Community Proposal: Token2

Step 1: Secondary token #1

Multiple secondary/resource tokens can be introduced, but while gameplay is early in development, we propose introducing one new token as a reward for missions. While it remains unnamed, we’ll call it TOKEN2.

TOKEN2 will be the reward for completing missions. It will be speculative to hold at first, but with the promise of step 2 utility, there will be strong incentive to hold.

To create a market for CLNY with the token, however, the core team will mint a set amount of TOKEN2 and provide both that token and CLNY from the treasury to a liquidity pool. The core team maintaining a stable price for TOKEN2 is important, because it reduces sell pressure variability based on market pumps and dumps.

Avatars will share a portion of TOKEN2 mission rewards with the landowners whose land they play on.

Step 2: Secondary token utility

The next step is to create utility in-game for TOKEN2. Upgrades, items, and other such game features can cost a mix of both CLNY and TOKEN2, so both are needed. We can also introduce XP boosters and other consumables to create use cases for both tokens.

Step 3: Replace liquidity with fees, transition to stablecoin

Once transactions are happening in the DEX and in-game, fees from those transactions can replace the treasury liquidity for the CLNY<>TOKEN2 pair. TOKEN2 could then evolve into a stablecoin by maintaining a set amount of liquidity from fees in the pool, and minting/burning Token2 to keep up with demand.

There are more complex features that can be built around this model, and more tokens for other uses can be introduced in the future, like with other GameFi projects. If there is a source for rewards, users can eventually provide single-sided liquidity for TOKEN2 if needed.

Informal Poll

Do you support this idea? Vote yes or no, then add your thoughts in reply to this post!

Be kind and constructive, this was a proposal created by community members of their own interest and goodwill.

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters


I really do appreciate the time spent considering and writing this up, so thank you to the focus group for your time and energy.

However, from my stance, I personally cannot vote “Yes” on introducing a new token just on the “the promise of step 2 utility,” which is quoted below:

I personally need to see these suggestions more fleshed out. There can be some great ideas there, but it is hard for me to imagine this implementation. What kinds of upgrades, items, and game features will cost CLNY and TOKEN2? How does using CLNY + TOKEN2 benefit the user and the economy compared to just using CLNY for “upgrades, items, and game features?”

From my reading and understanding – which could definitely be misaligned with the intent of the writer(s) – I get the sense that the proposal is attempting to justify introducing a new token. This, I believe, is not the approach we should take; it’s backwards because it is searching for the need to introduce a token – and not identifying an existing need and introducing a new token to solve it. I don’t want to sound harsh or too critical, but this is my understanding based on everything in the proposal. Feel free to clarify anything. :slight_smile:

Thank you again for writing this up and presenting it to the community. It takes guts and initiative to do that, so kudos to you all!

Forward :grin:


I think you may me misunderstanding what he meant by some features using both tokens. What he is referring to is cross-utility and cross-incentivizing…as in imagine if lands had a parallel upgrade path to the one they have currently but it required Token2 to upgrade instead of CLNY. Land will then be able to upgrade in different ways using either token and imagine the reverse for avatars. Intertwining use cases strengthens and reinforces both tokens as well as making them more codependent…not to mention more burn/buy potential. This is what was meant by some features using both tokens.

1 Like

This proposal seems like ORE but without the clarity of purpose. Big no from me.

Yeah, I recognized I may be misunderstanding from the get-go. That’s one of the primary reasons why I cannot vote “Yes.” It feels like this proposal is a great start – but it needs to be fleshed out more to be more convincing. Others may definitely differ with me, but I need that Step 2 section expanded with more concrete information and examples of the “cross-utility” and “cross-incentivizing” that you mention. I can vaguely imagine what you wrote – about the parallel upgrade paths – but this isn’t clear to me in the proposal; the closest we get to your parallel upgrade paths is in the quote below:

That’s a pretty high-level, generic statement, and it leaves me with more questions than answers. After reading again, I still get the sense – based on the delivery of the writing – that the proposal is looking for a way to justify a second token instead of presenting how a second token fills an existing need.

I’m not completely opposed to this idea, and I definitely appreciate it, but I need more depth. I’ll give this proposal another good, slow, thorough read after work tonight, and I’ll update my vote (and response) accordingly.

I appreciate your response, though! :grin: :+1:


“To create a market for CLNY with the token, however, the core team will mint a set amount of TOKEN2 and provide both that token and CLNY from the treasury to a liquidity pool. The core team maintaining a stable price for TOKEN2 is important, because it reduces sell pressure variability based on market pumps and dumps.”

So lemme get this straight…you want the team to keep pulling from the treasury to maintain the dips of people selling of the second coin? that is probably the fastest way to drive this into the ground. Thats terrible.


Agree! This is the worst proposal of them all.

1 Like

Am I missing something or are you saying that the beginnings of a stable-coin as the in-game token is a bad idea even though MC plans to do a stablecoin?

There is no existing need for currency denomination in a p2e ecosystem that doesn’t exist so needing to fulfill an existing need other than speculation is not necessary at this moment(just as clny is speculative). I’m not sure how everyone doesn’t get that denominating p2e earnings in another token and making it perfectly integrated/interchangeable with clny is the only way the p2e ecosystem will even grow in the long run. No one is going to spend clny in three years. Your entire economy will come to a grinding halt as everyone hodls the cr*p out of an ever-diminishing, tiny supply of currency that is way more profitable to hold than use. There is a clear lack of understanding here of the long-term economic implications of monetary policy. CLNY is a great store of value and a horrible denominative currency for transactive/communicative use and it will only get worse. There is no other way to put it.


Well, you provide a pretty interesting argument. Your premise – that there will be an “ever-diminishing, tiny supply of [CLNY] that will be way more profitable to hold than use,” causing the entire economy to come to a grinding halt – should be in the proposal. That never even crossed my mind while reading the proposal. I’d be very interested and curious to read a revision of this proposal that centers on your premise and describes how this two-token approach is a solution to this economic challenge that the project could potentially face.

I’m going to reflect on this. Thanks for sharing!

How much is a gallon of gas in bitcoin? How much is a gallon of milk? How many decimal places down do you have to go to figure the difference? Why would you pay for groceries in bitcoin if it’s almost guaranteed to go to $1mil/token(comparing to clny burn). Why would you not just hoard bitcoin and use none of it our deflationary tokenomics will carry your returns? If we’re still minting in three years, there will be no aspect of participation in the economy that comes close to the returns of just hodling ur clny. You can find very similar information about this problem for Bitcoin adoption as a currency. It won’t happen because no one spends it, they hodl it(and it has nothing on our clny’s deflationary tokenomics). It’s too good a store of value.


Disclaimer: I’m an environmentalist, not an economist. But lately have spent time researching on the complex relationship and dependent dynamics of the environment, ecology, and economy.

Inter-nation / Inter-verse Reserve Currency.

One single global reserve currency is not a new concept. First proposed and created in 1969 by the International Monetary Fund. The value is based on and pegged with US dollar, Euro, Chinese Yuan, Japanese Yen, and the British Pound. It’s called special drawing rights (SDRS). Also, technically the US dollar is pretty much the single global currency, pretty much all of crypto stable coins are pegged at that!

Expanding on the concept of SDRs; O-CLNY (Harmony), M-CLNY (Matic), A-CLNY (AVAX) can be the on-chain currency for each version of mars. The ONLY operational token each with its ≈144 million supply.

MarsMint (eg.) can be the cross-chain currency that links all the other versions of CLNY in the metaverse. De-linking each entity, yet threading through the individual economies always in a constant state of balance. It doesn’t need to evolve into becoming a stable coin, that could lead to even more convoluted intricacies in effective implementation.

Thinking ahead (and abstractly) This new token becomes the ‘stable coin’ of the metaverse embracing the famous phrase: 1 MarsMint = 1 MarsMint. Sometime in the galactic future, maybe USD will be pegged to Mars! The ultimate flip.

CLNY needs to keep all its value and utility, a new operational token will dilute the system, muddy the waters by adding in additionally complexity parameters and dynamics. Let’s stick with CLNY as the single operational token but I’m in support of the idea of a stable coin. Leveraging on this we can have a MARS STABLE COIN for inter chain transfers, supporting a struggling neighbor economy through monetary lending, trade, Cross chain Dao voting strength (the contribution to stable coin gives more voting weight) and more uses.

We could use the community fund to get a part-time economist on board! Unless there is one in the team already with that skillset. Economics is complex enough to make me dream about it at night, unpleasant dreams. But then I’m not an economist.


Long term sustainability I support wholeheartedly. But is something profitable if it’s not used. One school of thought says there can’t be a limit on supply (which is why I love the ETH concept) but inflation and deflation should be controlled through government/policy action.
This works in the current system I suppose where a resource can not be limited.

But what if there is a limited supply. The first token of currency was gold. Something of limited supply. It is controlled through ecological factors being a limited resource. The resource doesn’t diminish, only the value increases. So we need to spend lesser of it to gain more. ‘Number’ as such is an abstract point of reference, the value is what defines the true worth. If you buy a plot with 10 CLNY or 0.001 CLNY, does it limit the value or the utility of CLNY in any way?

Again, please look up the difficulties surrounding Bitcoin adoption as currency. Whole number value denomination of the majority of goods and services in an economy(for ease of communication) and slight inflation of supply(for accommodation of innovation and population growth) are important long-term necessities for managing growth using monetary policy. You make my point with gold in that it is similar to clny because it is not/should not be currency, it is a value peg even though it has been currency in the past before we realized that was a bad idea.

Edit: I wanted to address that in general deflation encourages deferred consumption due to your currency being worth more the longer you wait. The more deflationary, the further out you shift a persons consumption time preference and thus the more you slow growth.

1 Like

how can i level up and vote

1 Like

What is the difference between ORE and TOKEN2?

Token2 is purely a currency, ORE is representative of in-game resources, not a currency.


No for me since it’s less detail than ore proposal

I agree. Consumption is the keyword here. But slow growth is not the focus, sustainable growth is. Gold was not a bad idea, but it was slow. Imagine lugging gold 1 ton of gold to pay for the tallest skyscraper or a war. Not too come across as negative, but quick accelerated growth model has been proved to be unsustainable. Look at the environment as an example. Economics is a driving factor and resources have always been the limiting parameter.
Honestly, I’m curious to see how this plays out. Theory and practicality in the current system do not see eye to eye. Conscious sustainable growth has never been the highlight of human race in the past few hundred years. We are in a hurry to get somewhere… right now it is mars.