#Don't release more land plots. Just cap it at 20k.

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

slow badger
#

Instant value add for all the HODLers.

Screenshot_2022-12-29-11-53-09-06_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg
slow badger
#

I like this idea.

dire frost
#

The issue is the theoretical point in which there is 100,000 players. That means in order to keep up with fuel demand there would need to either be an increase in land supply or an increase in output of gas per land.

#

as gas prices are fixed to a 25% variance on a fixed price point then as gas consumption increases output of gas is required to sustain otherwise players wouldnt be able to travel

slow badger
dire frost
slow badger
dire frost
slow badger
#

Why ON GODS GREEN EARTH, would you accept SILV2

dire frost
#

So I can buy more cool stuff in game, duh.

slow badger
#

You win every time here.

dire frost
slow badger
#

It was, because you did them on 2 fingers and 2 toes

silver fjord
slow badger
dire frost
#

If I owned land, I wouldnt even invite myself 😩

rain temple
#

I know no one wants to hear it... but capping lands at 100k might have been a mistake considering we want to appeal to more gamers than that and land will be required to play the main game (not T0) and it's components if you don't want to be a marketplace participant. You're right the land value would go up and the land would accrue a higher % yield per plot, but we need to ask ourselves if we want more people to profit, not just if we want more profit per share. Each land may be less profitable, but if 10X as many lands sold for a tenth of the price nothing meaningful about the revenue would change unless the revenue proportion allotted to the landowners changes, you'd just need 10x as many plots which might actually be a benefit by decreasing the value of playtime (if balancing is untouched). This sounds bad, but the shrimps and noobies might be down for a $50 plot, but not a $500 plot, and we don't want like 5 whales "playing" (renting) 100k plots - anything even vaguely resembling that would completely nuke adoption before it begins.

cobalt bobcat
#

Lets add a function that can burn land plots aswell.

frank flint
slow badger
silver fjord
# rain temple I know no one wants to hear it... but capping lands at 100k might have been a mi...

Illuvium is a DAO. If circumstances change and there is a compelling argument for creating more land there are ways that illuvium as a community could vote to do this. The lowest hanging fruit would be to create another region or incorporate land plots into one of the later games like a tower defence game or a clash of clans game where it doesn’t impact the core land components in the current regions.

rain temple
granite solar
modest girder
# slow badger Instant value add for all the HODLers.

I think about this every day ngl. I would say if we change the cap. 50k may make sense given we need to fill out some of the empty spots on the map and what not.

But either way more land won't get released unless it makes sense

slow badger
modest girder
#

Well 100k is still planned. It's worth considering that there is 100k slots in the overworld map so there would be significant limitations/ramifications altering that for sure.

But yeah unless land is earning well above what makes sense I would have to be very very convinced to release 20k more

#

I'd be content never releasing the rest of the land honestly. But if it makes sense then sure

frank flint
modest girder
karmic hawk
# rain temple I know no one wants to hear it... but capping lands at 100k might have been a mi...

Land simply is not needed to play the main game (overworld/arena). Land was designed to only ever produce 5% of the fuels that players of any of the other games will ever use. For every 1 fuel token that the land owners sell into the market (swap for eth) the DAO (ILV stakers) sell 19 fuel tokens. It seems to me that over 95% of the players would not be using fuel produced by their own land but would need to buy fuel. It’s this purchasing of fuel that produces revenue.

I however am not convinced that 100,000 lands is necessarily a good long term number though. The natural way of creating more usable plots is by subdividing the current land nfts. It could be like a stock or token split. Subdividing could even be an optional thing like breeding as seen in many other games, but for land.

lone tulip
#

I paid $32,000 for a tier 4 plot. Why do you want us to lower the price to $1,000? So that you can buy it. In any case, if the number of plots is increased, it would be by doing a split of the existing ones: they give me 9 additional plots for each plot that I have now; all the profit of the split is for me.
As for the supply of fuel, everything is thought out. The plots will always produce the same amount of fuel and will be sold in a market regulated by Illuvium. Overworld players to make a trip will buy 10 units of fuel at $1 to play one day, if there are more new players, only 5 units of fuel at $2 will be needed. They will almost always pay the same in $. Those who have land will see how in the first year they will get an income of $150 for each tier1 land ($700), if in the 2nd year the players increase and the landowners double the income to $300, then Illuvium will sell 20000 plots· the most The first 2-3 years will be regulated like this.

rain temple
rain temple
# lone tulip I paid $32,000 for a tier 4 plot. Why do you want us to lower the price to $1,00...

I don't think anyone wants to devalue your land. That helps no one. We can just as easily go from dividing 4% into 80,000 lots to dividing by 800,000, or some other arbitrary number. Again I am not for or against this, but either way it wouldn't have an effect on your T4 initial release. It's important we not confuse the nuances around stuff like this. Sure we could theoretically also allow you the option to divide your land into pieces if you want, but I highly doubt the DAO will actually opt for anything like that, especially considering what was already said. I'm 100% certain that no one is gonna force you to split your land. Perhaps we release the first 100,000 plots yielding 5% of fuels, maybe later when we have a better understanding of our economics we opt to release another 5% of the fuel pool in a new land auction bringing the total up to 10%, maybe we decide at that point that it's better to divide the latter 5% into 1,000,000 plots instead of 100k and that could easily leave the initial 100,000 plots unaffected despite doubling the rewards available, and multiplying the accessibility.

maiden lynx
#

You don't need land to play this game. So unless we need more to raise more funds to develop the game then let's do it.

rain temple
runic nymph
#

I think they should stick to the plan 100K plots. Land owners only thinking about themselves and not the game or wider community.

You bought land to play and potentially earn. If you want to invest you should buy ILV.

frank flint
runic nymph
# frank flint I can see this holding some truth on a tier 1. Everything above that only increa...

Doesn’t matter what their intentions were, they bought land in a game.

They bought knowing that there will be 100K in total.

Land owners shouldn’t band together and block new additions to IZ which would be great for the whole Illuvium ecosystem just because it has a negative effect on their earning potential.

The fact that many got together to say no to in-game raids because they didn’t want their resources stolen was a joke.

They would be better off selling the land to gamers and buying ILV. Let gamers decide what they want in their games and not a few only interested in financial gain.

lethal cedar
# runic nymph Doesn’t matter what their intentions were, they bought land in a game. They bo...

Yeah, I don’t see how land owners ever have an incentive to increase land supply. Especially as it looks increasingly more likely that there will be more of a free market rather than a 25% rail.
It’s a gigantic cash injection to the team and ILV holders while not diluting ILV holders only land holders.

If you hold more land than ILV, you probably don’t want more land to be released, and vice versa.

The thing that sucks is a cash infusion is typically needed when things aren’t going as well, but we’d only release more land if things are going well.

Seems like it would wise for more land to be released and most of that cash be held onto for worse times.

heady hawk
#

Put an Alpha stamp on the original 20k

runic nymph
#

Early holders got an advantage into learning how the game is played during this beta phase. They also get exclusive rights to sell resources for the first 6-12-24 months or whatever before other plots are sold.

I’m going to keep saying it. If your aim is to maximise your return buy and stake ILV.

Otherwise the priorities for land isn’t to make sure the first bunch of buyers profit as much as possible. The priorities are to maximise playability and retention of the game. If those objectives impact price of land or the earning potential I’m happy with that.

valid brook
#

I started thinking about this a few days back.. and what you know.. a thread discussing this very subject.

There are just too many sides to this problem and it's impossible to make everyone happy, in the end, it'll come down to a vote by the council members. Best anyone can do is try to show both pros and cons of capping/delaying or whatever may happen.

Land sales could bring in large sums of money which will then be distributed to ILV stakers, a very important part of the tokenomics, therefore capping land at 20k only benefits land owners and i think is definitely a bad idea.

As a land owner myself, my initial thought was to let current land owners priority to buy more land, this way the company will get revenue and land holders positions won't get diluted. But I think this will be hard to pull off. What prices do we set them at and how do we onboard more people into the game?

So i thought a way to compensate them. Perhaps a "fair" way to do things would be, for the next land sale, we let 5% of the total sales be distributed to land owners (different amounts based on their land tiers).

I really liked the "breeding" mechanic by pelican, but that would also mean that only owners of the original 20k plots could participate, a lot of thought would need to go into this if we want to make it work.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

vital relic
#

the fact to sell more land than 100k being discussed is scary, careful where you tread

silver fjord
vital relic
#

legal nightmare, you would have to concoct some other method that isnt "land"

silver fjord
vital relic
#

it was marketed and sold as 100k plots total, it would be crossing the borderline of fraud. fraud has no legal monetary limits

silver fjord
#

Perhaps I need to be asking more questions in zero chat

vital relic
#

it the game is successful, i reckon the player base wont be able to pump out enough fuel, so it nerfs itself

#

better off to wait and develop something when you know what you need in this case

silver fjord
forest patio
#

what? it's possible to be more that 100k plots? but the initial it that maxim is 100k ....100k forever, now i understand that it's possible to be more? what? i fell that somebody lies...how many plots will be in total? what otters are lies?

balmy grail
#

My question is why not just increase the percentage yield of sells to the land owners?

granite solar
#

The council can easily change the production amount of the lands. So id suggest adding 5% in-game revenue production every time 20K lands come out. This way, the price impact of the lands also goes up and it becomes more and more of a staking game where you time the market against the other holders. I think it would be fun!

Obviously you would cap it at 100K and 25%. No, the ILV holders may not be too happy, but i think that the slight decrease in returns wont be too noticeable. And you can make up for that decrease by making the pool less stable so that ILV holders have a chance to swing trade if they so desire.

balmy grail
granite solar
#

But it does reduce revenue for all tokenholders by a bit. So i get that they may push back.

balmy grail
deft wadi
#

I've been following this thread for quite a while, and it feels like the primary motivation here is fear that the council would prematurely approve the sale of more land plots. I'm not sure where that's coming from - It's been pretty clearly indicated that more land won't get sold until current land owners are profitable. There's also been a lot of assumptions that future land sales have to be 20k plots each batch. That's not the case. We could do 5k tranches of land, timed as existing land becomes and maintains profitability.

If a council doesn't treat land owners fairly or does something super detrimental for land owners, you'll be able to vote them out under Gov V2.

Reducing the total number of plots that can be sold to the existing 20k does nothing but limit the DAO in the future. I would not vote for this proposal.

karmic hawk
near zinc
# deft wadi I've been following this thread for quite a while, and it feels like the primary...

Totally agree with you. I hold land but I'd still be against capping the number to 20k. My expectation is that future land sales would only come when the ecosystem really needs the extra supply. I feel like the concern for some is basically that land prices take a big hit from new land sales but I think the ROI on the initial batch should be ok if any upcoming sales are timed well into the future (in function of fuel demand, number of player and land prices...and NOT just because runway requires it)

echo scaffold
slow badger
prisma lily
#

Should I close this one?

slow badger
prisma lily
#

It's your idea Crystal

slow badger
#

Well I mean, it actually wasn't my idea it was Kieran's

#

So yeah, it was more a point of discussion if anything. I didn't even read the responses.

prisma lily
slow badger
echo scaffold
slow badger
frank flint
slow badger