As the next step, I would like to propose the following plan
1. Organize on-chain voting before June 11
Arrange on-chain voting where the community will vote on a fixed Mainnet launch date idea or a flexible one. Users who have poly-plot lands will be eligible to vote. (one poly-plot = one vote)
2. Depending on the option community choose, follow the following plan
if the option #1 is selected [Fixed launch date]
a. Mainnent launch date: Set the Mainnet launch on June 16, 2:00 PM UTC. At the same time, start passive CLNY emissions according to new tokenomics and allow NFTs to be transferred and sold on the secondary market. Use proceeds from IDO to add pCLNY liquidity and allow users to trade tokens.
b. Landowner rewards Landowners who claimed NFTs early will benefit from increased token rewards according to the new tokenomics model.
c. Play-to-earn launch. Play-to-earn launch which will include missions, avatars, and revenue share split of profits between landlord and avatar owner (explorer) 30 days after the Mainnet launch.
d. Polygon pre-mint Start a pre-mint campaign right after community voting, allowing WL users, early adopters, and guilds to claim land before the main net launch.
If the options #2 will be selected (flexible launch date)
Follow the same steps as in option #1, however set the Mainnet launch date as flexible and only launch Polygon when all 100% of poly-plot NFTs will be claimed.
Stop spending money on liquidity! Please. It just lets people dump on the project. It has no upside this early in the project. Start pCLNY emissions but without a large liquidity pool. Wasting money on liquidity is just opening the door to let people bleed the project out. If new investors want to buy in, they can buy plots and enjoy the high early emissions. If there’s no official liquidity and people want to create it on their own, they can do that and people can accept whatever price impact they want, but that also means selling is less lucrative, people have much less incentive to sell and much more incentive to stack and upgrade.
I think @Shwaver arguments make sense, no point in burning money, simply because bad players will be always dumping if they don’t contribute their own money to the liquidity. Basically, if you put your own funds into a liquidity pool you will not dry it up. It makes sense.
We planned to set up initial liquidity with the funds that come from IDO. I think we should do it as planned, so it will be the initial liquidity.
@Shwaver what do you think is the best solution for pCLNY liquidity in early-stage and later on?
With 8,000 USD liquidity, will the initial price of the token remains at 0.67 USD as stated in the IDO? If it is going to be lower than 0.67 USD, I think it is better to refund the IDO so that we can buy at the token launch or provide the amount of tokens based on the revise price (if initial price is going to change).
I would strongly discourage creating official liquidity as you have planned. Yes, you do need to start emitting pCLNY or create other incentives for people to want to buy those plots. You also need to create strong mechanisms to control that pCLNY because it’s 100% guaranteed people see how low the price on Harmony has gone and there is no reason the Polygon version should be higher. Without strong controls, even without a big supply of wasted liquidity from the IDO, you are triggering a race to dump.
Adding project liquidity at all opens that door much wider, but artificially propping up the price of pCLNY even higher to the rate you set for the Polygon IDO will accelerate that race to dump by 100x. You’re literally rewarding the algos and bots that can dump on you the fastest, causing massive bleeding in your token value and further punishing your most loyal investors and supporters who bought in early.
So what should you do?
Under no circumstances should you throw open the door by adding liquidity “as planned.” This would rip the stitches off of the project’s coronary artery.
Move forward with the vote on timing for pCLNY emissions but make clear that the team is prioritizing adding utility for that token, that there will be no liquidity created, that buyers will be able to upgrade their plots as they have on Harmony but that there will be some differences due to the different climate on the planet.
Slash base emissions BUT allow people to reach the same emissions they get now by doing things that absorb a LOT more pCLNY. For example, for voluntarily locking pCLNY into their buildings, e.g. plot holders can 2x emissions from those buildings by locking 100 pCLNY, 4x emissions by locking 1,000 (maybe this is the current baseline?) and 10x by locking 10,000. These locked amounts can be removed anytime but the emissions levels drop back to the previous level. The lore on this is easy enough to write.
Here’s another idea: I think you’ve talked about doing things like collaborative missions, why not create an all-game mission that requires 10 million pCLNY to power a planet-wide upgrade and if individual wallets hit certain contribution tiers they’ll get a higher quality batches of RNG NFTs once that total is reached AND they start receiving 1% of that contribution back every day once that’s hit. That buys you 100 days PLUS the time it takes for the community to hit that target AND all you have to do is keep developing the NFTs you’re already working on. The people who participate in this early push are rewarded with free NFTs (not really, they provided a lot of liquidity) and you buy a ton of time for the team to work, something for the community to rally around, etc. A mega mission if you like.
Work on new mechanisms that will add utility and control token supply. Your MATIC profits just from the Polygon sale should be around $400K USD–more than enough to hire a dedicated dev just for building specific utility into the token. I’m sure this community can brainstorm even more options but there are plenty of similar projects doing a great job with this already that could also provide inspiration/field-tested ideas.
Bottom line: don’t kill your own project by throwing open the doors to token dumpers. Build your token value up by strongly incentivizing buying, holding, re-investing, locking, etc. and never make it easier or more profitable than it needs to be to sell.
Unless Polygon has different minting logic with predefined max minting limits.
So basically you suggest that NFT landlords should set up initial liquidity, right? It makes sense from the point of view that if you set up an initial liquidity lease likely you will want to dump it.
Regarding locking tokens. Personally, I think lockups don’t change much. If you check economic lockup on most the crypto projects you will see that it is just a delayed bomb I also think that people who believe in our vision will use this bear market to accumulate tokens, and people who don’t will just leave.
Yep, we do keep brainstorming about it. Right now the whole team is on improving CLNY utilization. We heard the feedback as we discussed previously. Launching Polygon Colony isn’t changing our priority on the CLNY utilization.
Thank you for your contribution to this. Ofcourse we will keep building. At the same time, you should understand that dumpers always will be around. So it’s something we should accept and just move on.
Thanks for summarizing it, I think we are less on the same page