Decoding the BEETronix Maturity Curve

Part 1 — The Curve

We are about to enter the wonderfully exciting world of reliquary. A lot has already been written about it, for an introduction to reliquary you can read about it here:

The Evolution of Music — fBEETS X Reliquary

For the purposes of this article, you only need to be familiar with emission curves and maturity concepts. If you did want to get some insights into the more technical elements, you could read these here:

Reliquary — The new chef in town?

DeFi’s New Yield Primitive

The key point around Reliquary is how the maturity of your relic determines its relative farming potential (and in the case of $fBEETs) voting power. This is what I’m going to try and unpack and hopefully give some insights into the thought process.

It all started on one of our team calls, “so souvlaki, you want to map out the emissions curve?”

A bit of an unfamiliar challenge, but definitely a journey worth embarking on.

Quest — map out the emissions curve

The simple solution would have been to either use a straight line or an exponential curve. While both models work, the challenge was that they have limitations. As we look to implement the next step in the evolution of the MasterChef, could we perhaps find a more innovative model to apply?

Before we explore the new model, let’s first take a look at some of the identified limitations of the other models:

Linear model

This type of model uses linear relationships when determining the age of the relic and its maturity percentage.

With an increase in maturity taking place only at the end of the week and requiring 10 full weeks to reach full maturity, a visual representation of this model would be:

• As the changes are always linear, it leans more towards a “set and forget” approach.
• It has a potential drawback on the psychological side that you can’t “catch up” to those in front of you. So if you joined in week 4, there will always be that linear relationship with those ahead of you until you reach maturity.
• Because of the points above, there is an increased likelihood that the secondary market for relics will only really exist for those that have reached full maturity.

So while model one is good and easy to understand, perhaps a different model could account for these limitations.

Exponential Curve

This type of curve uses an exponential relationship between the age of the relic and its maturity percentage.

A visual representation of this model would be:

The main observations identified in the model were:

• In this variation, the benefits only really take off after week 4 or 5. This creates a potential benefit of prompting a secondary market around that time.
• At the same time, it potentially creates less excitement to mint new relics as a user may prefer to skip the initial slower growth rate.
• On the psychological side of things, it is potentially worse than the linear model as those ahead of you may seem like they are getting further and further away.

Even if you invert the curve on the graph, different variations of the same issues exist. The secondary market could get flooded towards the end of weeks 7–8 as there is little incentive to hold all the way through.

It is a model that is used quite frequently and is both tried and tested but still carries some similar limitations.

The Road Ahead

After considering these two models, I realized that the approach I was taking was not best suited to the end goal.

The main sticking point was that I was using popular models, applying the reliquary experience and determining if the outcomes were desirable. What if this line of thinking was challenged, what if once the desired outcomes were identified the model could be “built” around it?

With this revised approach, the desired outcomes of the model were identified:

1. There should be an incentive to mint a new relic
2. Users should be engaged in the process as the relics mature
3. There should be an incentive to hold until full maturity
4. It should facilitate a secondary market to exist outside of full maturity
5. It should cater to the extension of the BeethovenX brand

With a more precise end goal in mind, I could start mapping out how to get there:

• To create the incentive to mint there would be a need for high growth upfront.
• While the relics are not locked and a user can withdraw the underlying fBEETs at any time if there was a period where growth slowed down it could serve two purposes.

1. The start of a period of slowed-down growth would almost serve as a checkpoint. A place where users could consider their position and potentially look to the secondary instead of withdrawing
2. The end of this slow growth period could create an opportunity to sell relics on the secondary market at a premium. After seeing out the slow part, there is bigger growth to come.

• The potential for increased activity in the secondary market outside of full maturity could generate more engagement.
• Finally, for it all to work, some growth will be needed for the last period.

From this, the BEETronix Maturity Curve was born.

BEETronix Maturity Curve

This curve doesn’t have a linear or exponential relationship between the age of the relic and its maturity percentage, it’s shape resembles that of a double sigmoid.

A model that is both innovative and fitting for Reliquary.

The challenge now was that BEETronix felt like it needed to be more visually appealing.

And like in the movie “Titanic” where Rose made a request to Jack, BEETronix did the same.

“Souvlaki, I want you to draw me like one of your Monthly Performance Graphs.”

It would have been rude not to*

*Won’t mention that it’s actually vee that does those graphs.

Beautiful isn’t it?

That brings us to the end of Part 1, in Part 2 I’ll go into what the different levels are and what they mean for both farm rewards and voting power.

P.S.: If you’re wondering about how this serves as an extension of the BeethovenX brand. Our creatives supreme Vee, Naly and Jedi have been busy, more to come.