wants to play the game and feel like they get to work towards ownership of something.
I like the idea of a moon and reserving plots only for players. But it will always be possible for players to own a plot. They are available now on the secondmarkets on nftkey.app, tofuNFT and will be also on our own MC nftmarketplace in the near future.
I think the game transactions and missions will be highly profitable over time and plot distribution will eventually spread onto new players aswell.
Having a moon with additional rewards since it leans towards active players might mean most playing folks are going to be on the moon. Interesting idea though, to achieve it without disturbing present status quo. Also interesting would be to see if on other chains you have vastly different reward mechanisms. For example if polygon is the land of opportunities than I would immigrate there from harmony.
@ImpactFrames You are right that anyone can buy land. If you take a parallel in real life, that holds good as well. But eventually its going to be land owners not playing/participating but getting rewards. Though I might seem socialistic or communist or even anti-capitalist, but I’m most definitely not. Active workers/players who might be getting the shorter end of the stick. Early investors and smart buyers right now should be rewarded, no doubt about that.
Just feel we are going in a loop, the same economic systems on earth are being replicated on mars. Practical rationality points to the fact that there is no ‘passive income’, earning without working doesn’t occur in non-human systems (except for in exceptional cases). All food for thought though. MarsColony is a thought experiment for me, a study in what could be different.