A vote or a button send revdis back to treasury

[idle grotto]

To avoid arguments, how about I have a button on my dashboard that says "send my share of revenue distribution from Illuvitars sale back to treasury". I'm happy to sacrifice a large skim capuccino in order to show good will towards the treasury and I bet there's a few others who would too. Let it be optional, and nobody can whinge about rugs

[vast glade]

A very very interesting proposition. I suppose there's the question of creating this button for the future in general not just with Illuvitars. I don't think optional works great specifically for illuvitars since I'd assume a majority of people might not even check their dashboard for $1 of revdis or whatever but could this extend far beyond the short term? I'll investigate how complicated this is to implement from a dev perspective

[idle grotto]

I'd be comfortable with implementing it as a permanent option/gesture, but I think Illuvitars is the current hot topic saviour of the runway. After this, may not be needed.

[vast glade]

In the case of illuvitars specifically we will have to see how the current proposal pans out before looking at this. But the gesture is really kind and an excellent fallback

[idle grotto]

I'd appreciate a reassurance from Danny or someone of that ilk that such gestures are unnecessary, but if that's not gonna happen then please install button

[vast glade]

Unfortunately runway is a problem that extends far beyond actual financials. It doesn't matter if our runway can last 1 year or 2 years. With any level of uncertainty then employees also have reduced job security and it can impact the token and investors as a whole, which is always a negative

[idle grotto]

It matters if we are talking 1 year or 2 years. Only because the next 12 months will see the Start of revenue

[past galleon]

I do think that whatever happens with Illuvitars revenue, it should be the same solution applied equally to all ILV stakers. Supporting the Treasury with revdis isn't something that should be by donation only. The fiscally optimal thing to do as an individual is ALWAYS to not donate (unless nobody donates), while the optimal thing to do as a group may be to support runway stability.

It's unfair for some people to support runway and development while others keep their revdis - It pretty much creates a scenario where Illuvium evangelists get taken advantage of (by other stakers) - They support runway stability at a personal cost while others collect revdis and still benefit from runway stability.
Scoriox makes a good point as well, that revdis on the order of $1-$10 likely isn't worth dealing with at all on an individual level (whether donating or claiming), but accumulated, could be impactful to project runway.

I think there are scenarios where a donate button makes sense (ex. If we decide in the future to support endangered animal charities), where people can opt in to donating, or choose not to. The difference is that donations are for charities, and Illuvium shouldn't be viewed as a charity. Revdis going to the Treasury, if it's passed, should be a decision made because it makes sense for the business and for investors.

A parallel (not 1:1 with Illuvium, just an example to illustrate the point) would be a company suspending dividends to fund growth. That's not an opt in/opt out system for investors, because saavy investors would always take their dividends. Assuming many other people also took dividends, there would be a lack of funding for growth, and so the optimal thing to do becomes to sell the stock as well.

A side consequence could be a divide in the community between people who donated their revdis, and those who did not. I don't see much good coming from that in terms of community sentiment, and I don't think it would help to avoid arguments.

[daring elbow]

What if we have a checkbox, that says:
"I allow my unclaimed revdis to be eligible for treasury revdis"

This will allow the treasury to have more revdis while people are ramping up their revdis to the point at which they claim it.

I personally have like $10-20 of revdis that just stays there and I can't justify spending the gas to take them out. However these funds are in limbo, maybe we can allow the treasury to take advantage of those AND allow people to just take it back when they can justify the gas.

[north sage]

What if we just make that the default? any unclaimed revdis is held by treasury(and eligible for treasury revdis) until claimed. How much would that impact revenue coming into the treasury?

[idle grotto]

Blickter came out of nowhere, garnered the second highest votes in the election, and writes intelligently like this in forums. Dude where have you been all my life. Can we be frends. Not sarcasm. Genuinely impressed.

And sorry that doesn't respond to your many excellent points above. Altruism has no place in a rational economy, this is truth. So yeah, you're right of course. I suppose I'd just like to know whether this is necessary anyway. Is the team freaking the fuck out but pretending everything is ok when they go on YouTube interviews? Or is there a real problem here. Because I'm hearing conflicting things and the whole DYOR thing includes me watching interviews on YouTube channels and so it's not quite reliable when their greatest salesman is also the dude who holds all the secrets from me. (Because I don't know shit about fuck and don't have time to examine wallet addresses)

I'd also like it to be addressed that does the studio honestly think it can survive off 15% of gross revenue, and if so, then what the fuck are we worried about.

And last but not least, if a studio can run off 15% revenue, then can a single monk live off a 0.01% holding of the DAO? Asking for a friend

I have the expenditure habits of a monk in a cave with excellent wifi

[past galleon]

We're having our first voice meeting on Tuesday, so I don't have anything to say about runway beyond what others have already said - The following is all based on the premise that the Treasury wallet is representative of total runway. I don't think it's on fire, but it IS something to be taken seriously, and we absolutely should address it pre-emptively rather than reactively. If we can make a MORE optimal decision because we have time to consider and implement a better solution, that's extremely important. A lot of my focus in discussions so far have been around ensuring we can preserve as much Treasury as possible (both in terms of USDC and ILV) to make it out of the bear market in a great position.

I'll look to get clarity on this stuff, but it's still possible that sharing off-chain financial info won't be an option. If informed legal opinions are that we can't share more info than is available on the blockchain, I'd be an idiot to disagree. I am not a lawyer, and I'm not explicitly familiar with AUS law. There is still $14.7M in the Treasury wallet, last month's burn (according strictly to the Treasury wallet) was about $1.3M. If we assume that's representative of an average burn rate (I don't believe it is, given what I expect to be added costs during game launch for marketing etc.), we'd have about 11 months of runway in USDC in the Treasury wallet.

[daring elbow]

Let me add a bit to this point and address @north sage's idea to make this the default.

Making this the default makes sense. And you need to sign a transaction to opt-out. What I like doing every time when I decide what option to be the default one is make the default option, the one that will benefit the DAO most. It's a fact that most people just go with the flow and keep the default.

Here's an extra caveat to doing this. If some people lose their funds(we all know this can happen to everyone) and their stake remains in the DAO, their account will be syphoning away from the DAO. If we implement this, the treasury can get the benefit of these funds.

[vast glade]

This is a super interesting theory right here