Illuvitar sale and using all revenue for the teams runway via IIP

[wheat dragon]

Why haven'we seen a single CC or founder complain that their revdis will go to the treasury? These people are way more invested than us.

[wheat dragon]

Because people with the biggest bags and strongest conviction know - What's good for the DAO is good for you!

[brazen scaffold]

Thank you for taking the time to write this up.
I can understand and agree on delaying the distribution of illuvitar revdis. In the highly unlikely event that the Treasury need to use that fund, can it be treated as a loan?
Ok, so financial reports are not possible due to legal reason.

Last point, what if illuvitar sale is underwhelming? I really think you should still sell the Treasury token one way or another.

[long jolt]

the way the project is set up, if we are running out of USDC, we will start selling the ILV, there is no alternative. Unless parties donate funds from other wallets (like personal wallets)

if the income from revdis is not high enough, and if the burn rate (team spendings) remains high

that said, it is pretty clear that we need to support the DAO as much as possible, even if that means compromising revdis

[analog loom]

You already stated you wana wait for a financial Report before making any decisions.
Now you wana Make an action before you know the outcome of the Sale?
Straight line missing...

[strong patrol]

The other reason I don't think we should start selling the tokens is because we have a substantial amount of liquidity in Sushi Swap that could be removed and used as runway, which would give us another 6-8 months on top of the 12-15 months we already have. This combined with revenues from Illuvitars and other sources is plenty of runway and I honestly think this "Safety pool" of Illuvitars revenue would never be used and would simply be returned to the vault.

But again, these are just the options on the table, and my opinion.

No one has fucked up. We are still in an extremely good position considering market conditions and we have many levers to pull.

If anything, I am just happy that we are able to discuss things like this as it shows we are truly decentralised and governed by the people. Not many DAOs can demonstrate that level of coordination. It makes me extremely proud to be part of it.

[long jolt]

100%. The discussion is great and not every founder takes the time

[strong patrol]

There is roughly 8.5m in it

[dim widget]

i think knowing that sushiswap money, every fud about funding should stop. thats a lot

[long jolt]

my bad, just saw 🙂 thx

[noble basin]

I think i will start doing iip discussion summary videos, so we all could easily follow along the discussion through out, and avoid some pitfalls that some prople in here fall into

[long jolt]

this, plus the option to sell ILV if absolutely needed. Knowing this made me worry much less.

[brazen hedge]

I'm all for this idea. It makes objective sense for the long term imo.

[brazen hedge]

This is a very good idea Shabim! There is a void around governance videos and you seem passionate about it so you should definitely use this opportunity to be the face of that type of content!

[brazen scaffold]

lets say illuvitar will be on sale in December, the sale runs for 6 months, do you want to wait until june to start selling the treasury?

[jade knoll]

sounds like a good idea for content creator in the council to do as well 😛

[strong patrol]

Illuvitars isn't the only revenue source being created in the next 6 months. Again, provided things don't go horribly wrong with development we should have merchandise, IZ Revenue and possibly even PB3 Arena stuff. Hence me saying I honestly don't think it will be a problem with how many people are registered to play

[analog loom]

They have all the numbers of expenses, and you don't have to wait until Sale is finished to Make estimations. It's a constant revenue flow.

[strong patrol]

Read between the lines - we have many levers

[brazen scaffold]

So the bridge raise is off the table?
How about offering it to the community?

[long jolt]

is PB3 with PvP, aka "fight for eth" ?

[strong patrol]

I think the point is the community want to keep the tokens. But if the council voted to open forge and sell the tokens, yes of course we would do that and it wouldn't be an issue either. My opinion is that it isn't necessary though

[brazen scaffold]

Kieran I dont feel good about 2023, and im sure many share the same feelings.
If you are not raising funds, this is the community derailing it again.

[dim widget]

i feel good about 2023

[brazen scaffold]

U still live with the parents?

[wheat dragon]

I want so summarise a few ideas above:

1. The raised amount can be considered separate for the time being.
2. If the need arises, DAO can use the funds.
3. In a further period of time of everything is going good, the DAO can vote for these funds to be redistributed again.

[long jolt]

you could setup an IIP for a community raise

[dim widget]

doesnt he need at least some ilv to make an iip?

[brazen scaffold]

Im sure many people have started DCA and would appreciate discounted tokens?

[long jolt]

I dont know, though Im willing to use my ILV if the proposal finds wide support in discord

• via signal voting (a poll)

[jade knoll]

Considering what kieran wrote, maybe it would be best to just revisit this once were nearing the end of the sale of the first batch of illuvitars. The lapse of time would give a better idea on the impact of foregoing revenue for runway.

From the current outlook (without any financial reports) DAO has multiple sources of revenue and possible raises to extend runway. So theres no need to make an uninformed decision at this time for this.

[minor cape]

The community are not against the raise, this is to supplement the runway. If the team continue with the raise, nobody here wants to delay anything, specially if its underway.

[brazen scaffold]

yea revdis is not automatically disbursed anyway

[long jolt]

there is some time, at the same time we dont want to be too late. So this needs to be on our radar and revisited soon

[jade knoll]

You have a legit issue to raise but I feel this is not the right forum to do so. Either be an IIP/Idea on its own or initially discuss it outside of this one.

[brazen scaffold]

i dnt think anyone is against the raise at this point

[dim widget]

i am

[brazen scaffold]

why

[long jolt]

you will want to setup a dedicated discussion forum for this and let the community talk

[dim widget]

looks like there is no need to raise at this prices with the funding they got

[jade knoll]

No idea why we would be late. revenue is distributed after some time from the sale. Case in point land sale. If per chance the runway is shorter than expected then that should be raised by kieran and we get to revisit this asap.

So we have time from now till then to revisit and be in a better position to make a decision.

[long jolt]

for clarification, to state a number, we should not discuss this if we have 6 months of runway left

agree, no rush for now

[jade knoll]

Yeah, i hope kieran would be ringing the bell before that happens and we have several solutions to offer. Foregoing illuvitar revdis being one of them ❤️

[unborn pier]

🍿

[strong patrol]

This is the most logical thing to do

[strong patrol]

Of course I would. I think everyone knows that. When the community first discussed it I was being blamed for not raising when we could. But that was a completely separate issue. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion but I still think it is a great option to have this safety pool. It is the best of both worlds, if we need it we have it if we don't we redistribute it. The tokens will be on chain like 95% of all our funding. It will be transparent like everything else. I try to avoid financials wherever possible because that is the regulatory advice we have been given. I apologise if that comes off as being shady, but it most certainly is not, it is to protect the DAO.

And for the sake of clarity the other 5% is held in a bank, not a CEX.

[unborn pier]

@strong patrol I just want to say i like how you are and don't think you should feel bad. The bluntness you show sometimes makes you stand out form any "ceo" or "corporates suit" that is more worry about optic and political posturing that actually speak their mind . I think its very refreshing it "shows" the passion you have for this project and its good to see. Please don't reign that in and become a copy of every other corporates exec out there

[brazen stirrup]

Your literally the only who says 2024/2025 and you been here a month😆

[strong patrol]

I think he has been here for more than a month 😉

https://tenor.com/view/the-simpsons-homer-simpson-bush-hide-bye-gif-16150806

[strong patrol]

I appreciate that but I still take the feedback on and know that I get too emotionally charged sometimes but I promise it comes from a good place

[minor cape]

👀

[knotty osprey]

Wrote a simple ICCP to create a safety pool from illuvitar revenue. Let me know what you guys think : #1042057080141516821

[unborn pier]

I made a big typo "don't think you feel bad" was supposed to be "don't think you should feel bad" sorry .. i madethe edit inthe original post

[strong patrol]

Possibly accurate, but I think two more mask reveals were needed 😛

[jade knoll]

Maxyo and ethlost? Hahaha

[unborn pier]

lol jsut saw the gif disregard 😆

[jade knoll]

That was the gif he was referring to hehe

Oh you edited already hahaha all good

[gilded sparrow]

This notion that having a one time change in revdis for the initial illuvitar sale is somehow setting a bad precedent is so ridiculous. This is EXACTLY the type of precedent we should be setting. It says that we are a fluid and flexible organization that can put the future well being of the DAO ahead of the immediate gratification of the individual. The assumption of many is that a DAO cannot see beyond its own personal greed and will always vote for whatever benefits the individual token holder in the near term. One would even say this is how democracies eventually fail because the people will always vote for whichever candidate will run on policies which support entitlement programs over austerity. We don't have the luxury of being able to print money like the government (thankfully) so have to be far more forward thinking when it comes to our treasury. If sacrificing the short term gratification of the upcoming illuvitar sale revdis gets Illuvium over the finish line to when we are realizing real revenue streams it's a no brainer. To think otherwise is not only selfish but quite honestly naive. If you tell a 3 year old they can have the one cookie sitting on the plate in front of them or if they wait 10 minutes they can have two cookies they will almost always eat the single cookie right away. If you do that same experiment with a 10 year old they will almost always wait the extra 10 minutes for the 2 cookies. Lets try not to be the 3 year olds in this scenario.

[brazen scaffold]

https://tenor.com/view/turtle-master-of-disguise-gif-20156427

[open spear]

Finally one step closer to be one of us.
I think this is the perfect solution

1.) Giving the return from Illuvitars to the DAO and if they are not needed in 2023 or enough revenue will be generated it can be distributed to the holders.

2.) I would also vote for the Treasury being sold to the community with a little discount.

As you say many are now DCAing anyway.

But it needs to be considered that this would result in less buying pressure and because of it a decrease of the price. Which could result in people shorting or selling just after the approval for more short time gains which again results in more selling pressure.

So how would you stop liquidations for Nr. 2?

[brazen scaffold]

The Forge was proposed in the IIP to offer locked tokens at a discount
8%, 1 yr lock
18%, 2 yr
28%, 3 yr

[open spear]

I don't mean sell pressure from these tokens you misunderstood. I mean the loss of buying pressure against the ongoing selling pressure we have because of the unlocks.

People will start buying mostly from the Forge with discounts.

[twin surge]

It sets a precedent. Whether the precedent is positive or negative depends on the perspective and objectives of the individual.

Since you referred to children let’s continue the analogy. Here is another thing 3 year olds can’t do. They can’t analyse things from more than one perspective. There is only one perspective that matters, and anybody who has a different opinion are either silly or poopoo heads, or both. A 10 year old might even call the other people childish.

There are good reasons to support the proposal, there are good reasons to think it may not be a good idea. Only the team and, hopefully the Council, have enough information to make an informed decision.

I’ll repeat my suggestion that this thread should now be locked. If somebody has a useful comment that hasn’t been mentioned 3 times already, they could ask a Mod to temporarily unlock the thread, so their new point can be added and discussed.

[tender pecan]

Yes exactly

[open spear]

Maybe a new thread to discuss the forge pros and cons?

[brazen scaffold]

not everyone wants to be locked for 12 months

[open spear]

yes this is true not everyone but still I suppose it would be a lot of volume. I don't see any solution to not decrease the buy pressure. I think if there is no work around it's better to avoid it to keep the price more stable and still try to find big investors which maybe otherwise woulnd't have invested in ILV and only do it because of good conditions.

[gilded sparrow]

I never claimed it didn't set a precedent. Quite the contrary. It sets an excellent precedent that we can make intelligent decisions based on what's good for the future of the DAO over short term gratification. To see it any other way is just being a poopoo head.

[noble basin]

For anybody who would like to know what has been discussed in this 1k+ message thread, #🎨〕community-content has a summary, as well as all the valuable messages from discussion members.

[heavy fractal]

Yes, let's be adults and accept that reality is complex and other points of view should not just be dismissed as "ridiculous" or "BS". Imo too forgoing the revdis is the best LT course of action but I personally accept that in real life ppl have different perspectives and some could feel strongly about revdis as a key feature that attracted them to ILV. We all understand what a DAO means but the fact is when some ppl will be hit with the realisation that their views are not aligned with the DAO they might just leave, scale down or halt further ILV purchases. Assume just 5% do so then is that good or bad for the DAO if the Illuvitar sale generates $[x] in ETH?
To your point, yes we can make intelligent decisions...WHEN they are informed. So why not wait till the sale takes place to decide or vote on this point? It's all relative and unlike you, I can't say it's good for the DAO full stop. I'll say it's good for the DAO if the sale generates a [decent] amount in eth and the vote to forgo is by large majority. it's less good if the sale generates $200k and the vote wins by 50.1% (playing devil's advocate). So yes, I don't like the idea of having a revdis exception / precedent because we don't have crucial parameters currently. And I respect diverging opinions.

[tender pecan]

Not a terrible idea... see what we bring in from this Illuvitars and then decide

[dense kernel]

We dont do “what ifs” here, its for people that buy lottery tickets.

[dense kernel]

Thats because you have to start looking for a job ❤️

Good discussion going on here, happy to see we have gotten back to earth!

[gilded sparrow]

I agree that other points of view are valid and I don't mean to be dismissive of them. My use of the word ridiculous may have been a bit too harsh but I feel strongly about this. The number one most important thing right now is getting this game off the ground. Everything else should take a back seat. What good is sticking to 100% revdis to avoid setting a "precedent" if the game doesn't get off the runway? The people opposed to foregoing revdis on the illuvitar sale remind me of the same people that are against taking anything less than 100% revdis for merchandise sales. There is something inherently short sighted in that thinking. Kieran has made it clear that the funds would be put into a safety pool and only used if absolutely necessary. This scenario will end in one of two ways: The first is we run out of money and have to dip into the safety pool to keep the lights on while the second is we delay the distribution of the revdis to a specified time in the future. There literally is nothing to lose by doing this. It's a matter of time preference. Waiting to see how the illuvitar sale does before deciding is interesting but not sure it's necessary. If we set the parameters that the treasury needs "X" amount of dollars then the outcome of the illuvitar sale is somewhat irrelevant. For instance lets say the magic number is 5 million and the Illuvitar sale generates 4 million then 100% of the sale goes to the treasury. Conversely if the sale is 10 million then the first 5 million goes to the treasury and the remaining 5 million gets distributed to ilv holders. The total needed for the treasury should be based 100% on the economics of burn rate and nothing else.

[brazen scaffold]

What is the burn rate?

[craggy hamlet]

Thanks @strong patrol for coming in and shedding some extra light on the situation, having it saved in a separate pool to use only if needed seems like a win for everyone. If it does need to be used I don't think anyone in the project could argue it was a bad idea, if it doesn't then everyone gets the distributions as promised.

[brazen scaffold]

guys can we add merch sales into this IIP?

and marketplace fee too

[twin surge]

Your assumptions are based on inaccurate information. Illuvium isn’t going to run out of money.

This proposal is just to make some team members feel safer. A good thing certainly, but if you think Illuvium is going bust without this… ironically that is one of the biggest arguments against the proposal. People jumping to an inaccurate conclusion.

Nobody cares how strongly a random stranger feels. We are trying to have a serious discussion. Making childish posts about other people being childish… 🙄

Basically the only people who can actually make an informed decision on this are the team and Council. The rest of us just don’t have the necessary information.

[twin surge]

No. For us to divert other income to the team, such as from merch or marketplace fees, or fuel sales, there would need to be a precedent. A precedent like diverting illuvitar income.

Of course we who have been here for a long time and understand and trust what the team is doing, know that they wouldn’t let this happen. No doubt future investors will have the same trust in the team. 🙂

[brazen scaffold]

what makes merch diff than illuvitar

[twin surge]

In any case hasn’t it already been said that the Council and Team are in favour of this proposal?

So this thread is now just here to make people feel heard. The decision makers have already decided.

[brazen scaffold]

thats like 90% of IIP so far

[glad terrace]

Almost every IIP has been in favour of the vast majority.

[brazen scaffold]

yes

i just cant see illuvitar sales doing great in this market, cant hurt to add merch sales and marketplace fee to the safety pool

[open spear]

you mean safety pool in ILV, stables or even take it out and store it in a bank?

With the current pilot project digital dollar let's see what is happening to stable coins we should be very cautious the next months.

I still have the opinion that we need some of the RD to get buying pressure especially before and during March 23 big unlocks to keep the price stable.

It seems that until April 23 we could already have other revenue streams as well as the team is working restless to get out the Openworld Beta and ILZ asap with in some weeks. This could again relax the situation. So no need for Illuvitars and Merch to also go to the safety pool in my opinion.

[brazen scaffold]

the illuvitar revdis is going to be put in a safety pool

[open spear]

sry merch and marketplace fee

[silk temple]

What is the point of this still being open, everyone just endlessly commenting their opinion. Plus im getting annoyed by this Sam guy 24/7. Voting was invented for a reason.

[unborn pier]

https://tenor.com/view/this-just-this-thiss-yess-caryanne-gif-24937630

Again even if the gleam said YES and the snapshot said NO . The snapshot is the Official sentiment of the community as per governance

[gilded sparrow]

You've said a few things now that has made me pause. We're all literally random strangers giving our opinions and yours is no more valid than mine just because you've been posting here longer. How do you know Illuvium isn't going to run out of money? You said yourself the team is the only ones who can make an informed decision about this and yet they are the ones suggesting a safety pool. See how your logic is a bit flawed? You think Kieran wants to remove revdis from his personal wallet just for the fun of it? Clearly he is concerned about this enough to even suggest we should allot some of the Illuvitar sales to a safety pool.

[gilded sparrow]

I believe Kieran said we had 4-6 months of burn rate in Uniswap if we absolutely had to dip into it. He then subsequently posted that we have about 8.5 million in Uniswap so there is your ballpark burn rate.

[twin surge]

It turns out that I know more about this than you do because I’ve read more about this than you have.

Stating that they will not run out of money isn’t an opinion.

Feel free not to believe it. 🙂

[gilded sparrow]

How can you possibly know how much I have read? You have seriously flawed critical thinking skills. Good luck with that.

[ruby raft]

Welp I’m happy the majority of people think an extra safety net is a good idea. I believe the team when they say it’s unlikely to be needed but putting it in a separate pool to be used only if needed is a win/win for everyone not looking for a quick flip. Everyone is so worried about future investors, but once the game is launched future investors will be more worried about rate of return rather than whether or not we chose to be cautious in a bear market

[brazen scaffold]

heyy im not here 24/7, i sleep too

[twin surge]

I’m assuming based on your comments. You are correct that you could have read all the reasons why you are wrong and have chosen to ignore them.

Maybe I’m wrong. 🙂

I have nothing else to add to this thread. Have a good day folks. 🙂

[tawdry flower]

Good read! upon reading, I noticed some people is commenting without back reading the entire conversation, ends up on cycle of useless argument.

[minor cape]

@strong patrol are you wanting to still draft the IIP up for this yourself ? or do you want us to if your busy.

[brazen scaffold]

why cant we add
merch, marketplace fee and T5 to the safety pool?

[quaint goblet]

Is that what you want or are you setting up a strawman argument?

[brazen scaffold]

why does it matter

[quaint goblet]

https://tenor.com/view/trap-its-a-trap-star-wars-admiral-ackbar-gif-5740548

No one likes to walk into a trap.

[brazen scaffold]

i would never do that

i dont think illuvitar will do well, so we need all the help we can get

[quaint goblet]

I’d think that the DAO structure does in fact allow for any of those to be used as a safety pool. It seems like a more useful question would be what’s the difference between revenue from illuvitars and revenue from these other products.

Marketplace fees are still sitting. And have been. I don’t see a need to propose a change when no change needs to be made.

Same goes for t5s. They are not being sold. They are sitting.

Sure it’s not officially been labeled as backstop. But anything that is not being sold or distributed is being held by the DAO.

I’d say that IIPs ought to be fairly specific and not attempt to do too many things at once. My experience with organizational governance and bylaws is that overreaching when writing proposed changes is the biggest reason beneficial changes don’t get made.

[brazen scaffold]

landsale revdis was manually distributed, so illuvitar revdis should be sitting too

[quaint goblet]

Perhaps merch would be a better choice for this proposal. But that seems unlikely. Since the profit margin on merch is lower. Also, nothing but the two t5s is able to be so neatly separated into a one off product. The fact that the first batch of illuvitars can be so neatly separated into a single “unit” makes it ideal.

[scarlet walrus]

While I'm not against this concept considering how likely the individual revdis from Illuvitars will be and the need to extend runway, I do thinks it's worth considering how this makes web3 governance look in the broader picture.

It was promised that Revenue is distributed to stakers - full stop. Illuvium is a leader in the space, and we've seen countless instances of new projects following Illuvium's lead on fundamental concerns with a web3 startup. We need to be showing that the models presented can work, and not just update things every time there's a hitch. What does any of this mean if each time there's an issue, the heavily-influential founding team voices an opinion re: governance and the community follows?

Additionally, if the need for funds is so great that they need this small injection, I don't think it's fair that the holders are penalized for this miscalculation and the team is able to sit on their token allocation - if holders are making a sacrifice, I think the same kind of consideration should be taken for other stakeholders.

I realize anything not strictly pro-Warwick (which I am) or pro-Illuvium (which I am) will likely be disregarded, just wanted to give my thoughts

[brazen scaffold]

story of my life

[next pilot]

I may be the conservative one here, but my take is that while adjustment to terms is detrimental to reputation, maintaining your principles all the way to bankruptcy is worse. Not saying that’s where we’re at, but that the longer the broader financial conditions persist, the fewer options the DAO has.
I would not refer to the events of the past several months, particularly the FTX situation, as a hitch, but rather a significant derailment of broader web3 trajectory with an unknown timing of restoring trust and mainstream adoption in the space. I remain confident in the concept of web3 and web3 gaming, timing has become much less clear and 2023 scarier.
Also, the team, seed, and general staked token holders are equally impacted on a per ILV basis, and as Kieran has mentioned, change in the revdis structure likely impacts him to the greatest extent on an absolute dollar basis.
I threw out another proposal in the Safety protocol idea channel to base revdis on the runway timing of the public treasury wallet, preserving funds for treasury up to a set threshold in months (I propose 2 years and base on a 90-day moving average of monthly expenditures). If the treasury holds stable coin funds in excess of the runway number, revdis proceeds as defined. Below that threshold, all revenue goes to treasury and is converted to stable coins. This puts pressure on the two correct sides - increase revenue to become sustainable or decrease expenses. I’m going to continue to be an advocate for approaches like this at the moment rather than selling treasury at rock bottom prices, which impacts the long term stability of the DAO.
The proposed impact of this idea is essentially temporarily foregoing $2 per ILV in revdis to solidify the runway.

[scarlet walrus]

Appreciate your thoughts as always @next pilot

[little pasture]

I know the final decision is up to you, but I’m still giving my opinion.
I agree 100% with this proposal. I have a very long-term vision of Illuvium and prefer that you carry out your project to completion rather than harvest some RevDis.

[wheat dragon]

I think of this case the same way as companies forgoing dividends in uncertain times. It's normal. And it's not the company deciding but its shareholders.

[quaint goblet]

There are some problems the DAO can fix and some it can’t. Doing what can be done is better than doing nothing.

[brazen scaffold]

BoD has the right to declare or retain div

but the shareholders have the rights to access financial information

The DAO doesnt have access to financial info

[minor cape]

I personally would like to see the team maintain 24 months runway, hard in this climate I understand and likely can happen once the doors are open.
I know worse projects I am invested in with 4 years clear runway and upwards of 80-100m. I am not at all debating the team’s capability or drive to deliver, I am just trying to feasibly assist in helping them, I agree with @next pilot what he said in the town hall its true 2023 looks bleak from a market condition perspective (Illuvium launch aside).
Best to act sooner and have an emergency buffer, that they have offered to re-distribute if not required than realise they need extra capital and look to fix then as it will be likely harder to do so.
Let’s not forget this is a community proposal and not the team asking for this directly.

[brazen scaffold]

im sure a lot of us are interested in buying discounted treasury token

[boreal matrix]

Very good idea!

[median osprey]

I’m 100% in

[outer aurora]

For reference... this conversation was had with land sale... everything being said here is just a repeat of 6 months ago.

And once again I would propose to separate costs for growth projects and side IP projects, and have a separate opt in system to reward people who choose to divert revdis or additional investment into those Growth Funds

#809220563397902346 message

[brazen stirrup]

#809220563397902346 message

[idle ruin]

"maintaining your principles all the way to bankruptcy is worse"

I'am fine with a lock up revdis for a emergency fund. Not stray a ready take it as treasure fund and that's it.

"I threw out another proposal in the Safety protocol idea channel to base revdis on the runway timing of the public treasury wallet, preserving funds for treasury up to a set threshold in months"

Although I understand that the pilot model initially adopted is not sustainable: the account does not add up (spend ~100%, receive 10%). This solution makes the economic incentive of the development team similar to that of governments and their actors, they are remunerated even without positive result. This must be linked to the productivity of the development team. At the end of the day, the development team is an "employee" of the DAO and, consequently, of the stakers. No company is going to pay employees for sure if they are not producing.

[outer aurora]

Fair points, but in reply I think the employees are absolutely producing.

Need to remember that the scope of what is being built has magnified significantly.
The market environment has changed drastically.
And the competition within the space has increased exponentially.

So the staff are definitely producing, but the Goal posts keep moving and expanding

[idle ruin]

"I think the employees are absolutely producing." yeap, i think that too. So much progress every time i see the leaks. Even them, i don't see the money flow, so i can say thats really true or not. I'am fine knowing that the council has a view on that. I've been reading through the old posts in this thread, and everything I've said before has already been discussed. I guess I arrived late in the discussion xD. Discord is not the best place to avoid repeats. Reddit seems more appropriate. Hope gov v2 has a solution for this.

[spiral orchid]

Cheers guys! Politefully asking what is the actual status here? I took part at the survey… Will now follow an IIP? Wen? Thx

[jagged turtle]

I will definitely be making this a key talking point in the agenda during our upcoming council meeting. The current problem is the council is handing over at the moment so some of these things are slightly unclear even for us. But we will get clarity soon and move forward

[spiral orchid]

Ok true, forgot about that. Thx for taking care!

[minor cape]

Wen @next pilot 👀

[next pilot]

#1042057080141516821 message

[next pilot]

This and safety pool have been major topics recently. The goal was to get the ICCP defining revdis out first to clarify that, get feedback and make sure people were clear on that revdis meant for Illuvitars and merch as the next two revenue bearing items, then follow with the Safety Pool and Illuvitar proposal. "Soon" to "very soon"

[minor cape]

Looks like it will pass, I want to thank everyone for the input on this. It was a huge community effort from everyone and Thank you to the council for getting it out quickly. LFG

[open spear]

Amazing work Josh love to see you thinking so long term, for the DAO and not selfish reasons if the DAO goes on like this this is going to be huge!

[brazen stirrup]

Great to see this one done

[open spear]

Some will think this will scare investors but I think this will be the exact opposite. Hard times need hard decisions and there will be other hard times where we will need to value the priorities for the DAO!

[brazen stirrup]

It's what the community wanted, and it feels good to give something back.
Some might try to spin this a negative

[open spear]

It's so strange to see a gaming project actually influenced and driven from the community. In all the years it was nearly with every other gaming project they did the opposite what the community wanted..

[drowsy ginkgo]

I think this is the best Team and best game in crypto and would be happy to forego Resdiv for the Illuvitar sale to support the team

[icy folio]

coming a bit late for this, but for sure mates, I am on this subject and I say put the 15 mil back away. We need this game released. Just in case. If things go south we will split it with @strong patrol half and half :))))