Quarry v2 — tokenomics brief
Status: brief for research agents. Nothing here is implemented or deployed.
Your task
Design the tokenomics for Quarry v2 and deliver one proposal.
You have wide latitude. The goals and the few constraints below are firm.
Everything else is open, including the ideas we've already discussed. Treat
those as a starting point to learn from, not as a template. A new mechanism that
serves the goals better is welcome. If a goal itself seems wrong, or two goals
conflict, say so and explain why.
What we need back is one proposal you chose and defend with research and
numbers, not a menu of options. Mention the alternatives you rejected briefly at
the end.
Period
Market research covers the last 24 months, through today (October 2026).
That includes EtherRock sales and listings, and every strategy token since
PunkStrategy launched in September 2025. Use older EtherRock history (from
only as background for price and ownership.
The proposal and its simulation cover launch through the first 12 months.
Add a short note on what happens after that: the steady state, and what
happens once no more rocks can be bought.
State the date of every price or market figure you use.
Sources
Primary sources come first:
onchain data from Etherscan, Dune and verified contract source;
official docs (Uniswap v4, Chainlink VRF, TokenWorks / NFTStrategy);
marketplace data (OpenSea, Blur);
this repository.
Secondary sources (crypto media, newsletters, X posts) are fine for leads,
but confirm their numbers onchain where possible. Label anything unconfirmed.
Cite every factual number with a link. Keep facts, estimates and
assumptions clearly separate. Never invent a figure; if you can't find one,
say so and give the assumption you used instead.
Length and format
One Markdown report, about 1,500–2,500 words. The simulation script and
the sources list don't count toward that. Favor tables and numbers over prose.
Open with a summary of no more than 200 words: the proposal and the bet it
rests on.
Use tables for parameters and simulation results.
Include the simulation as a runnable Python script in an appendix, so the
numbers can be reproduced.
End with a sources list that includes links and access dates.
Context: what v1 is
Read README.md, SPEC.md and docs/CONTRACTS.md. In short:
The Quarry permanently locks a wrapped EtherRock (IDs 0–99; there are only
100 rocks) and mints 10 stones to its owner.
A stone can be burned to mint 10 pebbles, and pebbles are terminal.
Each split costs 0.01 ETH.
Each piece keeps its original rock's ID and color and has immutable onchain
generative art.
v1 has no admin, no upgrades and no way to get an original back out.
v2 will be a new deployment, so any v1 rule can change.
Why v1 failed: it only worked if rock owners voluntarily broke their own rocks
inside the system. In practice they had no reason to. v2 must not depend on that.
The system has to acquire rocks itself, and if a rock owner takes part, it should
be because the system gives them a better outcome (a fair sale, liquidity) than
holding, not because they want to destroy their rock.
Goals
An ERC-20 whose trading fees acquire EtherRocks. This is the premise.
People want a chance to get a whole rock.
More liquidity for rocks, and access for smaller collectors. Today's rock
holders should get a new way to sell. Smaller collectors who could never
afford a whole rock should be able to own part of one, as stones and pebbles.
People want to hold the token. The founder will hold it too, so their
allocation must be disclosed.
Rocks shouldn't be lost forever. The founder likes the idea of "a magical
quarry where the parts can be reunited."
Only rocks. Acquire as many rocks as possible, but no other assets.
The NFT collection outlasting the token is acceptable.
Constraints
Real EtherRocks only. They can be acquired wrapped (official wrapper
0xA3F5…Fc02) or unwrapped (the legacy contract 0x41f2…c4E2).
Nothing depends on rock owners voluntarily breaking their rocks.
If the design uses randomness, use Chainlink VRF.
Ethereum mainnet.
A second token is allowed if it clearly earns its place. The previously planned
$SILLICON pebble-refining token isn't required. Bring it back, or propose
something else, only if it serves the goals.
What we've explored so far (background, not direction)
The working name is $QUARRY, meaning "owning the quarry." $SAND felt wrong
because sand would come out of pebbles, while this token comes first. The name
is open.
Rough path of the conversation:
PunkStrategy clone. Buy a rock, relist it at a markup, burn the proceeds.
It sells the rock away, which conflicts with goal 5.
Whole-rock lottery with burned tokens as tickets. Burns a lot, but it
rewards whoever burns that week, not holders.
Quarry each rock and sell its pebbles for the token, then burn it. Strong
support for the token, but the fund only recovers swap fees, so every rock
has to be paid for by trading volume.
Sell pebbles for ETH, returning each rock's cost to the fund and burning the
markup. The fund's capital recycles. The founder doubts people will spend
ETH on random NFTs.
Give the pieces away to token stakers by draw (where we stopped). Trading
fees buy rocks. Each rock's stones go to stakers, weighted by time staked.
Winners can reunite 100 units of a family to take the rock home. Surplus ETH
buys and burns the token once no more rocks can be bought.
Ideas that came up along the way:
an ascending bid for rocks instead of a fixed price;
a forced buyout at 90 units so one holdout can't block a reunion;
a launch fee that starts high and decays;
seeding the first rock so the loop starts on day 1;
a yearly "Grand Quarry" draw;
a 5% fee instead of PunkStrategy's 10%.
Use, change or discard any of these.
Facts worth checking
EtherRock prices. One sold for 135 ETH in August 2025. The floor was about
199 ETH in January 2024. Check current listings, sales and how concentrated
ownership is.
Volume per rock. At 150 ETH a rock, buying one from fees alone takes about
3,000 ETH of trading at 5%, or 1,500 ETH at 10%.
PunkStrategy / NFTStrategy (TokenWorks) is the closest precedent. Its
reported figures (10% fee, relisting at 1.2×, $20M+ first-week volume) are
unverified. Find what actually happened, including volume after launch.
The legacy EtherRock contract (0x41f2…c4E2) has its own onchain market.
Check whether a contract can buy and wrap a rock in one transaction.
Pressure-test your design against
volume fading after launch;
rock scarcity, and sellers watching the fund;
overpaying for rocks;
holdouts and lost pieces;
pieces dumped by people who don't value them;
the token having no value floor;
gaming of any draw or snapshot (flash loans, Sybil accounts, contracts winning);
MEV;
insider extraction and admin keys;
regulatory exposure, such as lottery or profit-sharing (flag only).
Report sections
In this order:
The idea in a few lines, and the bet it rests on.
The mechanism, with concrete rules and parameters.
Money flows for one rock and for one year.
A simulation across a few scenarios, including a launch hype that fades
and a case where trading volume dies. State the assumptions that drive the
results.
Risks and how the design handles them.
What changes from v1. The repo keeps product laws in Bend (LAWS.bend);
list the new laws v2 would need.
The alternatives you rejected, briefly.
Questions only the founder can answer.