Discussion: Change All Concords to Have Voting Power of 2

Currently most concords have 1 vote with two outliers:

Flame of the 21 - 3 Votes
Her Ember - 2 Votes

There are a few reasons I think this could be a positive change:

  • Concords are distributed to people who are most engaged with the project
  • Often they replace a burned WAGDIE
  • Upcoming events are likely to burn many more WAGDIE
  • There are significantly less Concords than WAGDIE

Based on these beliefs I think every concord should have a higher weight than a normal WAGDIE.

2x voting power vs WAGDIE shouldn’t mean Concords are over powered vs traditional wagdie but rewards our most engaged users with a larger say in proposals.



I can get behind this.

I think there should be 2 as base (for sacrifice) but more limited ones should have more. And some should still remain 1 as they offer other rewards.

Flame of 21 should be 2-3x the base, same with Her Ember as they are early adopters and sacrificed without guarantee of reward.

Obsidian Blade, Jester’s Dice, Wand, and Fools cap are very limited items should have more weight than standard ones.

Fools cap was early adopter burned before Tokens of Concord existed and rewards were known.

Her Ash is also early adopters before rewards known… maybe should be worth more. First to sacrifice.

I think some tokens of concord can still be weighted for 1. Field Notes, Crows talon, Artificer Crystals… these weren’t for sacrifice and already hold high value/prestige and offer exclusive access to Guilds.

Bones worth 2. Glutton Soup worth 1, as its more rare and no sacrifice.

Molten Talisman, although rare - it required 5/8 to be sacrificed and should only be worth 1.

Raptors tooth gets to be 2 because those pilgrims sacrificed their wagdie.

Point of these examples is each should be examined carefully and thoughtfully based on their situations.

I very much dislike the notion that tokens gained from sacrifice should be worth more than tokens gained from active participation. Especially considering the heavy conversation last night about how to assure folks without big wallets can get reward, I really don’t like the idea of giving people who put good effort into the project a token worth half what a random whale to generate who’s willing to burn would get.

I’m in favor of increasing the weight vote of Tokens of Concord, but I think it should be equalized across them all.

There is still opportunity for rare ones to have particular narrative value, or who knows what other mechanics are to come. Making them unequal in terms of voting is against the ethos a little bit, in my opinion.


Power of influence > power of whales.

Most active players are already being rewarded in ways whales aren’t.

Tokens of concord currently seem to appeal most to active participants as the intrinsic value held is based on community and participation. They’ve been exchanged primarily through gifting as an act of inclusion to those who are actively seeking to participate.

The only worry I have is that making these changes could make them seem more valuable financially which could negatively impact their current trend of distribution through gifting and inclusion.

If a token did have a more substantial vote impact it would probably be beneficial to make it a specific token with more controlled distribution.

One way to limit financial speculation and ensure tokens can only be accrued through merit and participation is an account bound token.


This is a great thing to consider… SBT, non-transferable or making tokens of concord only able to be traded, but not able to be sold.


I think the spirit of this proposal is very important, though.

Active participants being rewarded is important - they have the most invested in terms of risk… most often because they see the financial value as secondary to the chance to participate in something they truly enjoy.

There are different levels of participation. Putting your assets at risk is an entirely different beast than other forms of participation.

The again, these people are full aware that they could loose tokens and that is an acceptable trade off for them. Truly, the participation is the reward.


I just really like the current format. Tokens are routinely gifted. It’s beautifully organic. Nobody is crying about the distributions being unfair, etc.

I wouldn’t want to disrupt that. That’s all.


ℑ𝔫 π”žπ”€π”―π”’π”’π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱 𝔴𝔦𝔱π”₯ π”Žπ”¦π”«π”€,

𝔗𝔒ℭ𝔰 𝔰π”₯𝔬𝔲𝔩𝔑 π”ͺπ”žπ”¦π”«π”±π”žπ”¦π”« 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π”°π”žπ”ͺ𝔒 𝔳𝔬𝔱𝔦𝔫𝔀 𝔭𝔬𝔴𝔒𝔯 π”žπ”° 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π”΄π”žπ”€π”‘π”¦π”’ π”Ÿπ”²π”―π”«π”’π”‘ (𝔬𝔲𝔱𝔰𝔦𝔑𝔒 𝔬𝔣 𝔱π”₯𝔒 π”‰π”©π”žπ”ͺ𝔒/π”ˆπ”ͺπ”Ÿπ”’π”― π”žπ”° 𝔱π”₯𝔬𝔰𝔒 𝔀𝔦𝔳𝔒𝔫 𝔴π”₯𝔒𝔫 𝔱π”₯𝔒𝔯𝔒 π”΄π”žπ”° 𝔫𝔬 π”’π”΅π”­π”’π” π”±π”žπ”±π”¦π”¬π”« 𝔬𝔣 π”―π”’π”΄π”žπ”―π”‘ 𝔣𝔬𝔯 π”Ÿπ”²π”―π”«π”¦π”«π”€ 𝔱π”₯𝔒𝔦𝔯 π”΄π”žπ”€π”‘π”¦π”’).

𝔗𝔬𝔨𝔒𝔫𝔰 𝔴𝔦𝔩𝔩 π”₯π”žπ”³π”’ π”€π”―π”’π”žπ”±π”’π”― 𝔦𝔫π”₯𝔒𝔯𝔒𝔫𝔱 π”³π”žπ”©π”²π”’ 𝔬𝔫𝔠𝔒 𝔴𝔒 π”―π”’π”žπ” π”₯ π”–π”’π”žπ”―π”¦π”«π”€ π”žπ”«π”‘ π”­π”¬π”°π”°π”¦π”Ÿπ”©π”Ά 𝔬𝔱π”₯𝔒𝔯 𝔲𝔫𝔨𝔫𝔬𝔴𝔫 𝔣𝔲𝔫𝔠𝔱𝔦𝔬𝔫𝔰.


I’m down with making the Concords 2x the voting power. Makes things interesting.

Also agree that we shouldn’t overcomplicate things too much … Beyond keeping Ember and Flame at a higher multiple.

We don’t know yet the power of searing concords. Instead of changing the voting power, maybe instead allow for searing to operate in a way where it acts as if each token has the power of 2 - in that one Sears into the chars and one remains. If you use the same token to sear another it disappears.

Each token has 2 searing charges and can spread across two chars or one char and remain.

Otherwise, leave the same, or continue as planned / maybe any decisions made shouldn’t be made until we unlock searing and understand how it works.

Tokens of Concord already have adherent value because they are limited, unique, and specifically address particular concords. They have voting power and eventually will be used in searing.

There is much to consider when it comes to changing their voting power or anything for that matter as things must retain balance.

Character tokens are individually numbered, not editions and unique. They have the ability to be tied to an identity, acquire a name, stake for events. Chars are more likely to be used as a pfp and even as an identity for players in the game and/or social.

Despite actively engaging in burning, the main value should remain with a character. But not all characters are created equal. However our actions, besides participating in the game, are curating the WAGDIE set.

What does that mean, what is the end game of the collection. These things should be considered if any adjustments in mechanics are made, not only thoughts of present behavior.

Another thing to consider is locking stats and utilizing a token burning process and function to add X stats per level. So then players are choosing between searing tokens (and receiving the benefit of that mechanic, whatever it is) or burning the token instead to increase their stats.

Alternatively levels and stats can be increased via participation in events and surviving. As well as answering riddles and other participation opportunities.

Therefore there are two economies at play. One where players are actively participating to increase stats and another where players are burning tokens to increase stats while also having the choice to sear and searing could also be reducing supply.

But again, balance and fairness to participants should be considered… don’t want to create a system that’s gamed, want to maintain a level of rewarding participation while also encouraging others to come in.

Speaking of curating the set, burning pieces etc. There also have been meta changes to pieces, thereby alternating the rarity beyond the initial randomization. The pieces themselves are not fully on chain.

Maybe the end goal of characters is fully on chain, separate collection, one where burn and other functions are built in and changes supply count instead of sending to another wallet (aka the dead wallet/burn address). This would leave a separate value to pieces that never burned, never acquired identity, never changed and thereby remained β€œpure.”

Regardless, characters with metadata changes already possess unique value and could be considered to be part of their own collection. Eliminating their ability to affect the current set. Traditionally honoraries and 1/1s created after a collection has already minted out, are usually put in a separate collection, same as tokens of concord had been.

But WAGDIE is not traditional and we do admire its ability to break new ground. Regardless of where it’s going, happily enjoy the ride and continue to relish the exploration as WAGDIE devs and community experiment and redefine the possibilities of a collection.

I really align with this sentiment and also understand that the status quo changing for ToCs is inevitable amidst the looming spectre of Searing.

I think it’s in conjunction with this advent that increasing the voting potency of ToCs really needs to assessed.

For now I definitely advocate

a. Any newly assigned voting values be consistent across ToCs

b. They remain sellable

1 Like

These are my opinions as well.

Making concords unsellable is simply not possible with the contract we are currently using.

I am going to have to make a custom strategy to handle staking anyway so I can always streamline token weighting when I’m working on that.

For seared WAGDIE I hadn’t considered increasing their voting power but its something I’m going to look into now.


To clarify my stance on this:

  • I like all ToC being worth 2 votes universally
  • Dislike advantaging β€œburn” tokens vs β€œearn” tokens

Would be cool if there’s some outcome from the war related to shifting power.
Agora loses? Detriti tokens replace the Ash / Ember / Flame as super tokens. :fire:

I agree and believe every type of participation that earned a Concord is equal in value.

1 Like

Field Notes should be 100x votes tho.

1 Like

The 21 Flame should be worth 21, don’t @ me

Left out Obsidian Blade, so someone would need to decide that.

But I think this is the fairest solution.

Straight Sacrifice (after knowing of rewards) is lowest tier.
C is tokens that were earned/given out, above that and included Molten Talisman because 5/8 had to sacrifice to advance us.

B is for (Early Adopter tier 3, sacrifice w/o known reward)+ rare earned.
A is for (Early Adopter tier 2, sacrifice w/o known reward) + rarer earned.
S is for (Early Adopter tier 1, sacrifice w/o known reward) + rarest earned.

And part of me considers Fetid Crows and Field Notes to go even lower, lowest tier because those are coveted hold most value with largest Guilds and in that sense have a lot of utility/to offer already.

Same with monarch, artificers, etc.

Still think we should wait until we know what searing does… but @brennen_eth had idea of putting things into buckets and discussing that at least for this topic.

This chart is not the direction I hoped this conversation would head.

My initial goal was simplifying concord voting.

Please consider what changes would need to be implemented when new tokens are added. If we are using custom strategies the lead time between a new concord mint and when devs are able to update code to properly bucket the token might be a while.


I’ll let others weigh in. But the purpose of the chart and tiers was coming to agree how we feel about the tokens weight towards voting. Which would then simplify all tokens moving forward as they would be placed into 1 of 3 buckets (as they already are).

Which means future ones would land in anyone of those 3 categories. It’s extra work now working through this, but once we all on the same page going forward it’d be obvious which tokens land where.