Notes on transitioning to play-to-earn: Part 1 revenue sharing

Progress and updates
1

Hi Martians,

Following up on the decision that have been made by community in regard to adoption of a play-to-earn model with revenue sharing and ORE, I would like to present the plan that we will be adopting in the next three months.

*Disclaimer: this plan is not a product roadmap nor a fixed date commitment. We are looking to align this schedule with the presented roadmap for the next two months and will be updating community on the progress of this.

Motivation

To adopt the combined proposal, we decided to start from a revenue sharing model. As per our view, this will provide the most significant impact on token inflation and drive new users to newly build play-to-earn ecosystem.

Intuition

With the current passive income model, CLNY is earned passively by holding land and purchasing land upgrades (transport, base stations etc.). According to tokenomics, maximum amount of CLNY earned per day for a fully upgraded land plot is 14 tokens.

Out of this, 14 CLNY tokens passively earned per day, the following parts will be affected:

  • 2 CLNY earned from the base station and land plot itself will always remain passive income of the landowner, the so called UBI (universal basic income)
  • 12 CLNY tokens earned from fully upgraded power production, transport facilities and robot assembly line, those tokens will undergo a gradual transition from passive into active components.

Plan

Below is the transition schedule defined by the core team:

Phase When Transition event Details
Preparation June 2022 Revenue share feature launch Landowners should be able to select a revenue share that will be applied to all mission types.
Phase 1 June 2022 Decrypt mission launch Power plant building emissions will be stopped and will be fully transitioned to play-to-earn. CLNY previously earned, from owning power production, is to be allocated on each mission. Landowners will receive their share from explorers who go on missions on their land
Phase 2 July 2022 Amortization feature launch Amortization is added. Power plant and other facilities needs to be maintained for CLNY to enable missions.
Phase 3 July 2022 Mining missions launch Transport building emissions is stopped and fully transitioned to play to earn, similar to power plant’s model.
Phase 4 August 2022 Robot missions are launched Robot assembly building emissions is stopped and fully transitioned to play-to-earn.
Phase 5 to be defined Guest mode Allow small fraction of CLNY to be earned by guests (users with no avatars) for going on missions, where a Landowner will receive respective revenue-share as well. Rationale - stimulate new users joining game-fi (aka free trial experience).

Summary

We look forward to seeing this plan in action.

14 Likes
2

Hi @eugenefinch and thanks for the update!

Do I get it correctly that if there were no missions held by avatar on a certain plot, this plot won’t receive more than 2 CLNY per day (after all changes planned)?
If that is correct, that “not produced” CLNY is not generated at all, or goes into treasury, or burned? Anyway I find this as positive direction in reducing CLNY inflation and promoting interactions between landlords and avatars.

However, no matter if all CLNY is still collected by avatars or not that only changes redistribution, but doesn’t affect the core problem of not having reason to hold or, even better, spend CLNY by these “UBI” receivers. This leads to relentless CLNY price down and liquidity “drying out”.

The tokenomics is in need for “earn-to-spend” part too. The first dumb idea that comes to mind is to use “tactics” of typical “free” mobile games which uses internal currency for either visual (aesthetics) or QoL (reduced timeouts, more attempts etc.) improvements. This should finally trigger real deflation mechanics. How to motivate users to spend CLNY for this mostly impractical things is another serious matter of course.

4 Likes
3

I like this plan hopefully with some other futher startigies and game MC could find more stability and become stronger in the near future.

2 Likes
4

Hi Petr,

Right. 2 CLNY per day.

Earn-to-spend - agree on that. Like in any game, there should be spending on intangible items (e.g. skins, etc.) as well as QoLs. Will be adding that into roadmap.

1 Like
5

Hi @eugenefinch,

I’m happy to see that GameFi features are being focused on now. However, there are some things I would like to point out and share my thoughts on.

The hyperlink for “decision” takes you to the original core team proposal, not the combined proposal that ultimately won the final vote. That can be found here.

I’m not sure that this plan aligns with the revenue-sharing system that was in the combined proposal. For one, revenue sharing was not to be implemented until there were more mission rewards than XP only. And while the proposal didn’t specify what those other rewards ought to be, the expectation I think most of us had based on countless discussions was ORE or possibly even CLNY, the latter of which is not advisable to introduce as a reward without more use cases.

The ORE token comes with a clear understanding of future use cases (i.e. craftable items) that should incentivize players to value and hold it. The proposal also states “All missions receive ORE, but a miner doing mining missions will receive considerably more ORE”. I don’t necessarily agree with this completely, I think we can change it a little but I just wanted to bring it up as a reminder that the ORE token was meant to be the primary incentive for revenue sharing since eventually, players would be able to “refine” their ORE into its component parts and these materials would allow you to craft items in the game. If ORE can only be obtained from missions then landowners must play their own avatars (which is time-consuming) or they can share their revenue for a portion of another player’s ORE rewards.

It’s not clear what you mean by “emissions will be stopped and will be transitioned to play-to-earn”. I’m guessing what you mean is that the landowner will stop receiving CLNY generated from their extra buildings (besides the base station) and only receive CLNY when missions are performed on their land. Is this correct?

My interpretation of the proposal was that CLNY generation continues but a % becomes shared when another player performs missions on your land or there is simply a trade that occurs, for example, 30% of the avatar’s ORE rewards are traded for 30% of the landowners shared portion of CLNY generation. At any rate, the details of this need to be crystal clear.

Also, I think a lot of us were under the impression that revenue share would be optional but it doesn’t sound optional. And if it’s not, this constitutes a major shift from the original whitepaper where landowners expected (because they were told) that their revenue would increase with each upgrade. If this new feature is being forced on landowners instead of simply incentivizing them to opt into revenue share, this should be discussed and voted on by the community.

Finally, I’m not sure if “amortization” is the correct word? Its most commonly used as a finance term in reference to paying off debt. I’m not sure it’s applicable in this context.

Okay I know this is long already so I’ll end it here.

10 Likes
6

This idea basically takes the CLNY from those who invested hard in the past and bought to upgrade their lands, and puts those returns in the hands of the avatars. But because it continues to lack the most important thing: UTILITY they will just keep selling and the price will keep going down…
If you want to do this, at least give the Avatars the NEED to spend CLNY to maintain their suits or something, because I’m only seeing the Landowners getting rekt and no real fun utility for CLNY being added.
What really angers me, is that of so many good and well-structured ideas that the community has been giving you guys, this sh** is the best you can come up with after all this time and feedback? Damn, I don’t know if I should cry or laugh, it’s both sad and ridiculous.

8 Likes
7

We really need more clarification to understand the impact here … I could also interpret that the 2 colony per day per land with a base station is un touchable and the remaining 12 are to be shared …
Shared how what amount? and does that mean it will go to zero ?
Im assuming it will not go to zero … we paid for the upgrades - they were not free.
— This is a response above is what we need clarified … i do not want to assume the worst for sure

6 Likes
8

To be honest this is exactly what is needed in the short-term. Great work putting this together Eugene.

Mars Colony will only work if it heavily incentivises Play-to-Earn. The majority of landowners right now aren’t doing missions, so the overall CLNY output will drop dramatically once this launches. In time when more missions are available and CLNY utility is built into the game, this will only mean good things for the value of CLNY and success of Mars Colony.

My hope for the future is a shift towards ORE as mission rewards, or ORE and CLNY. Attitudes from Landowners will need to change, ultimately we all need to take an active role in playing this game. You can build all the utility you want into this game, but if we’re stuck with hundreds of landowners stacking CLNY for profit and not utilising it, this game won’t work. There needs to be a clear incentive for avatars to entice playing the game.

This proposal strikes the perfect balance between the relationship of Avatars and Landowners, both needing each other to profit. If Landowners cant do the missions themselves, they will rely on other Avatars doing those missions for additional CLNY.

A positive step in the right direction whilst we wait for more utility.

5 Likes
10

Yeah, I don’t want to assume the worst either. It is vaguely written so who knows. Maybe some stuff got lost in translation.

2 Likes
11

With all respect to your attention to details and work your focus group have done, the things have changed a lot since the time it was written. And when there is a fire in a house it’s not the time to stick to the plan.

I think @eugenefinch have best understanding, of what resources he have at his disposal and what can be done both realistically and in reasonable time. I would give the team full carte blanche atm, to fix situation as they see best. Literally “devs do something” moment. If breaking rules, previous decisions, whitepaper, whatever is necessary to fix the project, it should be done.

3 Likes
12

i agree with this @Rutherford … announcing to eliminate colony earnings from lands the next couple of months without a proper clear and detailed path forward for the game and missions is wrong. Thinking to allow guests with no lands or avatars to come and play and earn colonies that being taken away from lands is unacceptable. I’m afraid that this will add more to that fire that @Petr01 is talking about and we will see further dumbing of CLNY, lands and avatars. I respectfully do not agree with disregarding in such a way whatever the community has voted and agreed upon without proper justification… we are all experiencing the brutality of this market already and if the community is broken further the way forward will be very difficult and uncertain.

3 Likes
13

While I get how sometimes plans need to change in order to adapt to new circumstances, this is not one of those situations. The game is basically the same as it was when the proposals were voted on except for the addition of the current hacking missions and XP.

I don’t believe the combined proposal is unreasonable or unrealistic as a solution right now. Let me explain.

Many of you have read the proposal but most of you were not privy to the discussions about the logic behind it. For now I just want to talk about the ORE token, the thinking around it and why it should feature into the development plan for June-August.

The ORE token works on many levels. It is simple to develop so it can be implemented easily but the most important part is its functionality. The idea was to account for the following:

-A reward for missions that isn’t CLNY but is also very valuable
-Something that can be developed quickly
-Incentives for landowners to opt into revenue share through an interdependence between landowner and avatar (ORE can only be obtained via missions)
-Something that moves the game along in the short term and maintains player’s interest while the game continues to develop

If you don’t know, the ORE token is supposed to be an essential part of crafting items in the game (according to the proposal). It is not the ORE itself but the minerals inside of it that will be needed to craft items. Eventually, there is supposed to be a new building called a Mineral Refiner which is used to extract minerals from ORE. Each extraction will cost CLNY, not to mention the building itself will cost CLNY and can be upgraded with CLNY to increase the speed at which ORE is extracted. Crafting would not be exclusive to landowners either, non-landowners engaged in revenue share would simply pay a fee to the landowner in order to use the building that crafts the desired item.

Now I know I’m probably getting ahead of myself (I tend to do that) but I’m sure most of you are also wondering why the hell you’re even leveling up your avatars and so I also want to point out that in the proposal, blueprints are required to craft items. These blueprints are only unlocked after avatars reach certain levels and each profession unlocks its own set of blueprints and some items will require blueprints from multiple professions in order to unlock. This not only incentivizes leveling up but also encourages cooperation, making it more fun, and will inspire players to form guilds.

With all of this in mind and clearly expressed to the community, I had previously hoped this would be enough to motivate people to hold their tokens knowing the value they will have in the future. However, this idea rested on the confidence of the community in the team and their ability to deliver. Now that the faith of the community has been severely shaken, I don’t know that it will work that way but I still think its the best path forward. I’m open to alternative suggestions but the reality is if emissions are cut for a share of XP only, I don’t think we will recover.

And again, I just want to remind everyone that the combined proposal was supposed to drive development immediately upon winning the vote. If this had been the focus like we were told it would be, we would not be in this situation right now.

14 Likes
14

YES YES YES YES …!!! at the risk of being labeled a YESMAN LOL
i can live with some of the colony being shared from the landowner … 30% max maybe ? (and i am one at 48 lands alll 8 a day or higher and growing )

3 Likes
15

Yeah I don’t think it’s a good time to undermine the proposal. It’s the only thing left showing community input actually matters. Morale is already super low (like scary low). The team has an opportunity to show the community that not only are they being heard and that this is still in some respect a community-driven project but that they also have the humility and prudence to follow a good plan when they see one, even if they aren’t the brains behind it. Hopefully, it isn’t ego that destroys the legacy of MC in the end.

8 Likes
16

How interesting that you guys are giving very clear explanations of your concerns regarding what is being implemented in the game and none of the team members has come up with any reasonable explanation. It’s so easy to spot the elephant in the room but, seems like people (mostly devs) are ignoring it.

Earning passive CLNY shouldn’t be cut to zero like (I know we will have a basic income as landowners) but, sharing CLNY should be an optional thing like how we all voted in the first place. If the avatars wanna do missions on my land, they are welcome but I set the stage and the amount of CLNY I wanna share with avis. Hope that’s what’s happening and not vice versa.

Let’s stick to the plan. Devs, if you have a better explanation please, share with the community.

Forward.

4 Likes
17

Thanks for this additional info, that sounds pretty nice in terms of game progression logic. However I don’t see how current proposal conflict with further development, namely addidng the ORE as additional byproduct of missions. Still it’s much more in dev resources terms imo.

As for current proposal I see a lot of immediate positive effects for colony:

  1. First a significant reduction in income for “passive” landlords which probably spend 5 minutes a day to collect and dump CLNY for ONE.
  2. Second, most probably amount of avis for missions will be less than plots, a clear incenitive for landlord to do max upgrades on plot is there: the avis will work on most upgraded plot to get maximum reward (same for landlord).
  3. Another reason to upgrade is wearout (amortization) feature - assumint repair price is the same for any level, higher level will have a better spend/reward ratio.
  4. Guest mode (hope with “free avi” concept rather than no avatars at all) is crucial to attract new users, and landlords have incenitive to attract such new users, if they want their plots to work in full.

After that ORE concept can be introduced as well, nothing in these changes blocks it.

1 Like
18

It’s not that it conflicts with future development, it’s that it conflicts with both the whitepaper and the combined proposal. When the idea of reduced emissions was first proposed by the team one of the main reasons alternative proposals were created by the community was that it conflicted with the whitepaper and that it was only fair to have a vote before making any changes to the tokenomics. And again, in that combined proposal you will find the following:

If the current plan moves forward it is essentially stealing from landowners to give to new players. And without more CLNY use cases or a reason to hold it, this won’t help sell pressure at all. What are non-landowners gonna use that CLNY for? Moving the buildings they don’t have?

4 Likes