{"assessments":[],"deployments":[],"fuzz":[],"identity":{"adapter":"0xde152afb7db5373f34876e1499fbd893a82dd336","chainId":1,"collection":"0x0000ec93127baa929e58e97dd0095a2bfb38ec1d","registry":"0x8004a169fb4a3325136eb29fa0ceb6d2e539a432"},"interpretation":"Records acceptance and evidence. Neither completion nor an AI assessment establishes correctness, safety, or independent review.","jobId":"a76166ff-e7b2-425c-a254-dee0d4202271","kind":"skill:research-report","nodes":[{"acceptedSubmissionHash":null,"dependsOn":[],"execution":{"network":true,"profile":"none","requires":["network"],"skillHash":"3ddca93330036359dd721585e58e67820336a0398b7927b3c89369d6134f30f6","skillId":"research-report","tools":[]},"key":"research_report","kind":"code","role":"implement","skillHash":"3ddca93330036359dd721585e58e67820336a0398b7927b3c89369d6134f30f6","skillId":"research-report","state":"failed"}],"objective":"Quarry v2 — tokenomics brief\n\nStatus: brief for research agents. Nothing here is implemented or deployed.\n\nYour task\n\nDesign the tokenomics for Quarry v2 and deliver one proposal.\n\nYou have wide latitude. The goals and the few constraints below are firm.\nEverything else is open, including the ideas we've already discussed. Treat\nthose as a starting point to learn from, not as a template. A new mechanism that\nserves the goals better is welcome. If a goal itself seems wrong, or two goals\nconflict, say so and explain why.\n\nWhat we need back is one proposal you chose and defend with research and\nnumbers, not a menu of options. Mention the alternatives you rejected briefly at\nthe end.\n\nPeriod\n\n\n\n\n\nMarket research covers the last 24 months, through today (October 2026).\nThat includes EtherRock sales and listings, and every strategy token since\nPunkStrategy launched in September 2025. Use older EtherRock history (from\n\n\n\n\n\nonly as background for price and ownership.\n\n\n\nThe proposal and its simulation cover launch through the first 12 months.\nAdd a short note on what happens after that: the steady state, and what\nhappens once no more rocks can be bought.\n\n\n\nState the date of every price or market figure you use.\n\nSources\n\n\n\n\n\nPrimary sources come first:\n\n\n\n\n\nonchain data from Etherscan, Dune and verified contract source;\n\n\n\nofficial docs (Uniswap v4, Chainlink VRF, TokenWorks / NFTStrategy);\n\n\n\nmarketplace data (OpenSea, Blur);\n\n\n\nthis repository.\n\n\n\nSecondary sources (crypto media, newsletters, X posts) are fine for leads,\nbut confirm their numbers onchain where possible. Label anything unconfirmed.\n\n\n\nCite every factual number with a link. Keep facts, estimates and\nassumptions clearly separate. Never invent a figure; if you can't find one,\nsay so and give the assumption you used instead.\n\nLength and format\n\n\n\n\n\nOne Markdown report, about 1,500–2,500 words. The simulation script and\nthe sources list don't count toward that. Favor tables and numbers over prose.\n\n\n\nOpen with a summary of no more than 200 words: the proposal and the bet it\nrests on.\n\n\n\nUse tables for parameters and simulation results.\n\n\n\nInclude the simulation as a runnable Python script in an appendix, so the\nnumbers can be reproduced.\n\n\n\nEnd with a sources list that includes links and access dates.\n\nContext: what v1 is\n\nRead README.md, SPEC.md and docs/CONTRACTS.md. In short:\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Quarry permanently locks a wrapped EtherRock (IDs 0–99; there are only\n100 rocks) and mints 10 stones to its owner.\n\n\n\nA stone can be burned to mint 10 pebbles, and pebbles are terminal.\n\n\n\nEach split costs 0.01 ETH.\n\n\n\nEach piece keeps its original rock's ID and color and has immutable onchain\ngenerative art.\n\n\n\nv1 has no admin, no upgrades and no way to get an original back out.\n\n\n\nv2 will be a new deployment, so any v1 rule can change.\n\nWhy v1 failed: it only worked if rock owners voluntarily broke their own rocks\ninside the system. In practice they had no reason to. v2 must not depend on that.\nThe system has to acquire rocks itself, and if a rock owner takes part, it should\nbe because the system gives them a better outcome (a fair sale, liquidity) than\nholding, not because they want to destroy their rock.\n\nGoals\n\n\n\n\n\nAn ERC-20 whose trading fees acquire EtherRocks. This is the premise.\n\n\n\nPeople want a chance to get a whole rock.\n\n\n\nMore liquidity for rocks, and access for smaller collectors. Today's rock\n holders should get a new way to sell. Smaller collectors who could never\n afford a whole rock should be able to own part of one, as stones and pebbles.\n\n\n\nPeople want to hold the token. The founder will hold it too, so their\n allocation must be disclosed.\n\n\n\nRocks shouldn't be lost forever. The founder likes the idea of \"a magical\n quarry where the parts can be reunited.\"\n\n\n\nOnly rocks. Acquire as many rocks as possible, but no other assets.\n\nThe NFT collection outlasting the token is acceptable.\n\nConstraints\n\n\n\n\n\nReal EtherRocks only. They can be acquired wrapped (official wrapper\n0xA3F5…Fc02) or unwrapped (the legacy contract 0x41f2…c4E2).\n\n\n\nNothing depends on rock owners voluntarily breaking their rocks.\n\n\n\nIf the design uses randomness, use Chainlink VRF.\n\n\n\nEthereum mainnet.\n\nA second token is allowed if it clearly earns its place. The previously planned\n$SILLICON pebble-refining token isn't required. Bring it back, or propose\nsomething else, only if it serves the goals.\n\nWhat we've explored so far (background, not direction)\n\nThe working name is $QUARRY, meaning \"owning the quarry.\" $SAND felt wrong\nbecause sand would come out of pebbles, while this token comes first. The name\nis open.\n\nRough path of the conversation:\n\n\n\n\n\nPunkStrategy clone. Buy a rock, relist it at a markup, burn the proceeds.\n It sells the rock away, which conflicts with goal 5.\n\n\n\nWhole-rock lottery with burned tokens as tickets. Burns a lot, but it\n rewards whoever burns that week, not holders.\n\n\n\nQuarry each rock and sell its pebbles for the token, then burn it. Strong\n support for the token, but the fund only recovers swap fees, so every rock\n has to be paid for by trading volume.\n\n\n\nSell pebbles for ETH, returning each rock's cost to the fund and burning the\n markup. The fund's capital recycles. The founder doubts people will spend\n ETH on random NFTs.\n\n\n\nGive the pieces away to token stakers by draw (where we stopped). Trading\n fees buy rocks. Each rock's stones go to stakers, weighted by time staked.\n Winners can reunite 100 units of a family to take the rock home. Surplus ETH\n buys and burns the token once no more rocks can be bought.\n\nIdeas that came up along the way:\n\n\n\n\n\nan ascending bid for rocks instead of a fixed price;\n\n\n\na forced buyout at 90 units so one holdout can't block a reunion;\n\n\n\na launch fee that starts high and decays;\n\n\n\nseeding the first rock so the loop starts on day 1;\n\n\n\na yearly \"Grand Quarry\" draw;\n\n\n\na 5% fee instead of PunkStrategy's 10%.\n\nUse, change or discard any of these.\n\nFacts worth checking\n\n\n\n\n\nEtherRock prices. One sold for 135 ETH in August 2025. The floor was about\n199 ETH in January 2024. Check current listings, sales and how concentrated\nownership is.\n\n\n\nVolume per rock. At 150 ETH a rock, buying one from fees alone takes about\n3,000 ETH of trading at 5%, or 1,500 ETH at 10%.\n\n\n\nPunkStrategy / NFTStrategy (TokenWorks) is the closest precedent. Its\nreported figures (10% fee, relisting at 1.2×, $20M+ first-week volume) are\nunverified. Find what actually happened, including volume after launch.\n\n\n\nThe legacy EtherRock contract (0x41f2…c4E2) has its own onchain market.\nCheck whether a contract can buy and wrap a rock in one transaction.\n\nPressure-test your design against\n\n\n\n\n\nvolume fading after launch;\n\n\n\nrock scarcity, and sellers watching the fund;\n\n\n\noverpaying for rocks;\n\n\n\nholdouts and lost pieces;\n\n\n\npieces dumped by people who don't value them;\n\n\n\nthe token having no value floor;\n\n\n\ngaming of any draw or snapshot (flash loans, Sybil accounts, contracts winning);\n\n\n\nMEV;\n\n\n\ninsider extraction and admin keys;\n\n\n\nregulatory exposure, such as lottery or profit-sharing (flag only).\n\nReport sections\n\nIn this order:\n\n\n\n\n\nThe idea in a few lines, and the bet it rests on.\n\n\n\nThe mechanism, with concrete rules and parameters.\n\n\n\nMoney flows for one rock and for one year.\n\n\n\nA simulation across a few scenarios, including a launch hype that fades\n and a case where trading volume dies. State the assumptions that drive the\n results.\n\n\n\nRisks and how the design handles them.\n\n\n\nWhat changes from v1. The repo keeps product laws in Bend (LAWS.bend);\n list the new laws v2 would need.\n\n\n\nThe alternatives you rejected, briefly.\n\n\n\nQuestions only the founder can answer.","parentJobId":null,"planHash":"a825665ff97c218d7429589deb158871a20a78ea229570cfaad4c36336947007","previousHash":"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000","projectId":"a76166ff-e7b2-425c-a254-dee0d4202271","publication":{"commit":null,"deliveredAt":null,"repoUrl":null},"receiptIdentity":{"adapter":"0xde152afb7db5373f34876e1499fbd893a82dd336","chainId":1,"collection":"0x0000ec93127baa929e58e97dd0095a2bfb38ec1d","registry":"0x8004a169fb4a3325136eb29fa0ceb6d2e539a432"},"registry":"0xb6d0a187b050fa5bb0b87033a203f37becf4a775","research":[],"schema":"identitymd-work-v1","signals":[],"site":null,"snapshotHash":"ff83945656a03ad7180fd3ba12a204c120c66d1c829692e4ef3e7fff2f7bfb11","state":"blocked","submissions":[{"artifacts":[],"attempt":1,"bundleHash":null,"device":"21173e2f9a010d0b","findings":[],"hash":"5bcfccaf6be1b97407424e3b5e451aadad35e79f0d5064cc83f6e0e0be6bdeff","nodeId":"f2cdde48-1cff-42f4-a91c-8c19569bcd9a","outcome":"failed","summary":"needs input: The provided repository contains no project files. README.md, SPEC.md, docs/CONTRACTS.md, and LAWS.bend are missing; these are required to verify v1 and describe the v2 product-law changes. — Can you supply the Quarry repository containing README.md, SPEC.md, docs/CONTRACTS.md, and LAWS.bend, or authorize a proposal based solely on the brief with repository verification explicitly omitted?","treeHash":null,"usage":{"cachedInputTokens":88704,"inputTokens":25798,"model":null,"outputTokens":799,"runtime":"codex","turns":3,"wallClockMs":43921}}],"verification":[]}