General Governance

[pallid star]

Welcome Illuvinati! This channel can be used for general governance discussions.

[oak hawk]

So ILV Stakers are the only ones that can comment here correct?

[pallid star]

Yes

[midnight sparrow]

Interesting

[pallid star]

Sorry I said that wrong

Holders can at least chat

Anyone Can read

[strong vale]

So 'Holders' and 'Stakers' were added here and can chat?

[pallid star]

Yes

[oak hawk]

Shouldn't it be just stakers that can chat?

Since we are the only ones with actual voting rights?

[pallid star]

In the end Council have voting rights, and if youre a holder you still could have say/contributions in whats going on. We think its a major improvement and we will monitor to see if that needs changing in future

[oak hawk]

Ah I see where you are coming from. That makes sense.

[calm glacier]

interesting

[midnight sparrow]

Its a good way to get ILV holder sentiments filtered from those with no skin on the game. I like it,.

[calm glacier]

if someone who, is a landowner and a ILV holder, can they expect a beta invite for Overworld in the near future? asking for a friend...

[pallid star]

Possibly so ser

Much easier for us to find y’all now

[tacit sigil]

nice

[night sable]

Damn good question, I never even considered

In governance news do we create a react role maybe @pallid star ?? I dont necessarily want to tag all holders/stakers but if we can do an opt in gov role? We can ping it when necessary?

[pallid star]

Yeah its a possibility, we are still discussing options based on security concerns

[night sable]

Interesting, fair enough

[paper sail]

i would def love that to, i have a heap of land and a alot of staked tokens and still no acces to overworld

[paper sail]

and been in for over a year now

[light garnet]

hello everyone

[glossy knoll]

Hello Fellow Stakers

[noble minnow]

It is a wonderful mechanism.

[midnight sparrow]

You typed stalkers wrong

[nimble epoch]

Hola

[uncut dome]

You only had to attend to one trivia, and then you would have got an invite. It’s been marketed extensively. At this point, complaints about OW access feel hollow. Anyone willing to make a little effort could get in

[rain owl]

What other thread's are foreseen in the governance-forum in the future besides "General Governance"

I'm glad there is now a spot for gov chat outside of ipp/iccp 🙂

[pallid star]

Elections, nominations, still thinking what else would be productive

[rain owl]

Maybe townhall. for questions/followup/comments?

[pallid star]

Yeah good on you, good for the stage to post questions there

[rain owl]

Is there an outline of how the IIPs are going from council to vote? Time debated/steps/if there is going to be town hall for them? etc

[pallid star]

Your IIP will be going to vote shortly waiting on a couple things on back end

But yes it’s all outlined in gov v2

[rain owl]

I mean in regards to the council generated ones like "SushiSwap Liquidity IIP" ... does it require an amount of upvotes or time before voted on

@pallid star Also thanks for the quick council notes always appreciate it

[pallid star]

This was considered by council a financial type decision which previous councils had agreed to let the team make essentially

[rain owl]

Not really specific to this one IIP just curious how it will play out in general. The council is drafting IIPs. I now know they will go to the iip-iccp-forum after drafted. Whats the next step?

[pallid star]

Voting on them

[young coral]

https://tenor.com/view/mustnotfap-gif-9331653

[hardy portal]

for some reason it wont let me cast vote even tho i own t3 land it says 0 ILV-NFT voting power

[pallid star]

Only <@&814435151307866142> vote on proposals

[hardy portal]

gotcha

[pallid star]

Community votes council in though

[hardy portal]

kk

sry new to this voting thingy

[lofty shale]

The NFTs it's referring to on Snapshot are the council NFTs we receive after being elected.

[hardy portal]

was just confused since i was tagged here #📰〕governance-news

[night sable]

Typically the council will field their IIP's to the community to garner their sentiment and feedback. Once we feel the community is well aware and in favour of the proposal then it goes to vote. If the community shows serious kickback then we return to the drawing board

[dull vale]

So why can’t I vote? I have Ilv staked.

[rain owl]

Council Votes. Stakers vote on council to represent us.

[dull vale]

Oh cool

Lol

I thought we were voting to see if they then voted.

Thx bud

[velvet valley]

yeah, it does seem like its asking for our opinion

[rain owl]

@velvet valley @dull vale If you have strong feeling one way or the other on the IIP or ICCP there is still time (even tho it is short) to voice it in #1024051771624136774

[dull vale]

Im all good. Thx tho. I was approving. I just misunderstood. Just woke up (at the time). Thx bud

[night sable]

Doing the lords work in this chat rn

[dreamy locust]

@pallid star you said "IIP-28 Withdrawal of Sushiswap Liquidity and ICCP-2 Reduce Council Pay by 25% have both passed 5-0"

While you are right and it's the true. Are you technically correct? There are 2 days left in the voting, can't Council members change their vote before the end or once they vote that's it?

[pallid star]

Yeah, I think while this is technically possible, Council members also posted in #📯〕council-chambers their reasonings for voting yes. So technically, 3 council would need to change their vote and reasoning. I think in this case it was a time-sensitive situation also on multiple fronts. Also it was discussed at length that council had supported this through various meetings.

[dreamy locust]

Question is more about how it works in this kind of situations.

• Can we close the voting earlier if everyone voted?
• Can we shorten the voting period if it's time sensitive?
• Do we really need an option for council members to change votes if there is always discussion before voting?

But I guess that are all options that are coming with snapshot so we didn't change anything there?

[lofty shale]

In general, especially for proposals that have been available for public review for a long time, I'd be ok with the voting period ending early on unanimous vote either way.

Snapshot does support shorter (or longer) voting periods, and that can be implemented (would need to be specified what constitutes a time sensitive proposal).

[dreamy locust]

I don't mean anything bad with my comments. I'm just trying to understand how it works and trying to improve voting so we can be technically correct as well.
Of course 3 people won't change it's mind but we should have the "what if's" in my opinion.

[pallid star]

Yeah, we've discussed emergency proposals for future in gov v2 definetely. As for changing votes I'll look into if thats a revokable option in snapshot.

You cannont close the vote early though once the time is set and live

[rain owl]

Makes me so happy

[placid imp]

Hey, now that I have seen ILZ I start to think that it truly might be a good idea to release ILZ one or two days before open beta starts because over the first two days ILZ is just pretty time consuming even with only one T1 plot. If ILZ and OW release on the same day it will just be stressful for landowners and kinda would destroy the experience. Furthermore the fuel will just be reinvested into the plot itself anyway and scans aren't possible on the first two days. What do you guys think about that?

[rain owl]

I like the idea but what does it have to do with governance? Maybe #1020759212172775464 or #1023321302163009556

[mystic zinc]

Is town hall starting at 4pm utc?

[pallid star]

https://discord.com/events/760344898200666112/1061019808906346586

Its in your time zone

[gusty sundial]

hello! just trotted in here

[uncut dome]

An idea for the future is to have an AI taking notes, instead of manually needing to source the task. There are actually great and accurate tools to help with this. And you can get chat gpt to edit out certain areas, if need be. Would help with reducing workload on non mission critical tasks

[pallid star]

Already considering using this (otter.ai) for recorded meetings, and it makes transcripts which then can be coupled with chatgpt

[fading cairn]

You really…otter…do it

[night sable]

Oh god

[slate summit]

Hi, I am not sure if this is an appropriate place for this but I’m an IlV staker and I don’t have permissions to make posts in the “ideas” section. Maybe this has been discussed thoroughly before, but I had a question regarding sILV2 and long term ILV burning. Although sILV2 does not contibute to revenue, it does indirectly benefit us all in terms of reducing ILV supply. What if, when revenue distribution is a regular thing, that we were given the option to redeem in sILV2?

Current system is that ETH revenue is swapped for ILV in the market, and stakers will receive open market ILV to stake, swap, or resell as they please. But could redeeming sILV2 not remain an option too? Could allow for continued deflation of ILV over time. Unless there are other burning mechanisms planned in the future?

One might argue that it would be silly redeeming any of RevDis in sILV2 when you could redeem ILV and buy sILV2 cheaper, but I see sILV2 equilibrating more with ILVs actual price once the games are live and sILV2 can actually used day to day.

Just a thought. Maybe a poor thought but either way I enjoy learning the in and outs of everything. I’m so impressed with how much thought has gone into everything by the team.

[robust valve]

Its definitely something that has been brought up a number of times. Beyond revdis, there is also the pool of 1 million ILV for rewards (prize funds, etc) that could also be considered. As sILV2 and ILV have very distinct roles, there may be value in offering in-game currency to those only interested in playing the game without interest in governance. Logistics of burn mechanism would need to be determined as it would function differently than never minting the ILV, which is currently the case. However, I think this is very reasonable to consider, especially if the sILV2 could be provided directly on IMX also avoiding the need to transfer from the mainchain.

[light valve]

Wouldn’t that mean you have to change the tokenomics?

[lofty shale]

It's certainly not silly to consider, and it has been brought up as a general idea in the past.

I'm generally not in favour of introducing any more methods of acquisition for sILV2. My main concern is that sILV2 counts as a liability against ILV's token price, as it competes with ETH for revenue, but cannot be used to buy back ILV (since it is burned when spent).

While the long term deflationary aspect that more methods for sILV2 acquisition would introduce is certainly appealing, I feel the risk that sILV2 introduces outweighs the benefits. ILV already has a capped supply, so it's not like we're fighting against long term emissions to maintain a stable token supply. Once unlocks and yield farming are finished, that's it, we're on the maximum possible supply.

If we were to introduce a change to use either revdis or in-game rewards tokens for gameplay instead of ILV, I'd prefer that those systems were account-bound instead of tokenized, as the main risk sILV2 introduces is the potential for stockpiling and trading, causing disruption in the current revenue model. Making such a system account bound would remove a lot of the stockpiling and trading risk, while providing players with the opportunity to use rewards for gameplay without having to engage in trading activity.

A side note - The #1020759212172775464 forums are gated to people who are level 5 or higher in Discord. We can look at getting this changed to include ILV Holders and Stakers.

[slate summit]

Yeah the fact that sILV2 does not count toward revenue is definitely a drawback to the idea you could say. And the negative effects of stockpiling. What a mathematical dilemma lol. Hurts my brain.

You are right in that the ILV supply is capped and isn’t very high at all as it is. Maybe it goes back to don’t fix what isn’t broken.

[robust valve]

I'm going to disagree with Blickter on this one. While I wouldn't be a advocate for this change today, longer term I think the broader adoption of sILV2 (or use of "Illuvium Gift Cards") is a benefit to the DAO. Certainly today we need to prioritize sales in ETH. However, mass adoption and biasing towards the player is benefit in the long term. I agree, an alternative would be to apply the intent of sILV2 immediately without the use of the token, and immediately credit a specific account with credit valued at the equivalent of sILV2/ILV, and then burn the corresponding ILV. Technical requirements would need to be considered. This offers both a reduction in ILV while being a significant quality of life improvement for the player who won or is redeeming revdis for in-game credit (avoiding steps of claiming ILV, swapping for ETH, moving it to IMX, and the associated fees). This approach enhances the value of ILV while soulbounding the value to a specific account, and crediting it as value removing the complexity of tokens. As redemption rate of gift cards is generally low, this approach provides value to both the player and the DAO. Again, not pushing for it today, but longer term, particularly as the 1 million reward tokens begin to be used, this is something to consider.

[rain owl]

Is there a push to clarify revdis before merch store? Or can the clarification wait?

[robust valve]

there's an iccp ready to go, just waiting on final clearance from a couple parties on the language used. Clarified revdis for all potential types of revenue based on proposed projects.

[grave blaze]

Should we still be expecting a proposal to divert Illuvitar revenue>? Sounds like Illuvitars will be announced soon so it would be nice to know what the plan is before a bunch of people show up and start asking whether or not Illuvitars will generate revdis.

[robust valve]

In short, yes. We wanted to get the revdis iccp out first to define merch which is also coming soon.

[scenic peak]

@grave blaze ICCPs so far are both regarding council pay. And I don’t think that was initially set by IIP. But council configurations were listed as examples of potential ICCPs. IIP-22 sets variables for what happens after revenue hits the vault. But the current proposal deals with revenue before it goes to the vault. So it’s not really able to fit as a modification of that IIP.

I definitely feel super nerdy trying to define IIP vs ICCP. How much can it matter? But that doesn’t stop me.

Looking back, I saw a few early IIPs that I’d probably have labeled as ICCPs if they were made now (IIP3&4). Lol IIP 14 explicitly modified iip12. Maybe we just need better criteria to know if something is an IIP or ICCP. 🤷

[lofty shale]

This is fairly simplified, but:
IIP's for new things.
ICCPs to change existing things.

Agree that some past IIPs could have been ICCPs.

[dull vale]

What do the acronyms stand for?
IIP/ICCP?

[rain owl]

• IIP stands for Illuvium Improvement Proposal
• ICCP stands for Illuvium Configuration Change Proposal
  https://illuvium.io/news/30-contribute-to-illuvium-game-development-by-submitting-iips-via-github
  originated from Ethereum, EIP/ECCP

@dull vale 👆

[dull vale]

Thx bud

[midnight sparrow]

Can we have an ICCP or IIP (whatever can apply) approving the creation of a card game from illuvitars?

The blog basically announced it already and though we're doing the proposal after the fact, I belive it's important to pass a basic proposal that the DAO allowed it.

Details of the card game can be proposed further down the road once the specifics are set.

[rain owl]

I was trying. Haven’t gotten to 20 upticks yet.

[midnight sparrow]

We just need a basic one. Lay the foundation. I'd basically just put we expand illuvitars to a collectible card game to be developed next.

I'm just worried this looks like Illuvium labs is deciding for the DAO even though we all discussed it in different threads and support it

[pallid star]

The plan was always to have an IIP before building anything, Aaron has communicated that "if the community lets us build"

[pallid star]

and the competitive card game is based on the Album collector game

[lusty vector]

I changed the announcement to avoid any confusion. But no nothing is confirmed regarding a new TCG game

[midnight sparrow]

Definitely a good direction but would like to raise that having a monthly report might be dilatory and hamper both operations & communications. Suggestion: since council meets every 2 weeks or so that any non-urgent information be shared during these meetings rather than once a month. And any urgent matters be expedited with clearance from the admins.

[pallid star]

We will still have the meeting notes, and weve basically been meeting weekly at this point

[pallid star]

This would be a supplemental monthly document

[midnight sparrow]

If i understand it properly, a monthly report which needs approval from relevant parties is needed before anything is disclosed publicly. So I take it with the meeting notes and what not theres no need to wait for a month for things to be publicly disclosed? If thats the case, Im good 🙂

[pallid star]

Yeah this would be more geared towards more sensitive topics that they want to get approval from team with

Meeting notes stay meeting notes

and after the meeting

[midnight sparrow]

Thanks for the clarification. 👌

[uncut dome]

Fight 4 ETH ❤️

[rain owl]

Could known contentious items that could easily be changed in IIPs be labeled as such in the future. Even things that you are looking for community feedback on. Say some parts of the IIP are more locked and hard to change but others there is still debate among the Council/Team about.

It's hard to gauge how much people dislike the Alpha IIP just because of the price.

[lofty shale]

It's still fundamentally a proposal, people not liking it doesn't change what it is, it just means we'll need to change it and bring the changes in a revised proposal.

[mystic zinc]

Hi @pallid star is there a time and invite for the town hall that Aaron just announced?

[pallid star]

Going on now

check the announcement

[pallid star]

We are not trying to gate keep anything, its trying to keep it clean here so IIPs to be voted on don't get lost in #1020759212172775464. Your IIP was simply feedback/changes to the IIP thats already here and as for it not being in ideas first, yeah it probably shouldve been and hopefully gov v2 solves some of these issues but with the way it ended up being talked about in the community before there was an IIP for it we felt a need to make sure it got out for community review considering the product launch was coming in a month. Once it went out community didnt like it so it was changed and well received after the change. I'm sure your feedback and changes have support from others yes but is a majority feedback? I wouldnt think so considering council gathered all the feedback from the first draft and then revised it with a new IIP. If all the feedback wouldve been what you were suggesting that wouldve been the revised IIP from Council right?

@lapis cairn

[lapis cairn]

Thanks, @pallid star. But Kieran's revision is also a simple(as you put it) change to the IIP that was already out.
I think the well-received part of the new revision is mainly due to the price reduction.

I can argue, that if we separate that part out. And make the price proposal different, it will pass with 99% support, not have like 10% of people against it.
But alpha disks, which currently are the hot topic will get a higher disapproval rate.

I can't get myself not to think of this way of providing revisions as buying the people's votes.

[pallid star]

Not sure if you were at the town hall? https://youtu.be/aOb-Zo5EfVc?t=2113 (35min link)
I think Aaron articulated well why he thought of Alpha in the first place. I just don't think there was overwhelming "We dont want Alpha D1sks" v "We want Alphas but the way this is setup we don't like" even with that first presentation of the IIP. As for the price change, when Council started discussing how many D1sks someone would have to buy in order to complete a collection I think the obvious choice was to lower the price point.

[lapis cairn]

I totally support lowering the price. That will make the product more accessible.

[robust valve]

I’m sharing in this channel rather than the specific IIP discussion. To those concerned about not being heard and posting the same argument repeatedly, this is effectively doing what you fear to everyone who is not able to commit the time to discuss the topic. Single well thought out comments that offer a different perspective are lost in a sea of repetition. While I’ve personally read every word of the IIP discussion, that has involved multiple hours committed to make up for sleeping and other personal commitments. As a council member, I feel that I owe that to our community. I know my other council members have done the same.
But for governance to work, people need to contribute and build from others ideas, regardless of the time they have to commit. By taking up the bulk of the discussion with ideas that have been continually repeated, those with less time to contribute, but equally welcomed ideas are muted and rendered invisible, or cause them to give up in reading the discussion because they don’t have time to scroll through hours of the same idea.
On an emotional side (that I try to avoid in reading governance discussion), it becomes harder to suppress frustration as I continually see the same individual posting the same comments, which effectively causes me to discount anything else they write, because I’ve been mentally fatigued that nothing new is said. I do my best to stay neutral and open, but its human nature to reach levels of frustration when individuals drive the debate in circles with no change, again rendering quality new comments invisible.
I applaud the community for their intense engagement, and encourage individuals to grow with how to effectively make a point and leave space for others to make theirs. No one is more important than anyone if this is done properly, and we must ensure we create such an environment.

[rain owl]

15 min slow mode would be my preference for anything in iip-iccp-forum. It made for some really well thought out, long form responses and comments in the contentious forge discussion.

[lapis cairn]

I'm just exhausted at this point. I guess all the pushback from higher-standing individuals wears down on you a lot. When I have to defend my thesis every hour. And even when I brought multiple data points and examples. I'm getting discarded as providing nothing new. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to influence the public enough. But I refuse to give up before I see the end of it.

[grave blaze]

Slowmode should be like an hour so people put in the effort to make good posts and we dont end up with so much backreading for the council. Then make a separate channel with no slow mode where people can have discussions but people wont really need to backread that because everyone's best argument is just in the main channel already.

[pallid star]

Agreed and done

People can chat here in future

I almost think a 24 hour slow mode might not be bad

Really cut down to each persons full thought out response

[grave blaze]

I think an hour is good enough. Thats 2-3 posts a day for most people unless they are online all day.

At 24 hours everything just gets filled with edit replies.

[dreamy locust]

With one hour slow mode nobody will answer anybody when the question is asked. But I guess that's not what that's channel is for in the first place?

[pallid star]

Can we disable edit lol further make sure they fill out there complete thoughts

[grave blaze]

I think thats the idea. The channel is supposed to be community feedback on the IIP. If people dont understand something or want to have a casual discussion about it they can do that elsewhere so it doesnt make hours of reading for everyone who wants to comment.

[grave blaze]

What happnes if you typo something bad though 👀

[pallid star]

You can delete lol and maybe you have 24hours to rethink your actions

[rain owl]

Can we have an iip/iccp chit chat channel. I like having a general gov only channel, but I’m sure I could be in the minority.

[pallid star]

Easy

[pallid star]

#1073754520477253742

[turbid nimbus]

I’m trying to keep up to date with all of the changes to the governance and iip channels. It might be helpful to update the channel info page to let people know exactly what channel is used for what purposes. Reading through Derajis post I wonder if the councils members time is best spent only reading through ideas from ideas channel once an idea reaches a threshold of community support ie 20 or 30 likes. Not all ideas are intended to be iips. From what I have observed often ideas are put in for fun discussions. If an idea gets enough support and engagement then perhaps it will inspire the original poster to compile the feedback and write a more formal proposal so that council and team members can get a quick understanding of the idea with out scrolling through hrs of discussion. Putting more responsibility onto the idea creators.

Please understand that this is no criticism of the council more that I hear the fatigue and frustration from council and truely sympathise.

[pallid star]

Absolutely that’s why if they gather enough support the next steps are actually formalizing IIPs if they do wish

[robust valve]

Hey, just wanted to say I have no issues reading to stay informed on community sentiment, particularly for something so many people feel so passionate about.
My point was more to people saying they are not heard or ignored.
In gov v2, speciality subcouncils help this much more by further decentralizing the role, and leveraging the community subcouncil to help refine and compile more.
As more ideas are shared, this will become increasingly necessary to keep up on everything.
For now, we'll work through it. Chatgpt has also been a helpful tool at times to summarize lengthy discussions

[turbid nimbus]

Thanks for all your hard work. I’m impressed every day with the amount of engagement from this council. I appreciate you.

[rain owl]

Illustrated the IIP/ICCP process https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1079863419290800128 with a major proposed change to community sub-council role. Love your feedback.

[mystic zinc]

To @robust valve and @fading cairn …Good evening US council members. For the last few days Richard Heart (hex founder) has been communicating with the hex community that he wants to replace any reference to the word staking with mining. This has now been completely updated on the hex.com website as hex mining APY and hex mining rewards etc. Clearly this is a smart strategy to protect hex miners from the current crackdown on staking from the SEC. Although the SEC is only 1 US regulatory body, If they are successful in essentially closing down any DeFi staking protocols then other western regulatory bodies may follow suit. So can I ask that at the next council meeting it is a topic of discussion to possibly change all of our staking terminology on our website to something like mining rewards or another alternative? I understand this may not be simple but if it protects the Illuvium DAO with more secure future regulatory compliance then it may at least be worth the discussion.

[midnight sparrow]

isnt that just a cosmetic change. Its basically nomenclature that doesnt change anything tbh. Maybe you could provide more information how SEC defined staking and see if our current setup falls under the same definition. Even if we changed it into "Mining" but the mechanics fall within the same definition of staking, no matter what you call it it will be considered by SEC as staking still.

[rain owl]

I have a different issue with the term stake as used by The DAO. From SEC press release, “Staking is a process in which investors lock up – or “stake” – their crypto tokens with a blockchain validator with the goal of being rewarded with new tokens when their staked crypto tokens become part of the process for validating data for the blockchain.” I know staking has expanded its meaning with other projects. But it just adds confusion when Illuvium’s use of the term does not match a Proof of stake protocol’s meaning. Not sure of an alternative, but I would support a change to the term if a clearer alternative title could be discovered. “Mining rewards” would not decrease confusion

[robust valve]

We have definitely been staying close and discussing many regulatory issues with legal counsel. While exact details aren't ready for public disclosure, we are looking at options to set the dao and all is members up to success as best we can in an uncertain and shifting space.

I'm with Scruba that the name likely provides minimal protection and it's the scrutiny and interpretation of Gensler and others that seems to matter today.
Many have also accused Gensler of creating policy by enforcement, which makes it difficult to navigate without clear guidance in advance of regulatory action.

I know Brian Armstrong and others have spoken out to drive clarity and create a voice for blockchain innovation in the US, including recently forming Crypto 435 to create a grassroots lobbying group across all US Congressional districts. Personally, I've already been active in writing my legislature on blockchain and intend to continue under this new collective to advocate for the US to create clear guidelines for all projects in the space.

This is also an aspect of the importance to me to separate projects I care about from bad actors and past malfeasance. Focus an actual products, quality, good intent and avoid negative associations.

I don't have an answer here, as there is no regulatory clarity. However, with the best guidance possible, we are actively working to do our best to create a sustainable model to bring Illuvium's vision to life for all its members.

[mystic zinc]

Thanks for the response @robust valve I and I’m sure our entire community are very confident in the founders, council, and core contributors to make quality decisions regarding regulatory compliance as complexed and ever changing as that can be. I bought this up purely to make council aware of changes that others in the crypto space with big communities are making so that our project has the information be it useful or otherwise. In regards to staking one great advantage we have if regulation becomes more of an issue in the future is that we have finite staking rewards ending July next year…then it’s a non issue for Illuvium unlike virtually every other staking protocol.

[uncut dome]

USDc has been on a rollercoaster ride these days, and council have been silent. There haven’t been any moves diversifying when hitting .98/.99. Would be glad to hear a member lay out their view /strategy regarding the majority of the ILV funds. I personally believe USDc will be fine, but still think there should be some risk mitigation as a USDc blowup could jeopardise the whole project

[robust valve]

The council with Danny have been in frequent contact over the past couple of days and met about 12 hours ago in voice chat.
There's an official statement coming soon on our discussions and plan.
We are all monitoring the situation closely and remain in close contact should something change dramatically.

[uncut dome]

Thanks for the response. Looking forward to the statement and arguments for not converting x amount at the 98/99 level.

[robust valve]

That was an exact discussion at the meeting. I'm personally in the camp of converting and diversifying a portion of treasury at the 98 to 99 range, but its the probability outcome assessment of redemption being honored at 1 to 1 when markets open in the US tomorrow versus additional negative exchange action or further financial events. Exchanging at anything less than 1 solidifies the loss immediately, and given statements from Circle, that was deemed low enough probability to not warrant action yet, but we continue to monitor.
Even if diversification occured, its a question of what you diversify into and the safety of that asset should further event happen.

[robust valve]

See #📰〕governance-news message

[lusty vector]

https://twitter.com/jerallaire/status/1635059024050937856?s=20

Jeremy Allaire (@jerallaire)

Update thread on USDC

We were heartened to see the US government and financial regulators take crucial steps to mitigate risks extending from the fractional banking system.

100% of deposits from SVB are secure and will be available at banking open tomorrow.

Likes

3448

Retweets

969

Twitter · Mar 12, 2023, 11:23 PM

[half osprey]

Where would I go about suggesting a simple IIP?

[pallid star]

#1020759212172775464 ser

[pallid star]

https://discord.com/events/760344898200666112/1086034941629960302

[dreamy locust]

IIP-32 Governance V2 was Approved but there is no news about it in 📰〕governance-news (probably because Rich was sick this week).

But would be nice if we knew the next steps now. Nominations should start a month early but we still don't know anything. Can we get more info and a timetable or at least something out to the community?

[pallid star]

Sorry that’s on me got a little back logged with some stuff

Will get something up today

[grave blaze]

So how would people feel about diverting trading fees to the safety pool as well as disk revenue for the duration of the first illuvitar sale?
The safety pool is currently pretty underwhelming and it seems like a better option than needing to do a raise.

[rain owl]

land sale trading fees as well? That is the majority of trading fees ATM

[grave blaze]

Yeah all the trading fees. Just to make sure we get enough cash in the safety pool that it actually matters.
Even if we can get it to $7 million or something from the combination of illuvitar + the trading fees that’s a pretty meaningful amount of cash. Might be enough for us to at least push a raise until game launch when the token price will be higher.

[oak hawk]

I think any source of revenue should be diverted to the safety pool. Only after the pool is filled should the rest spill over to ILV stakers

[rain owl]

From the last council town hall: Kieran is perusing an OTC capital raise for 18 months of runway. And he stated that is seen as the best lever to pull ATM.

I think the trading fees might total something like $700k - 1m I don't think it would be worth any possible blowback IMO.

But if that capital raise does not come through, @oak hawk idea of diverting all revenue to Safety Pool until Open Beta (or with some other time based metric) could make sense.

[grave blaze]

Yeah he also said that instead of using excess treasury tokens to grow the project he would want to distribute it out to stakers (effectively cashing himself out via revdis instead of cointinuing to reinvest in Illuvium) so im not 100% in agreement with Kieran's ideas these days.

IMO preserving treasury ILV should be a priority at this time and a raise at these low prices should be an absolute last resort.

[lusty vector]

I said it's an option to reward stakers as we wouldn't need the safety pool. That was always the plan if revenues or capital mitigated the need for it. But sure, I am greedy and want to "cash myself out". Seriously, what the actual fuck.

I explained the function that enables the treasury to refill it's ILV reserves. Next time you want to accuse me of blatant nonsense come do it on the town hall. At least then we can discuss it properly without your little peppering comments that make no sense.

[grave blaze]

I dont think its a matter of greed. It just sounded to me like a lot of the high hopes you used to hold for Illuvium have gone by the wayside.

I remember when I first came to Illuvium you would always talk about how you planned to build it into the largest brand in web3. Dominating as the largest gaming studio, a blockchain tech provider, and an IP to rival the Pokemon franchise.
It was disappointing to hear you talking about an absolute dream scenario where the DAO has revenue far in excess of current expenses and the best you could come up with was distributing even more money to the stakers. Where was the talk about more games, increasing the team size to deliver products faster, branching out into TV or Movies? I invested here because of the incredible long term vision that you put forward and my belief that Illuvium could become an absolutely top tier organization in every aspect of the blockchain space.

Sure my characterization there was probably a little harsh, but it comes from my frustration that the aspirations you once had for Illuvium seem to no longer be at the forefront of your mind.

[lusty vector]

I assure you, nothing has changed re the longterm vision. My point was that I believe we will be generating revenue in excess of what is required to deliver all of those things. And when that happens, the community will start to say "Hey, the treasury is bloating with tokens and earning too much of the revenue (similar to how mainstream studios do it) and that is not the intention of the tokenomics." That threshold might be 50m, maybe it's 500m I don't know - but at some stage I believe the treasury will hold too many tokens, and someone will propose we liquidate them to bring it back inline with our original intention.

Again, absolutely nothing has changed, we are still miles ahead of any studio in this space. We are still working stupidly hard to bring this thing to market. I agree, transparency of dates has been lacking, and I can tell you that I was personally very against not having public dates for our products, and it is now going to change.

I get people are frustrated, we are all frustrated, but the mission has not changed and we're still going to have clear headway to dominate as soon as we launch.

[rain owl]

where are these numbers coming from? Doesn't seem to match what is in "38aa - Mainnet"

[midnight sparrow]

Hi @calm vale or @lusty vector the annual report shows that we've been averaging 1.06m usd burn per month. And the runway seems to be based on this burn rate. Is it safe to assume you're projecting the same burn rate for the next 14 months? At least on average?

I ask cause it's publicly known we ballooned our CCs before and have significantly cut back headcount as of late. At the same time, I'm assuming we would earmark significant cost associated with the launch of open beta for marketing and influencer purposes.

Won't these factors affect the runway projections? Or have you already computed the one-time expenses of launch costs in?

Wanted to confirm if this is the case or not. Thanks.

[calm vale]

Yes. to clarify, we are consistently estimating a general burn rate each month in the report, but there may be some months where expenses are higher or lower than the average (such as Feb/March). Additionally, there have been additional cost-cutting measures implemented in the last four weeks that are not reflected in the report, potentially resulting in lower expenses in the upcoming months. It's important to note that this report only includes expenses and not any further revenues from game launching , so any additional "launch costs" will be managed carefully based on the income generated for the DAO. Overall, the report presents its current burn position and will be updated monthly.

[calm vale]

Treasury Wallet 38AA currently holds 1.07M ILV as your etherscan link shows . 1M of this is held for in-game yield and not considered an asset for the DAO, hence the burn report only shows the 77K ILV. The report also shows the other 1.47M sitting inside the vesting contract.

[lofty shale]

An ICCP to initiate the Gov V2 Transition Process on Apr 13 has been posted for review. #1093066212709245060 message

[grave blaze]

Wasn't there something like 300k ILV leftover from the balancer sale as well that was gonna be added to the treasury? Or has that been allocated elsewhere?

[scenic peak]

The tokens seem to still be in the wallet with the vesting tokens. Not sure how many tokens have needed to be used for different purposes. Some have for sure. But most of those were sent out awhile back.

[lofty shale]

An IIP to implement a Trading Blackouts has been posted for review. #1110967964125106267

[turbid nimbus]

Do we know who the team member’s assigned to each sub council are?

[pallid star]

Yeah, I'll make it known once the votes for IMC are done tomororw

[turbid nimbus]

Thanks Rich. I was just curious

[pallid star]

I mean its Nick- Strategy Ben - Game Andrew- Marketing

[turbid nimbus]

Thanks again

[dreamy locust]

I'm just interested on how it's possible we're doing a Promotional D1sk sale without IIP? Is it because team can spend money on marketing until some value without IIP or is it something else?

[fading cairn]

This falls under partnership and marketing activities. The council (Epoch 7 when this was under discussion) was actively consulted on these topics and we agreed that it falls under non-IIP relevant activities. I expect the marketing subcouncil and/or IMC would be involved in the consulting this epoch when relevant but there are confidentiality concerns that would always preclude a public facing IIP for these sorts of agreements.

[dreamy locust]

Is there some sort of number. In my head it feels like I heard a number of $2mil that can be done without IIP?

Also, in theory, would it be possible to create an IIP to vote against Promo D1sks same as we did with Su Zhu battle or is this totally different because we already spent money etc.?

[fading cairn]

You can create an idea for anything and if supported by the community it would go to the council. If you feel strongly about it, as anything, then I encourage you to voice concerns (as you have here).

Just to make sure we’re on the same page though, Promo D1sks aren’t about us spending money…they’re us getting money from partners for inclusion of their IP in Illuvitars. What would be the rationale where this is bad for the DAO? The only example I can think of is if we have a negative brand impact but without knowing who the partners are, I’m not sure how the community would take that position.

[dreamy locust]

I don't think is a bad idea, I'm just trying to figure out how exactly Governance is done with this kind of projects. All of the questions were theoretical just to try and understand the process.

I was pretty much interested what requires an IIP and what doesn't. But I think you made it pretty clear now. Thank you for answering.

[lofty shale]

An ICCP to add Alpha Stamps to Illuvitars has been posted in #1114179146487189555 - This is a revision of @grave blaze's proposal for a visual indicator, based on feedback from the team.

[dreamy locust]

Are we minting only 20,000 D1sks at he most or is Illuvium/GameStop getting any for marketing purposes?
Also, is GameStop getting any % from sales on Secondary market?

[sterile ridge]

Only 20k D1sks, no marketing allocation.

Unsure if details of that last question can be shared.

[dreamy locust]

There is no mention of Merch revenue going into Safety pool, is that something that will need it's own ICCP or is Merch revenue not going into Safety pool?

[uncut dome]

Merch revenue isn’t going into anything. It will be revenue with direct costs subtracted.

[light valve]

There will still be some profit on it right? Where is that going

[dreamy locust]

I get that we aren't getting 100% of the price, but what happens to the part that is profit?

[midnight sparrow]

Merch and even promo or wave 2 would need an ICCP if its to be included into the safety pool to fill it up. I cant go into the details just yet but we are looking into making an ICCP to the safety pool but waiting word on Kieran and the team as to their assessment considering the latest runway and burn rate disclosure.

[scenic peak]

There are many councilors sharing their opinions regarding the two recent proposals in #📯〕council-chambers . Not every council member needs to comment on every proposal though right? Only the ones that went to their sub-council? Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate seeing all the messages, especially minority opinions. I just want to clarify my understanding of expectations.

[midnight sparrow]

Basically, blackout went to all 3 and alpha mark went to game.

We're trying to streamline this for next proposals. But generally, council posts on the ones they voted on.

[lofty shale]

As a meta-governance proposal, we directed the Trading Blackout IIP to all sub-councils. Like Scruba said, we're looking at whether we can and should address proposals of this nature differently in the future.

[scenic peak]

Thanks guys.

[dreamy locust]

After the sub-councils have voted, is that it or we still need IMC to confirm and vote once again?

[midnight sparrow]

Goes up to imc for final vote.

[dreamy locust]

Is there anything in place to speed things up if need be? As I think this way we need at least 6 days to vote on something...

[midnight sparrow]

It's something we're looking into. It's gonna take a min of 9 days. 3 days in community 3 in specialized sub council then 3 in imc. That doesn't count the time It's on ideas waiting for 25 up votes and the time community takes to put it in proper format.

So there's definitely merit in looking at ways to be more efficient in the process.

[fading cairn]

Remember that the Treasury Committee is able to introduce items that go directly into the IMC and bypass the other councils. This should only be done on rare occasions but we expected it might be necessary at times (and would generally involve a major financial risk or opportunity).

[lapis cairn]

Can we get clarity how promo disks were discussed with the DAO before puting them to sell?
Can we be briefed on who and how decided what to put in the disks and how to price them?
I'm mostly curious how someone decided to introduce an item with a 1 in a thousand chance in 20k limited run. Thus making full collection only possible to 20ish people in the world.

[midnight sparrow]

Promo d1sks fall under the purview of Marketing which previous council has decided to delegate to the marketing team to ensure theres no delays or bogging down of marketing iniatives. With Gov v2 in place this would be revisited and <@&1107754344499122206> would work closely with the marketing team in defining what falls under DAO jurisdictions and what falls strictly with Marketing Team. We have to keep in mind that Gov v2 shouldnt add more obstacles so this would most likely be ever-evolving in how theyll be balanced.

So the other 2 questions you have were decided by the team beforehand.

[night sable]

Until an IIP is created. As per the ICCP that better detailed the definition of revdis. Those funds would then go to stakers as per the current revenue distribution framwork

[night sable]

I agree. The finer details of rarity, pricing and scarcity could have been re evaluated before the sale went live.

However this was a highly confidential project the team conducted with Gamestop. Not only could they not divulge information but they had to negotiate the terms and outcome of the sale. Even if they were able to tell the DAO or community there would then be high risk Gamestop abandons the partnership due to the extra strain or overcomplicating the deal among other things.

For things like this it is unlikely the DAO will have input and we will simply need to trust the team to do their job. However what the DAO can now do is have discussions and convey the sentiment of the community to the marketing team. We can then work together to reflect on what went right and wrong so that they can do their jobs even better for future partnerships if we aren't privy to the finer details.

[lapis cairn]

In the spirit of democracy and transparency, can we get a post-mortem to identify who advocated for what in that discussion? This way, we can exercise our votes accordingly in the next epoch.

[rain owl]

#📰〕governance-news message
Looks like the community notes are locked :

[lofty shale]

This will get updated when Rich comes online - Had bad perms, my mistake.

In the interim - https://docs.google.com/document/d/13g5g5M-_W_IqgUBhyW9ZlARlPfFM7q_y9FgyFvasbfo/edit#heading=h.icz53onl3wez

[lofty shale]

A revised proposal for Wave 2 Illuvitar Pricing has been posted. #1123089580778860624 message

[dreamy locust]

Would love to hear from Strategy Sub-Council about ICCP-9 Safety Pool. We got nothing from them in #📯〕council-chambers and we only have 3 members voting out of 5.

[scenic peak]

A couple from <@&1107754638884745236> have shared in #📯〕council-chambers at this point but hearing from everyone is helpful, especially if there was a difference of opinion. I would think +/- $10,000,000 merits some discussion.

Also, if you are here and haven't read this then you probably should. (I hadn't) https://illuvium.io/news/june-2023-dao-governance-newsletter

[rain owl]

newsletter is great. thanks <@&1107754780744487002>

[lofty shale]

MSC Recommendations for Wave 2 Parameter updates:
#1130940550149853184 message

[rain owl]

Could/should we codify @robust valve s suggestion to use a hot wallet for council voting nft and a system in place if said wallet is compromised?

[pallid star]

I suggest this ahead of any council coming on because they literally can’t do anything with the voting NFT only we can transfer it

[night sable]

On the team members?

[lapis cairn]

Wasn't this discussed with the council? I was thinking there was council input into the GS partnership.

Or if there wasn't we have a separate issue.

[night sable]

So the GS partnership details were conducted during the previous epoch. And it had lots of NDAs that meant the council could not be privvy to information

We knew there was a partnership and that branded D1sks of some kind would be sold

Anything related to price, specifics, who the partner was etc was not able to be disclosed. A very tiny handful of even team members knew

[lapis cairn]

@night sable I inderstand that information wasn't able to be disclosed. I'm asking now post-factum what the then council members advocated for. Some asked for higher prices, some for lower. Some might have wanted more than 1 illuvitar in a disk. Some might have wanted more than 6 illuvitars.

What I'm looking for is council members that decided on such parameters to take accountability and disclose their position to their voters. There are council members who are in this council who were in the previous one. So to me it makes sense for the stakers to be aware of how their representative acted.

As of now there wasn't a single council member that stepped up and said what they advocated for in the GS collab.

The power of the ILV token is governance. So to me it makes sense to ask for transparency when such choices are made. Otherwise council is a popularity contest. I'd love to know how each council member voted closed door proposals, so that I can put my vote in people who have similar to my view.

I don't expect people would want to vote for someone who can't own up to their votes or is unviling to disclose them publically. Stakers should know how their representative acted and decide for themselves how to exercise their voting rights in future epochs.

We're already getting the stances of council members in regular non-NDA proposals. So I don't think this is overstepping any bounds.

[night sable]

Okay we have had a mishap in our communication. Firstly I agree with you and its how I view the council chambers process.

Not sure if you are aware but I was on the last epoch, that's where I am speaking from. The marketing team took care of the gamestop collaboration independently. That was a part of Gamestops requirements and if they had told us it.might have voided the collaboration entirely. So we did not make decisions on any components of gamestop. We learnt about some further details briefly before everyone else but even if we knew pricing etc it was not up to the council in this instance.

That was the nature of the agreements

[lapis cairn]

I'm aware you were in the last Epoch. Thanks for providing these details. Maybe I was wrong to assume the council had input into the deal.

But this brings us to a discussion on how the team is circumventing the DAO on such discussions.

At least we should have a rubber stamp proposals of the type: "The team wants to make a deal about a promotional disk campaign" and due 3rd party requirements details cannot be shared. And the council can green light it.

[night sable]

I think it might have even started before my epoch began tbh. It was in the works for a long time. Previous council members from even my time might know 🤣🤣 sorry I couldn't be more helpful

[fading cairn]

It's a good question and I want to clarify this a bit further Ned as I had a couple other community members ask me similar questions. In a very early epoch (I believe in mid-2021) the decision was made to delegate 100% of marketing activities to the team by the council at that time. The negotiation and terms of external marketing and partnership agreements like this (including all legal, commercial, and technical terms) fall under the scope of Illuvium Labs, not under the Illuvium Council. The council acts as an advisory group for these sorts of topics but not with the level of oversight you were initially asking for here by previous IIP design. So your statement that we have a 'rubber stamp for proposals' is more or less correct. The team did inform the council last epoch that there was a Web2 gaming organization partnership agreement in the works for a promo D1sk campaign and that due to the nature of the agreement, details could not be shared. The discussion around this did actually begin in the epoch prior to that one. Last epoch, the council verbally confirmed in a meeting that the team should proceed.

In Gov V2, we expanded the role of the council to have more involvement with our marketing strategy and content but the marketing sub-council and IMC are not tasked with reviewing the details and contracts of commercial agreements like this. If the intent of community would be for that structure to change, that could be proposed. If so, we would need to look at some additional qualifications as I don't believe that we have the appropriate members on the councils to do so. Having worked extensively with both, I'm confident that the partnership and legal responsible departments at Illuvium Labs are currently much more equipped for these discussions than any (or even all) of our council members.

[lapis cairn]

Thanks to both @night sable and @fading cairn for detailed responses. I understand how the process worked and I had some assumptions that were invalidated. I appreciate the clarity and transparency.

[night sable]

Thats all good Ned and yeah I haven't made multi million dollar deals with an organisation before. I'd rather let Andrew handle it. He's got a lot of experience.

[dreamy locust]

Right side doesn’t add up to 100………

Official ICCP-12-R proposal.

[native pilot]

yeah I see now that it's a typo.

It should be 57.7% for the T1s.
#1130940550149853184 message image source

[dreamy locust]

Big typo if I can say so myself.

[native pilot]

I think we were all just excited to have something to finally pass after months of back and forths internally and with the Community in #1020759212172775464 .
Now after that bumpy first trial run of Governance V2, we all know what can go better and we'll take appropriate measures moving forward.
Good catch though and thanks for keeping us on our toes surrounding Illuvitars! 🙏

[dreamy locust]

Is there a reason why Proposals with more than 25 upvotes from #1126838877429182506 are still not at CSC level up for voting?

[pallid star]

If they havent been submitted to GitHub as an official IIP I cant put it up, so they wouldve needed to either do that themselves or have a CSC member help them

[native pilot]

The maximum time to gather community sentiment is 2 weeks, so it is not unheard of to have the proposals be in the proposal channel for a week.

Moreover, there are 4 documents that are not time-sensitive, so we wanted to provide the community with ample time after the town hall to mull over the proposals and come to an informed decision.

It does seem like Aarons proposal, and Animositas' proposal are the favorites.
But there are 23/25 upvotes on Nijafes proposal so we could see benefit in adding all 3 to the github once that happens. The strategy council could then discuss them all at once. 👍

[fading cairn]

To followup on Garf’s point, the Strategy subcouncil will take on the point in our next meeting with whichever proposals have moved up. I’ve spoke to Nick already and he is aligning internally with the team to also gather potential combinations of the IIP/ICCPs that have emerged over the past week. Our job will be to take all the sentiment expressed and land with a working combination of mechanics (including guidance for guardrails) into a finished proposal or two.

[lofty shale]

Strictly speaking, it's up to the sponsor when something gets moved to a vote (they are consulted prior to CSC taking action) to ensure any edits and revisions are incorporated. In this case the sponsors felt having ample time for community discussion after the town hall was warranted, as this is an important topic for the DAO.

[dreamy locust]

Thanks to clearing that up everyone. My understanding was a bit different. But this clears things up.

[gusty sundial]

Im always looking at this from a new player/investors point of view to see if mass adoption can be achievable

I have no personal issues with anyone, just the way things are delivered to the ultimate end user needs to change

[lofty shale]

What would you recommend specifically?

[gusty sundial]

Just to not be so forceful in getting your point across

I get it, but other people might not

and I see that it is creating tension rather than understanding

im not defending other land owners who feel "entitled", but I do try and hear them and figure out a way where we could compromise

As I do with the team and council members

But everyone is pretty headstrong in their way of thinking that their way is the right way

And for the most part everyone is right under the right circumstances

We can do without the need to call people names like "entitled, free loader, etc" to make that point

We are all in the same ship together, no need to help it sink

[lofty shale]

I couldn't agree more - We're absolutely in the same ship, and should focus on ship-wide improvements.

[autumn frost]

I like the council notes a lot, but they are peppered with acronyms, here's some from 1 note:

• VARA
• GCM
• VONC
• GIP
• IMC

CSC

[lofty shale]

VARA = Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority
GCM = Governance Community Manager (Rich)
VONC = Vote of No Confidence
GIP - Game Improvement Proposal (see #1158614270267899935 )
IMC = Illuvinati Main Council (Caveman, JP, Ani, Kieran and myself)
CSC = Community Sub-Council

[autumn frost]

thanks Blickter!

[fading cairn]

Thanks for clarifying Blickter.

[fading cairn]

These are good questions to bring up. If something isn't clear feel free to ask. Some of these items are new acronyms and others are just not commonly used so we are happy to clarify if anything isn't clear.

[uncut dome]

Acronyms are terrible in documents which are meant to communicate something. Especially in larger organisations. (Where we hopefully are going)

[autumn frost]

#📰〕governance-news message
the community council post links to an old blog, not the oct one

[pallid star]

Hmm ok thanks for flagging

Will fix

[lofty shale]

Some super quick and dirty election analytics - If anyone wants to see some other stats, LMK

Note that the threshold for "Whale wallets" being at 1k ILV (31.62 vILV) is completely arbitrary. By this metric, whales make up 12.8% of participating wallets. Changing the threshold could produce different results.

[dreamy locust]

I would be interested in what is the threshold for which there is no changes to the final score. For example with the current threshold if we’re only looking at “Whale wallets” the score would change.

[lofty shale]

I'll see if I can solve for that - You're talking about how many large wallets would need to be excluded for the result to change?

[lofty shale]

Sent a FR, I'll send you my Google Sheet. It's quick and dirty lol, but you can play around with it however you'd like

[autumn frost]

what is the context of revdis adjustments?

[fading cairn]

The discussion was around the technical possibilities of offering rewards in other tokens beyond ILV for players that win tournaments. There’s no revdis changes that are included and we wanted to be clear with the community that the discussion has nothing to do with the revdis process - it’s looking at when we incentivize gamers with rewards.

[dreamy locust]

What's up with Marketing committee? is Andrew from Coin Telegraph there or not?

[pallid star]

Guess if Kieran tweeted it must be real 🤷😂

[pallid star]

https://x.com/blockanalia/status/1725964190454546734?s=46&t=OGCg9YYWHNHa8xola00HOQ

There’s your answer

[lusty vector]

Tagged the wrong Andrew 🤦‍♂️ all fixed

[glossy knoll]

@pallid star Have any meeting notes been posted yet? I may be blind and missed them?

[pallid star]

Not yet but I have a whole log of them, just was waiting for some confirmations they were ready and then the holidays were in the way. Will 100% happen this week

[dreamy locust]

how many "monthly raffles" did we have in the wave 2? and what were they and how many d1sks did we give away?

[thick lantern]

I didn't not see many, if that helps 😉

Adding to this, I would appreciate the update as well, and perhaps knowing how many d1sks remain in the "marketing wallet/pool" for Wave 1 & Wave 2

[dreamy locust]

My question is mainly because of this. IMC voted for Monthly raffles so I'm not sure if it's only me who don't know about them or are ICCP's just random paragraphs so it's easier to get approval from the community.

[dreamy locust]

<@&1107754780744487002> would you be so kind to find and provide the answer to my question?

[fiery fog]

prob need @pallid star or @sterile ridge for these

[sterile ridge]

not sure why I would be the person for this.

[fiery fog]

my bad, must be rich then

[north finch]

What ICCP was this pulled from?

[dreamy locust]

ICCP-12-R Illuvitars Wave 2 Sale Parameters

[north finch]

Thanks. I’ll bring it up at our ICC meeting tomorrow.

[pallid star]

I don’t think there is an intent to “get the community to pass things” but the end of the year was pretty busy with a lot going on across the board, I know we did some giveaways in discord, TSG did some with influencers, and we did some on twitter. I can get the numbers of D1SKS left vs what we started with. But I feel like this is suggesting the intent is malice which isn’t the case. It may not have been like “this months monthly raffle” everytime but there were def giveaways.

[dreamy locust]

Are we going to get a review of Wave 2 from Council or team members on how it went and are they happy with changes implemented before the Wave 2 or not? And their opinion on what we could have done better?

[scenic peak]

@pallid star
IMC just takes an extension right? #📯〕council-chambers message
There’s no one to approve the request. Decided to table until…

[pallid star]

Yeah, just requesting from community I guess. Like a "thank you for waiting"

[lament harness]

<@&1107754780744487002>
Why didn't it went up for vote?

[fiery fog]

you still want it to go to vote? kieran IIP is proposing IZ to launch with OB

so there wont be a delay if it gets passed

[lament harness]

Absolutely, why shouldn't it?

[fiery fog]

ok

[lament harness]

This also won't go up for vote because there's already an IIP up for vote which has some similarities?

[fiery fog]

both we havent asked you sorry

[fiery fog]

apologies

[lament harness]

I'm not that kinda guy harrassing people in dm's, but ist it intentioned i keep pushing the councils with when's?
Do other people do that to bring the Stuff up to attention?

[fiery fog]

no, we should have asked you when it reached 25 upvotes

major oversight

[glossy knoll]

Will we get a breakdown of council members voting and meeting attendance again for this epoch? Wasn't there supposed to be one at the halfway point?

[fiery fog]

we still doing that?

[glossy knoll]

Would be nice visibility for us peasants

[lament harness]

Aren't these metrics public anyways?

• Voting on snapshot
• Meeting attendance in the Meeting minutes

[glossy knoll]

Ya I suppose this is true, but seeing the percentages and overall picture would be great. I just noticed a lot of votes with only 4 members. wondering if there is any trend. Didn't want to look into each wallet. Some comment their names which is nice.

[dreamy locust]

There is an IIP-35 Peer & Self Evaluation for Council Members that was Approved.

Timing: Council members will participate in self and peer evaluations twice during the epoch: once at the 2.5-month interval and again at the 5-month interval. Each member of every sub-council, including the Illuvinati Main Council (“IMC”), shall evaluate the other four members of their respective council as well as themselves.

Later in IIP-42 Governance V3 is says:

Council members will participate in self and peer evaluations twice during the epoch: once at the 4-month interval and again at the 8-month interval by IIP-35.

As far as I know, we had that "peer evaluation" only once. I guess we've just given up on those or we aren't paying Council enough for them to have time to do something this time consuming? I really have no idea.

[fiery fog]

thanks. tbh i missed that. will talk about this with the council

[night sable]

In the previous epoch this was installed during the epoch, so only the 5 month evaluation was relevant.

Also this is designed around the 6 month epoch, it may need to be revised for the 9 month epoch

But we will inform rich

[dreamy locust]

It is revised in the Gov V3 IIP as stated above.

[pallid star]

Are we at 4 months

oof 5 months now

Well I guess its that time again then

will sort it out thanks @dreamy locust

[dreamy locust]

It’s all Caveman. I haven’t done anything.

[pallid star]

This specifically was just something @thick lantern did on his own as a community council member.

[thick lantern]

Was beneficial to have but was tediousl to prepare

Entirely manual process 😕

[lament harness]

how it looks with the proposals? been again almost 2 weeks.
According to IIP-42 Governance V3 the whole proces shouldn't take that long

There are like 4 more proposals which should have been done in voting by icc + imc already and the 5 currently in voting should obviously also already have been done.

[fiery fog]

paz is working on it, and have submitted one if im not mistaken.
as for the other proposals that have been voted by the ICC, the IMC asked for an extension

[lament harness]

1 out of 4 after 10 days? 😄
What's the reasoning? How long is that extension? There are some important ones which to me it seems have super high priority.

[fiery fog]

#📯〕council-chambers message

[fiery fog]

there are 3 proposals that needed to be voted by ICC?
2 from you and 1 from filow?

[lament harness]

and

[fiery fog]

oh ur right

[lament harness]

another oversight?

[lament harness]

From my as objective as possible pov Governance doesn’t work properly.
What are the reasons?
How can we improve?
What’s going on with all the proposals mentioned below?
<@&814435151307866142> <@&1107754780744487002> @lusty vector

Proposal process

• 4 proposals which reached the threshold of up-votes didn’t go up for vote of ICC since a month. One of them is in my opinion pretty important to go through asap, since it most likely influences the development process of Zero.
• Last 4 proposals only got 4 votes of ICC, whereas in IMC sometimes proposals get 5 and sometimes 4 votes, which seems like a lack of consistency in duty.
• 2 proposals got a request for an extension from IMC almost 2 weeks ago. No further notice yet.

Info exchange between community/investors
When questions occur raised by community, the standard answer is "I raise the question in next meeting". Sometimes it gets answered within a week or two, sometimes not. In regards to the payment council members i don’t understand why it takes weeks to answer sometimes simple questions.
There's basically no info exchange at all besides Announcements and Meeting minutes, which got substantially reduced over time, and often get posted 1-1.5 months after the meeting.

Handling the debate in Zero channel weeks ago
Instead of trying objectively handling the debate, fingers were pointed, emotional answers where posted and standard statements were given.

Community sentiments gathering
If even proposals get overseen, it makes me doubt that community sentiment is properly gathered. Especially since there are no polls about subjects, never seen statistics posted in a chanel opened about concerns/questions etc. by a council member. It’s basically just comments in discord and twitter where sentiment even could be gathered.

[dreamy locust]

I guess we got what we voted for.

Never have I ever in last 2 and a half year seen less communication. And we got Gov v2 and v3 that should be fixing that..?

To be honest, we (both Illuvium and the community) never cared about the governance. We never cared about the candidates and what kind of experience they have. We never cared about what they can bring to the table. It was always just a popularity contest. While developing the game we totally ignored anything that has to do with governance. It been like that for a long time.

When reading what Dr.Spoon says. If that's true - that's just embarrassing and should be addressed.

[pallid star]

We will have all 3 up for vote today

[fiery fog]

thank you for the feedback

[midnight sparrow]

Last 4 proposals only got 4 votes of ICC, whereas in IMC sometimes proposals get 5 and sometimes 4 votes, which seems like a lack of consistency in duty.

While ideally 5 members should be voting, the proposals are either passed rejected or up for revision by majority vote. There are times and will be times that members in both council are not available to vote due to certain circumstances. And ideally (which I think should be made part of the process) is that they indicate these reasons along with the way they will vote in #📯〕council-chambers.

Currently, I am out of the country till June and I have no access to my hardware wallet to vote but I intend to share my positon and rationale in #📯〕council-chambers still.

2 proposals got a request for an extension from IMC almost 2 weeks ago. No further notice yet.

This is being put on hold as Labs is planning to address this in connection with a bigger discussion that will happen in a town hall session. Arguably, there is still lots of room for improvement in communicating and informing of the DAO. I would hope that ICC would play an integral role in this and perhaps a process might be needed to be introduced to instill this core responsibility.

When questions occur raised by community, the standard answer is "I raise the question in next meeting". Sometimes it gets answered within a week or two, sometimes not. In regards to the payment council members i don’t understand why it takes weeks to answer sometimes simple questions.

Its a multitude of reasons that come into play here. One would be the timing. If certain topics are to be addressed by Labs it would be best to be done so wholesale rather than piecemeal where multiple individuals are asking different yet corelated or connected topics. This is why Labs schedule town hall sessions.

Another reason, is that Labs are unable to provide accurate information just yet. In the case of features of games, I can honestly say that Labs has internal deadlines theyre pushing to meet but if one demands to know what features are going to be made avaiable in launch, what happens if they give a list and one of those features didnt make the deadline? Weve seen the community take everything they say against them even if its said with a caveat.

But again, I agree we need a better forum for this. Perhaps a channel for formal information request can be created where it will be easier to track and monitor DAO's requests which I feel ICC can help champion in chasing after necessary parties.

Community sentiments gathering
If even proposals get overseen, it makes me doubt that community sentiment is properly gathered. Especially since there are no polls about subjects, never seen statistics posted in a chanel opened about concerns/questions etc. by a council member. It’s basically just comments in discord and twitter where sentiment even could be gathered.

This is a fair take and while community sentiment is gauged by the number of like and the general discussions in channels it can be seen as 'insufficient'. However, I would say the same for polls and such. All of these wont be able to properly capture DAO sentiment as it would only capture those who are vocal, active, or genuinely cares about things. To this, I have no real solution to propose but would like to get suggestions from the community on how to properly address this.

[lament harness]

I appreciate you very much, always taking the time.
Won't proceed any further discussions about that topic to prevent getting blocked and banned from more people and places.

Just to say it again; it was a rational objective critique to kick Off brainstorming solutions and maybe improve governance and by no means a personal attack against anyone.

[midnight sparrow]

Of course. Always a pleasure to help clarify things and be service to the DAO.

Also, I don't think anyone was personally offended. At least, I wasn't. I just wanted to give better context to the situation at the same time also agree with your take that yes we need to do better. We need to improve or create a better process for the community to be heard better and be informed

[lament harness]

And we see it. You are a legend, ser.

Yea some were offended apparently.

[dreamy locust]

Is there a place where we can ask questions for Town Hall for tomorrow? Or are only the questions from people in the audience being answered live?

[lament harness]

#💥〕leaks-discussion message

[pallid star]

https://link.illuvium.io/Townhallquestions

[lament harness]

Voting of IIP-52 Revenue distribution pre-fuel prod. and compensation for delay

The main reason for creating the IIP was what to do if Illuvium: Zero will released delayed to OW and Arena. I agree that many things are outdated, due to the proposal not getting to a vote for a month+ and it could be discussed if there should be a compensation and how this compensation would look like and the proposal could be edited to on one hand bring the proposal up to date and on the other hand find a middle ground for compensations. The one argument every council wrote as reason to decline was Illuvium Zero will now launch at the same time as Arena and Overworld.
The launch is in roughly one month, Zero is not implemented in testnet yet, nobody knows what game breaking bugs are being discovered and how much time they take to be eliminated, so the question of what if still persists.

<@&814435151307866142>

• What if Zero won’t be in the state to be released on July 25?

Voting of IIP-55 Training Grounds, Illuvial Staking and TrainingDex

The main reason this IIP was declined which got stated by most council members was the IIP being too detailed, which could be solved simply with deleting those details IMC not want to be in.

<@&814435151307866142>

• With the reasoning the most council members stated, why hasn’t the IIP been voted for going into revision?
• What parameters need to be met for the IIP going into revision instead of being declined?
• Did you see that many details just were suggestions, so Illuvium labs has a clear vision of what the feature aims to be?

[dreamy locust]

As per ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization:

4.) The Illuvinati Main Council(IMC) will now be provided 3 options when voting in snapshot: Approved, Rejected, Revisions Needed

If the IMC majority votes “Rejected”, the proposal will be considered Rejected. If members vote “pending amendments” they must also provide suggested changes in the reasoning field within the snapshot. The proposal will go back to the Specialized council for possible amending. The specialized council can decide to reject it at this phase or re-submit back to the sponsor with edits. The IMC can send it back for edits 3 times cumulatively then it is considered rejected.

Tiebreakers will always flow back to be revised if there are edits remaining.

[ivory ingot]

I can only speak for myself here.

Both of these IIPs aim to take away from one part of the Illuvium ecosystem to give to another, namely landholders.

IIP-52 aims to punish stakers by taking away from revenue distribution, which wouldn’t solve anything or make any products delivered sooner. It is in the DAO's and Labs' best interest to release Illuvium Zero together with the other games. Voting on the IIP only after we know more about timelines and the progress of Illuvium Zero is, in my opinion, a positive step. Making quick decisions without all the relevant information available seems unwise and could cause more harm than good.

IIP-55 proposes creating a new building in Illuvium Zero that enables Illuvials to earn experience points. This utility was previously exclusive to Overworld and Arena players. This reduces the utility of Overworld and Arena in favor of giving more utility to land. One could argue that another unintended consequence would be reducing the value of playing and spending money in Overworld/Arena, which would negatively impact stakers as well. Similar arguments can be made for positive marketing efforts, where landholders might spend more money.

We lack certainty and data, as we haven’t seen the game's economy live on-chain yet.

To sum up, I don’t fundamentally oppose the idea of this building. There are pros and cons, but without having the planned economy, which includes experience farming, live on Mainnet, I don’t believe approving this idea at the moment makes sense. It can be revisited at a later stage.

To the detailed point, I think any of these IIPs that want to include game elements should leave all the details and economic implications up to Labs. Forcing Labs to build anything beyond the fundamental idea could harm the games and game economy, which would harm stakers/revenue distribution again. This would mean we’d have to overwrite it in the future (with a new IIP) because something changed after the IIP passed. I’d assume this would be a frequent occurrence.
Working on a better structure for these IIPs aiming to implement changes to the games via new features and such is certainly on the IMC’s mind.

[midnight sparrow]

IIP-52: there's nothing that labs has indicated that it won't make the July 25 launch. So it would be presumptuous and speculative to pass an IIP that contradicts the launch plan at this point. I'm willing to address this again if it has come to light that there will be major changes and delay to IZ again.

On IIP-55, I haven't posted my position in chambers (just got back from my trip so it's on my to do list) but I voted to have it revised.

[lament harness]

What do you mean in this case "Voting on the IIP only after we know more about timelines and the progress of Illuvium Zero is, iin my opinion, a positive step?
Like we are 1 month out, zero not on testnet. You mean you want to wait to create IIP's for this scenarios until when?

Gaining experience for Illuvials is not at all an exclusive feature for Overworld and Arena, it was stated multiple times that it is intentioned for Illuvials gaining experience whenever they are being used in whatever games Illuvium might create in the future. Do you want Zero being excluded from that list?

[ivory ingot]

If I remember correctly on this IIP we asked for an extension on voting, like our governance structure lays out to make an educated decision.
That is what I mean and I believe it was the correct decision.

Gaining Experience in the current setup of games that will be launched is currently exclusive for Arena and Overworld, I don´t think making changes to that without having any data on the economic and sentiment meaning of this is wise.

[lament harness]

so what if scenarios in iip's basically have no chance at all to be voted in?
Basically rather react than plan ahead?

No rush, mate. Since it got declined anyways, i'm just out for info to improve future proposals and get some clarity in general on the the whole iip process

[lament harness]

No, this wasn't one of those.
Simply got overseen by ICC.

Fair enough. Imo it's not giving it additionally to zero, it's more of a "haven't had time to develop a feature for zero to be also implemented in the exp gaining process of illuvials".
All the Games should be connected as much as possible with each other in my opinion, with a "we can't do that because it takes away of the other Games" approach you hardly can connect all Games. There were so many positive aspects Like

• new revenue Stream for dao
• new Feature for IZ
• actually a marketable Feature for IZ f2p
• you could gain passive exp for illuvials
• increased trading volume, since IZ also needs illuvials

Wouldn't you agree that the advantages by far surpass the small "disadvantage" in your opinion of gaining experience not being an only ow/arena feature?

[midnight sparrow]

There's merit in planning ahead but I'm taking into consideration the timing of this iip and 54 that established the launch schedule. If in the future there are any announcement in delay on IZ then I'm more than willing to explore options. I think this was just a case of a superceding event rendering the previous proposal moot.

On the proposals, I think we need to introduce guidelines on proposing game system IIPs. Both 54 and 50 has good ideas behind it the biggest concern IMC has on them have been the over-reaching 'wants' that might pigeonhole labs. Viper mentioned a high level concept would be ideal rather than going granular. Or as an example we make the proposal that shifts the burden to labs to ideat a game system proposal on a high level concept of a mobile companion app for paid passive farming and/or leveling (this is an example)

[lament harness]

There's basically just an IIP being a bit of an ICCP and basically delaying Zero additionally it's not on testnet yet plus there's the experience of labs and timelines.
In my opinion there are more indicators for a delay than there are for being now on track and launched along side Arena and OW.
But i get your pov.

Agree. I thought if i write it is all suggestions it would be enough to give labs basically free Hand to mix up pretty much anything but still can provide a clear picture of what i was thinking of.
Is the guidlines for game related Proposals a process already started?

[midnight sparrow]

Agree. I thought if i write it is all suggestions it would be enough to give labs basically free Hand to mix up pretty much anything but still can provide a clear picture of what i was thinking of.
Is the guidlines for game related Proposals a process already started?

Not yet. I was gonna ideate a bit on it. Had some general ideas on the process flow that would try to involve Labs more in the governance idea process.

[candid helm]

if we're displaying governance members in the discord governance info maybe these should be updated.

[pallid star]

Thanks ser

[autumn grotto]

Oh dang I'm still on the council 😀

[dreamy locust]

where can I find rules on who can post in #1126838877429182506 and how the post should look like?

[lofty shale]

#📌〕governance-info Is a little dated, could use an update, but most of the information in there is accurate.

[glossy knoll]

When is the snapshot for staking to be able to vote? Or has it already past?

[lament harness]

staking?

[glossy knoll]

Our tokens have to be staked to vote. So I need to know when to tell people to have the tokens staked so they can participate.

[lament harness]

I don't think there's a snapshot taken, you just need to have the tokens staked when casting the vote.
But not working for the team, so i guess you better wait for official answer 😄

[glossy knoll]

ya it may be a snapshot when the vote starts. I just know I staked more ILV last epoch after the vote started and couldn't use it So I assume there is some time its taken

[lofty shale]

There's a snapshot, to prevent people from using tokens on multiple wallets. In the past, the exact time has been when the vote starts.

[lament harness]

good to know, thanks mate 🙂

[dreamy locust]

I would like to ask a few questions about latest Announcement.

1. Do the team and the Council think that it was a mistake to not publicly say that there won't be any points from milestones? As far as I understand, there was only a post in General chat, talk about it in Feedback channel and a News article from Sep 6 that is not clear that that is happening.
   Feels like it was a secret and that some people (me included) spent time and money to finish milestones just to find out 2 weeks later that it's not giving out any points.

Should it have been done differently? Official post in Accouncement channel? Little note on milestone page? News article about that on the website? Anything?

1.a) Why did we remove milestones? Why was that a good idea?

Simple answer is (I think) because we didn't want people to make new accounts and farm airdrop points? But... Currently you can the exact same thing even more easily and by spending less money.

If the milestones stayed, you would have to spend money and time so finish them. Now you can have multiple accounts as well and just spend less money and less time to do all daily missions and farm airdrop points that way.

Could it be explained why was removing milestones better for both Illuvium and Illuvium players?

---

2. Can Council say more about revamped Season 3 rewards structure and why is it a good idea that will attract new players? Or do we want something else from it?

Currently the plan is to give away 60+% of rewards for Tournaments and Leaderboards. Which basically means that best 20 players will be getting pretty much 30% of all Airdrop ILV. As same people will be top of the Leaderboard and will be winning tournaments.

Do we think we will attract new players with Tournaments rather then by playing Overworld for example or trying for Leaderboards?

Is the plan to make tournaments in Leviathan mode where it's basically pay to win so that we are giving away airdrop to players that spent money and we think the market will be better of because of that?

Would love to hear what was thinking behind Tournaments airdrop or is it just... let's try that now and see what happens?

[glossy knoll]

Good questions on topics that were made during the last council.

If I were in, I would have suggested exactly what is happening now for season 3: pause until game is in a better spot and introduce the leaderboard and tournament rewards. Right now the games are not quite good enough to attract and retain new players anyways.

I don't remember where I first saw it, but I thought it was clear that the season rewards were purely missions. However, putting a note on the milestone page, blacking out milestones, a notification in game, or something else could have been used in hindsight to increase clarity so players like your self and others would have know.

[glossy knoll]

Yes, I believe that adding the airdrop points to the leaderboards and tournaments will incentivize playing the arena. This is the real game IMO. The Overworld was always supposed to be a glorified pack opening and our target audience has mainly been for TFT players. We need the rewards to incentivize those players to come over. This will also lead to price action in the market place as player look to purchase illuvials for Leviathan.

For the specifics of the reward distribution for leaderboards and tournaments, it could theoretically be spread out over the entire player base. So that is a separate question on who the rewards go to. IMO Tournament rewards we ill consentrated in a small number of players, where as leaderboard rewards would be more spread over the base. This strategy has been proven in many games in the past and should work for our project. When the specifics come out we will be ready to hear everyone's feedback.

In general the airdrop is always set up in a way to incentive full ecosystem engagement. And from the early iteration that I saw I believe this will have a positive effect.

[thick lantern]

As mentioned by Caveman, this was decided last epoch. Communication is a major factor that needs improvement. This ties into knowing what you are buying and needing to have a clear picture - an announcement at a minimum should have been shared, or a pop-up on the Illuvidex that each account would need to confirm they read.

Personally, I planned to go crazy Season 2 to complete my milestones until I found out they would not longer count, so I actually prevented me from wanting to complete them... Milestones should be incentivized with Account-locked rewards such a titles based on how many milestones you have completed. Strictly for bragging rights.

Both situations run the risk of multi-accounting (keeping the milestones or removing them) - there will always be a risk of multi-accounting. Example: Every player gets rolls for dailies and weeklies. If yours are not good on account 1, try account 2. The amount of points you earn will be the same % of the total points, so it is still heavily incentivized to have multiple accounts to increase your pool of potential missions.
Do I have a solution? No.
Do I condoned multi-account? NO

[dreamy locust]

But if we look at it that way don't you think that milestones would earn more money for Illuvium? I just don't understand the decision and the reasoning behind it and that's why I'm asking.

[thick lantern]

Based on my missions I received, milestones could have encouraged players to spend more on fuel to complete them and stay playing the game

This could work to get more fuel sales, however, the current player base that spent to complete the milestones will be very very vocal screaming "unfair"

[pallid star]

#📣〕announcements message

I think this answers some of what you your first questions were

[dreamy locust]

Hi Rich, I'm not sure what questions it might answer but (for me personally) I've read that announcement and I've read that news article right away and I didn't realise the milestones are done for season 2, might I'm the problem, but for me it's not clear. And even if it was it was a week late.

I also read your reasoning (somewhere) of why it wasn't announced in official announcement channel but only in General and I don't agree with that.

I just think the mistake was made and it was so easy to not make it. There was so many ways to tell players that milestone don't count. Maybe I was the only one who was trying to get milestones done for 2 weeks...

[pallid star]

this section specifically

#💬〕general message

I know it wasnt announced in a way a lot of people wouldve like, but the things mentioned in this article also contributed to why it wasnt announced

[dreamy locust]

Yeah, when I look back at it I know which section was it. The problem is that I read that article that day, and it wasn’t clear to me. I thought it was talking about removing milestone points for bots. Like I said, maybe it’s just me, maybe there is a language barrier for me, maybe I was reading it sloppy. General chat post I sadly didn’t see.

As I understand, there was no official announcement because it would confuse people because it’s not finished on the site. But my thinking is that this confuses people even more.

I’m not blaming anyone. I’m just interested in Council opinion on that matter. I think it was done wrong and that it’s something that can be improved really really easily in the future. That’s all.

[lament harness]

there's a neat window one could put info like that in.

[pallid star]

100% could be improved, and will be

[orchid sonnet]

On the topic of debates/interviews for upcoming council elections:

#1300886387188568115 message

[lament harness]

Make it a blog Post. Many non native english Speakers can Profit from it since it's easy to translate. It's easier to understand in Text Format and you can copy Paste as a Moderator to explain it to people who are confused or missed it.

[lament harness]

what's the reasoning going down from 4 to 3 monthly meetings? <@&814435151307866142>

[midnight sparrow]

Most times its due to unavailability of Kieran. Last time was because he was in the US and the scheduled time was not doable.

Since most items need Labs input it made more sense to wait for when hes available. Other times, we would discuss items that dont need Labs input. So its a bit situational

[lament harness]

so if kieran can't attend and there is nothing to discuss without labs input meeting gets just deleted, not postponed?

[midnight sparrow]

Items are either discussed in chat or with the new setup we did where we field information requests via a gsheet weekly. It would make it harder to get people to commit to another day in the week considering were from different timezones plus even if we get one locked down it would be a couple days till the next meeting. So if ts not that important it can wait till the next meeting, discuss it in chat or request info.

[lament harness]

ok thanks

[candid helm]

was there no <@&814435151307866142> meetings on December? Or it's just the meeting minutes that haven't been uploaded yet?

[lament harness]

Minutes are not uploaded yet

[thick lantern]

They had several and per the update I read, should be any day now, but with the holidays, some delays

For ICC, we all have to approve our minutes before they get released to be posted

[fading cairn]

A couple we had to delay due to some time sensitive info that needed to be released too. You’ve seen one that was the recent announcement that Kieran out out for context. So some of these meetings have been consumed by detailed discussions on some larger topics

[night sable]

Yeah this basically sums it up, and it sucks for you guys, but its an unfortunate side effect, they will come out as soon as its possible

[thick lantern]

@autumn grotto why didn't you vote on GCCP3?

But you said you approved it... #📯〕council-chambers message

Quite confusing... (Image from Snapshot)

[autumn grotto]

I thought I did I even left a rational but there was a metamask bug that was messing up voting and I mistakenly thought I voted

[thick lantern]

#1339114677195771924 message

Ahh this I guess?

Luckily the outcome was already decided either way (mass decline)

Thanks for answer

[autumn grotto]

Yeah

[candid helm]

After Kieran saying we would start being transparent you guys go and do the most stealth action possible. Utilizing emergency proposals that were never meant for situations like this. Just shows how the council doesn't care about the community and why we don't need council at all. VOnC to the entire <@&814435151307866142>

[night sable]

Welcome to write 5 voncs

Worth noting the transparency comments came more than 2 months after this proposal was created.

Also nothing is stopping people from writing a proposal undoing all of this

[candid helm]

This had no reason whatsoever to be an emergency after all this time. Can you tell me what the emergency actually was?

[candid helm]

Oh i'll be writing a proposal for governance rest asssure.

[night sable]

The economy being made worse by people frontrunning this

[lament harness]

all the frontrunning gets now burned anyways, so that can't be the reason

[night sable]

Not frontrunning fuel, frontrunning overworld travel

[lament harness]

You mean the scenario of actually having had thousands of accounts playing the games and the economy actually could have worked out?

[fiery fog]

for transparency, the vote to do an emergency proposal or mot wasnt unanimous

if you are doing a VoNC, you should know who voted for and against

and here is the clause for EP

[lament harness]

would you agree that what is outlined in your screenshot doesn't apply at all to justify an EP, nor did it got handled with the outlined urgency?
Afaik this stuff gets set up since november (3 months ago)

[fiery fog]

yes

just my personal opinion

not council's

[lusty vector]

Except your personal opinion was to go ahead with the EP, so what are you actually talking about?

I feel like you're confused by his response?

[thick lantern]

Probably 😆

Just waking up - I see now the misunderstanding

This was around whether it was or was not to be an EP
(Removed my messages to avoid confusion)

[lusty vector]

No misunderstanding. I weirdly see why you would be confused by someone who voted for the EP and responds like the above. I was also confused. Wild

[fading cairn]

I’m reposting from general to share the rationale for this Dr. Spoon. As the initial proposer of the structure and the primary co-author with Blickter, this situation is exactly the sort of thing that was intended by the emergency proposal route. The council is responsible to take decisions with the best interest of the DAO in mind. In some occurrences that means having to make a decision that can’t be shared with the community in advance.

The emergency proposal option is for when immediate action is needed or the topic can’t be shared publicly without substantial adverse financial impact to the DAO. It was implemented during the USDC depeg a couple years ago for critical financial risks. It has also been considered for major financial decisions that require confidentiality. For instance if we had a buyout offer from a Web2 studio, we couldn’t bring that to the public without killing the deal. In this case, material impact to the financial situation of the DAO from front running is the reason and is clearly borne out by the discussion. Much of the complaining is from people that are upset…that they couldn’t front-run. A trading blackout was instituted for the councils at the time of the vote for this same reason.

[lofty shale]

I'll disagree on this front. I believe this section in particular was authored by Deraji. At the top of my mind when reviewing this section was the sILV exploit.

While I agree that there are circumstances in which action must be taken prior to a proposal being put forward, I think this circumstance is fundamentally not what Emergency Proposals were intended for. There's some dissonance in saying this situation was an "Emergency", and yet the solution to that emergency was months in the making. Is the economic model Illuvium uses critical? Absolutely. In my opinion, not an emergency. I'd posit that something comparable could have been achieved by pausing Overworld runs unilaterally, indicating to the community that the system was not functioning satisfactorily (and potentially was causing damage to the DAO), and moving ahead with normal proposal processes.

I'm mostly in favour of the content of the proposal, but I'm not a fan of moving this through using the Emergency Proposal Process. There's a real risk of this becoming a default solution for any proposal with any financial implications, and it bypasses an integral part of how the DAO has always operated. One of the cornerstones of being a DAO is that proposals must be clearly communicated and well understood to receive upvotes from the community and move through the process, and I think some others likely share my perspective on this. We seem to have bypassed communication around this on the basis that there are financial implications. In the worst case, people may view this as the council knowing this proposal would be unpopular and forcing it through behind closed doors. I do not share this perspective, but it's not hard to see how someone might arrive at that conclusion.

At any rate, I think it's unfortunate because I do think there were other ways to handle this, at least with the information that's currently available. Council may know more than the community does about why this was handled this way, and I'd encourage sharing the reasoning as thoroughly as possible, as that is a requisite step of the Emergency Proposal Process. (Item 8)

TL;DR: I think a little unilateral action plus communication and a normal proposal solves this problem as readily as an Emergency Proposal, and I do think this is a misuse of the process. If I'm incorrect, an outline of how this played out and why fuel mechanics or Overworld functionality were not immediately paused would be appreciated and would likely help dispel some of the concerns the community has with this. For example, following the sILV hack, which I think unarguably was a genuine emergency, this post was shared to shed light on what happened, the actions taken, and where things would be moving forward. #📣〕announcements message

I will reiterate that I'm mostly in favour of the content of the proposal, and i think it would cause more damage to the DAO to slow anything down at this point or blow anything up over this, but the IMC should have expected the community to want some answers around why this was an emergency.

[lament harness]

I pretty much share the sentiment Blickter just posted above, and there is not much to add.
Explained it more eloquent than i ever could have 🙂

I just want to say that i also agree with a lot that is written down in that proposal
even tho there is stuff implemented likely devaluing my personal investements in this ecosystem i understand the reason on why this is handled the way it is outlined.
But there is also some minor stuff i don't agree with completely.

Saying that most complaining is from people who couldn't frontrun is a comfortable way to ignore complaints.
But is not at all what i have read the past 24h in this discord.

[candid helm]

• "I'd encourage sharing the reasoning as thoroughly as possible, as that is a requisite step of the Emergency Proposal Process. (Item 8)"
  Yes please, I also wanna know this.

Got nothing else to add than what these 2 gents said before me.

[fiery fog]

First, the imc had a vote to decide whether we are using an emergency proposal or normal proposal.
i voted against using an EP and here is my rationale

The vote resulted in using EP.
then we discussed the proposal. i personally put a view edits in the proposal.
we also had a roundtable meeting with perry to discuss.
after the final edit, we did a vote on the EP

which i approved

theres no confusion here.
i didnt agree on using EP but i agreed on the content of the EP

whether this proposal should/not be an EP is debatable, whats important is that the IMC has voted to use an EP. and i think thats fair

[thick lantern]

The confusion was on the verbiage and I misunderstood

Simplified:

Jaganite against the route of Emergency Proposal (internal vote not to go this route)

Jaganite supported content of Emergency Proposal (voting on the proposal itself for the changes required)

[fiery fog]

Yes. IIP to get ricky back

[thick lantern]

I am still helping with Governance items but when time allows and as a community member

You got a great Comm Council to support you right now 💪

[midnight sparrow]

The issue on the use of emergency proposal comes from the lack of other options that would fit the need at that time. The DAO only has two avenues for proposals: Regular Process or Emergency Proposal. In the situation where IMC was informed that there was a real possibility of abuse that can wreck the economy, it was imperative on IMC (or at least the majority) that this proposal needs to be passed/implemented without exposing the potential economic exploits to the whole community ultimately to the detriment of the DAO. The potential risk (at least to my eyes) justified the use of the EP.

Now going into the technicalities of what constitutes an "emergency" while the original intention of Deraji may have differed, the wording in the governance documents were not exhaustive but only provided "examples". I also understand where you and others have concerns on potential abuse of this, to which I agree. And there lies the gap. The whole issue can be addressed by introducing more checks and balance in using the "EP". An idea here is that while IMC makes the decision, ICC needs to "ratify" or "agree" that it is meritous to use an "EP" for. This makes it like a GCCP which needs super majority.

At the same time, the DAO is not without its remedies. The DAO can inititage an ICCP to change the proposal, start a VONC on those who agreed to the use of the EP, choose not to vote for the same people next epoch etc.

I'd posit that something comparable could have been achieved by pausing Overworld runs unilaterally

This was also discussed during the meeting but ultimately, aside from the fact that peoples sentiment on closing/pausing OW it would also affect the reputation and sentiment of the IP. Was it the right choice? I was personally okay to pause OW which would also include fuel purchasing. However, it is what it is now.

My ask for the community is while there maybe those who disagree with the approach, we look to improve the processes and address the gaps. The council worked within the confines of the governance structure. We all know its not perfect and will constantly evolve. While this may not reassure people, but at least from what Ive experienced, the council has always looked to what is best for the DAO.

[lament harness]

For three months, it was well known that the in-game economy needed an overhaul, and the decision to use an Emergency Proposal (EP) was made well in advance. This means the council had ample time to take preventative measures using the proper governance tools for example pausing Overworld access and temporarily stopping the sale of fuel. Instead, they chose to let the system run, allowing players to farm assets at a fraction of their intended cost and sugerrating the customers that they have now a one in a lifetime chance to stockpile some fuel at extreme discounts from 5x upt to 50-65x the last month.

Now, after knowingly allowing this to happen, the council is using the very problem they left unchecked as justification for an Emergency Proposal that bypassed community input. As a result, the game was suddenly shut down, access to in-game currency was revoked, and an 88.8:1 fuel conversion rate was forced upon players. This conversion rate is actually higher than the bonus players could ever receive when acquiring fuel, which at its worst was roughly around 50-65x the usual amount depending on what time of the day one purchased fuel... at least during the last month. Essentially, the fuel that was acquired through a broken system are now being devalued at a higher rate than the bonus players originally received.

If this issue was known months in advance, how can it still be called an “emergency”? The fact that an EP was planned contradicts the idea that immediate action was required. This wasn’t a last minute crisis... it was a failure to act in a timely manner, followed by a rushed decision that disregarded community governance. The argument that an EP was necessary due to financial implications is concerning because it sets a dangerous precedent where any proposal with financial impact could bypass community input. Adding new clauses so next time it can be used and justified doesn't make it any better.

This raises several important questions:

• Why weren’t proactive measures taken earlier to prevent this?
• Why was an EP still considered necessary when standard governance could have handled this properly?
• How can the community trust that similar governance loopholes won’t be exploited in the future?
• How can new customers get into the paid section of the IP without the fear of their assets getting wiped again?

In my personal opinion, Instead of letting the exploit run unchecked for months and then justifying an Emergency Proposal based on its effects, the responsible approach would have been to pause Overworld runs and stop fuel sales using the existing governance process. That would have prevented the economic imbalance while maintaining transparency and community trust, instead of letting customers aquire the cheap assets and fuel and rugg them afterwards with such a conversion rate.

If Emergency Proposals can be used in situations that were foreseeable and preventable, what stops this from becoming the default way to force decisions through without community oversight? This approach undermines trust, transparency, and the core principles of a DAO.

Then you talking about remedies the DAO inherits.
Writing an ICCP to a proposal the IMC just created and voted in internally and is at this very moment voting it in publicly? (seriously?)
Starting a VONC? We all have seen how VONCS turn out with the example where the ICC initiated it. Besides from the fact that community doesn't know shit who in IMC does what and is responsible for which action. So if there's a VONC or a not voting next time for that council, community/stakers need to VONC the whole IMC or don't reelect the whole IMC.

[midnight sparrow]

It was made in advance to allow labs to develop the solution and implement it. Truthfully, we were not aware it would take three months for Labs to build. With the current issue of downsizing and priority of Gauntlet, I can only hazard a guess that the build and implementation of the proposal was not a priority.

Yes, we allowed "status quo" because the players who have been playing OW had no inside info therefore, they were not intentionally abusing the system. I am not saying that the solution IMC made was perfect but it was the solution we decided considering the constraints. Bear in mind, the decision to utilize the EP was so that Labs can begin development. If we had to create a new process, not only would that delay development even more, but it would also raise questions as to why does council need a new "EP". How would council justify this proposal to be approved by the community without raising flags?

With regards to the conversion, I acknowledge the complaints surrounding it and as mentioned, we have a small window of opportunity to fix this. The game is on pause and the new system is being tested in sepolia testnet. I encourage the DAO to propose changes that would be more commensurate and equitable with regards to the conversion. Work with Labs especially with Perry to find a better and more palpable conversion. I am all for it.

If this issue was known months in advance, how can it still be called an “emergency”?

I explained that there was no other recourse for the council to pass the proposal without letting the community know and eventually allow them to abuse the system in anticipation of the implementation. 1) IMC was not fully aware on how long the development would be; 2) the "emergency" is on the account not of the immediate response or decision but on the fact that Labs needed to work on this without exposing the potential abuse to the community. I truly understand the precarious position this exercise of "EP" has brought to light which is why it is in the best interest of the DAO to introduce more checks and balance when using the "EP" and perhaps making it clear when and why it can be used.

The council had limited options at the time the proposal from Labs came to us. Our options were 1) closing down OW without an end date (since at the time we didnt know how long it will take) and against the sentiment of the community (There was a thread about this before I cant recall where); 2) Utilizing an EP that allows Labs to already beging the development in the background; or 3) Go through the regular process and expose the potential abuse without closing OW to the community. We had to make the decision to utilize the option that would not wreak havoc to the ecosystem.

[candid helm]

• " Our options were 1) closing down OW without an end date (since at the time we didnt know how long it will take) and against the sentiment of the community (There was a thread about this before I cant recall where);"

I'm sorry but this is not community sentiment. Do you even know how many daily players OW has?

I bet that sentiment came from a loud minority...

funny how now you encourage the DAO to propose changes after you kept us in the dark for 3 months...

and how come these changes took 3 months? Maybe it's time to get some accountability on what's being done and cut the excuses.

[midnight sparrow]

If Emergency Proposals can be used in situations that were foreseeable and preventable, what stops this from becoming the default way to force decisions through without community oversight? This approach undermines trust, transparency, and the core principles of a DAO.

I provided possible solutions to introduce better checks and balance such as a supermajority voting with ICC. Another is to have an exhaustive list on what the emergency proposal can be used for. Additionally, the proposal can also be subject of ICCP which is a remedy the DAO can exercise.

On pausing the overworld, I can only speak for myself, but I do agree that this would have been better but it would also have an impact to our playerbase. There are a lot of people who like to play OW than Arena and if Labs had given us a timeline say weeks instead of months then pausing OW would have been the better choice. However, the timing is still iffy.

We pause OW, do the usual IIP process. Heated discussions and polarizing positions. This would cause more delays (though in hindsight seeing as it took 3 months not sure how that would have played out differently). My point here is at the time that Labs needed a "go" signal, the council had to act on it. That was also the reason why implemented various blackouts throughout the whole development period.

Writing an ICCP to a proposal the IMC just created and voted in internally and is at this very moment voting it in publicly? (seriously?)

From what I have read, the issues falls mostly on the formula and conversion which I think merits community inputs. I see no valid reason why the community would not exercise this option.

Starting a VONC? We all have seen how VONCS turn out with the example where the ICC initiated it. Besides from the fact that community doesn't know shit who in IMC does what and is responsible for which action. So if there's a VONC or a not voting next time for that council, community/stakers need to VONC the whole IMC or don't reelect the whole IMC.

I only bring the VONC up if the community truly believes that your council acted in abuse of power. Was the decision we made merit a VONC in the community's eyes? If yes, thats another avenue to explore.

Personally, the one thing I want to see come out of this is a proposal on defining the EP better and to put more checks and balance.

[candid helm]

• " My point here is at the time that Labs needed a "go" signal, the council had to act on it. "
  this is exactly why this whole council structure is a nuisance to the game development and overall ecosystem and needs restructuring.

[midnight sparrow]

I dont know the exact numbers but it was Labs through Kieran who provided this. For transparencys sake, many in the council was for closing it down. This discussion was done in both councils.

funny how now you encourage the DAO to propose changes after you kept us in the dark for 3 months...

How else would the DAO propose changes until they knew the details of the proposal? And its also decentralization at work. If you do not agree with any of the details in the proposal, it can always be subject to an ICCP. Or even a complete overhaul if community deems it so.

and how come these changes took 3 months? Maybe it's time to get some accountability on what's being done and cut the excuses.

No excuses. I dont know why it took 3 months and I would like to know as well. My assumptions would be they prioritized gauntlet before this plus the current reduction in headcount played a role. In our next IMC meeting we will ask Labs to provide transparency on this issue.

[dreamy locust]

If somebody was trying to explain it to me like I’m 5 it would basically be:

Something was really wrong and we needed emergency proposal to fix it.
After that we waited for 3 months to actually fix it.
But we needed quick fix so that why we needed emergency proposal.

I might be wrong but that’s how I can understand it.

[lament harness]

How can informed decisions be made if the council is not aware of timeframes? In this case, not knowing how long it would take to implement the overhaul raises serious concerns.
How can the council justify not shutting down Overworld and Fuel Exchange when it was clear the system was broken and there was no further action after one month or two months?
Why did it take three months to implement the solution?
Why was the economy not treated as a top priority?

You allowed the "status quo" to continue for one asset (Illuvials), but now you're taking drastic action with the other asset (Fuel). What is the council's reasoning behind this double standard?

Instead of encouraging community members to fix the council's mistakes for free, I would expect to see the council taking responsibility and addressing these issues, especially that we are in an NOW "emergency" situation with limited time to react.

If the council truly had no other resources to handle one of the two options, why didn’t they choose the legitimate course of action with the second option?

Wouldn't you agree that by adding these "checks and balances" to allow the council to bypass the usual process, the DAO is essentially setting up a system where future decisions still undermine the community and stakers but then in a more legitimate and structured way?
I don't agree that the problem is that we lack proposal options in this case, but rather should go the way of transparency.

[candid helm]

they definitely opened the pandora box with this EP.

[lament harness]

Based on revenue numbers, daily OW leaderboards, fuel price declining, i would argue there were never "a lot of peeople" playing. At least not after Airdrop season ended.
Why do blackouts come into play here, aren't they anyways not really applicable since everything is anonymous in the ecosystem?

"From what I have read, the issues falls mostly on the formula and conversion which I think merits community inputs. I see no valid reason why the community would not exercise this option."
not sure if you are trolling here or being serious. Wouldn't the council decline and change the Emergency proposal if they would think that paragraphs in that proposals are not in line with their opinion?
Isn't that proposal the opinion of the council and got already voted in internally and is now just voted in publicly as outlined in the ep process?

"Personally, the one thing I want to see come out of this is a proposal on defining the EP better and to put more checks and balance."
That's really the one thing you see is not right in this whole process since november up to know with the EP being voted in publicly?

[lament harness]

what really baffles me is the reasoning.
They need to use EP so people can't exploit the system, but then let people exploit the system for 3 months

[candid helm]

https://tenor.com/view/mad-hatter-alice-through-the-looking-glass-makes-perfect-sense-to-me-makes-sense-makes-perfect-sense-gif-27672078

[lofty shale]

I'm not looking to hold anyone to task for this - VONCs are not going to help ILV stakers or improve anything. I think most people who are paying attention know that we're in critical times. We need to be more agile than ever, we need to ship products, simplify things, and ultimately acquire and retain customers. With this in mind, it might be worth considering a proposal to delegate more responsibility to Labs. If the balance is being struck between the capability to launch products in a timely fashion, and being able to review and pass proposals, I'm choosing the capability to launch products all day every day. I think most people with a stake in Iluvium's success would agree.

Delegating that responsibility to Labs results in the same outcome without having to jump through hoops and do headstands to justify this as an emergency, and gives Labs the freedom to be act as quickly as it must into the future. I wouldn't mind seeing a proposal of this nature out of council in the future. At the end of the day, having a bunch of community review on proposals becomes irrelevant if it slows us down too much and we run out of money. It's also just a more transparent approach to what has essentially happened here - A decision is made without the community and implemented.

At any rate, take it as feedback or take it as whatever you'd like. I get why it was done this way, I just don't agree that this was a particularly good way to do it, and it's a pretty serious erosion of how processes work in a way that doesn't sit very well.

[fiery fog]

Not saying that i disagree with giving labs more power.
in this case, both council actually followed up on this frequently.
I dnt see the council is causing the 3 months delay at all.
we were pushing for the proposal and the implementation

im not sure ive seen council reduced the capability to launch products all day everyday

there are a few topics that we asked almost every week.

[midnight sparrow]

Your point is understandable and mine was just to illustrate that there was no viable option at the time the decision was made as we were constrained to choose 1 of 2 approaches. Hence, the gap that needs to be addressed.

Setting aside what is in our governance documents, what would have been the ideal scenario for you? Perhaps we can get ideas from the community on how to shape the possible future process when something similar happens in the future.

[midnight sparrow]

How can informed decisions be made if the council is not aware of timeframes? In this case, not knowing how long it would take to implement the overhaul raises serious concerns.

At the time the proposal landed in IMC for review, the scope of development was not available. What was necessary to decide though was for Labs to be empowered to begin developing the proposed plan without the risk of having the community be made aware of the changes and potential abuse.

Why did it take three months to implement the solution?

Labs would be best to answer this. Our meeting got moved this week and this will be brought up as a topic.

Why was the economy not treated as a top priority?

AFAIK, focus was on gauntlet due to the fact that we would be working to transition to a MMO Lite at the same time there were cuts made. We will also get a better statement from Labs during our meeting.

You allowed the "status quo" to continue for one asset (Illuvials), but now you're taking drastic action with the other asset (Fuel). What is the council's reasoning behind this double standard?

Status quo allowed people to continue play in good faith. There would be no "abuse" if no one knew how the changes would be made. The changes to the fuel would affect the "cost-to-acquire" of illuvials so its not a double standard. It was just decision on putting the games on pause which would lead to low DAU/MAU and eventually people "moving on".

Instead of encouraging community members to fix the council's mistakes for free, I would expect to see the council taking responsibility and addressing these issues, especially that we are in an NOW "emergency" situation with limited time to react.

Sure. I never intended that the community come up with the proposal, it was an invitation to help shape the proposal that will address the gaps. Select community members are in an uproar about the exercise of the EP so it would stand to reason that key inputs would come from people such as yourself to help create a proposal that would address the concerns surrounding the current situation.

Wouldn't you agree that by adding these "checks and balances" to allow the council to bypass the usual process, the DAO is essentially setting up a system where future decisions still undermine the community and stakers but then in a more legitimate and structured way?

Thats why the list should be exhaustive and clear guidelines are in place to limit the exercise of the EP. There will always be situations which will need to bypass the community. Its up to the DAO to decide what those situations would be. As a last note on this, our governance isnt perfect. Were constantly evolving and introducing proposals after-the-fact. Certain scenarios or situations forces us to adapt and evolve.

Was the council+labs 100% correct in how we handled the situation? Debatable. Were there gaps that was identified? Yes. Now, we look to address those gaps not just by the council but as a community as a whole.

[midnight sparrow]

Why do blackouts come into play here, aren't they anyways not really applicable since everything is anonymous in the ecosystem?

The blackout was for the council and key Labs personnel who knew about the intended proposal. It was to ensure that we wouldnt use "insider knowledge" to abuse the system.

Isn't that proposal the opinion of the council and got already voted in internally and is now just voted in publicly as outlined in the ep process?

My point in the statement that there is still a window of opportunity to address any issues with the proposal especially the formula/conversion. The community has an avenue to introduce a ICCP to make tweaks to the proposal while its still being tested in sepolia testnet.

[lofty shale]

It's just kind of like standing in a workshop that makes tools, and not having the tool you'd really like on hand. Emergency Proposals were created by a proposal, a purpose built solution to the solve this problem could have been the answer.

Maybe it's necessary for any change with financial implications to NOT be done via proposal, and so a proposal specifying that would have been appropriate or transparent. I think everyone can reasonably understand that it can have negative effects to outline economic changes prior to them being implemented or prior to things being put on pause. A very short and summarized version of that proposal could look like:

Illuvium's economic system is not currently functioning satisfactorily, and adjustments are being investigated to solve the identified issues. As these adjustments have potential to disrupt the economy and potentially cause damage to the DAO, they will not be discussed publicly until a suitable solution is ready to implement. At that point, portions of the economy will be put on pause until the solution is fully in place, at which point it will resume.

-or, more generally-

"Economic adjustments are sensitive in nature and have potential for abuse if discussed via proposal prior to implementation. Illuvium Labs is delegated full autonomy in making these adjustments, with the community taking a retroactive approach via proposal for any adjustments that may need to be made.

Someone could speculate on what the changes are and potentially get them right, but it's a shot in the dark, and it still involves the community without needing to declare that there was silent 3 month emergency going on. It also wouldn't raise the concerns that there may be another emergency going on right now of which we're unaware, and will be informed of in the future.

I know this wasn't an easy decision, and maybe it didn't play out exactly how you'd pictured it, but why would anything important go through a proposal at all if EPs are a tool that can be used this way? And if we're using EPs this way, why not just skip having to call these situations emergencies and make a separate track for this kind of thing.

[lament harness]

Looking forward to that explenations on labs. And let me rephrase the one question in "why is ingame economy not always prio 1
However, it looks like the council was at a point of 2 directions, an informed one with legitimate route to go and one without any information at all with the shady use of an EP and somehow councils decided to got with the later one.

Everyone was well aware that the economy gets an overhaul.
Everyone was well aware that prices will rise in future. It was even mentioned that a price target could be roughly 30% of the top rail.
Noone knew how the whole fuel changes actually turned out.
How can you argue that grinding the game was in good faith and those who stacked up some fuel for the coming years was not?

I haven't seen a thread opened in #1020759212172775464 from any council showing effort and willingess to create a proposal or help forming one.
The emergency proposal got meanwhile approved councils knowing how the community feels about it and decided to not do any changes.
There was no understanding so far from team nor council side in the public chanels or any sign of that complaints might be justified and something has to change except 1 sentence of you up here. It got even ridiculed from @fading cairn that it's mostly complaining of people that they couldn't fron-run
Also to be completely honest with you, the proposals i wrote so far took some serious time effort, some got declined and the one that got approved was set aside and ignored.
I see proposals violated without any actions or further information.
There is a serious time pressure, so if it doesn't come from council or the team itself the usual process would likely to take too much time anyways.
How would you motivate me or anyone spending hours if not days arguing, writing and refining a proposal in this case?

[fiery fog]

if i remember correctly beyond was prioritised

[lament harness]

to be honest i don't care what it was exactly.
If ingame economy is not always prio 1 you will either not get to substantial revenue or the substantial revenue you have one day could collapse.

[fiery fog]

maybe @plush timber can help answer why it took 3 months

[fiery fog]

Hmm beyond is likely to generate revenue than fuel at this point

[lament harness]

lets not go off topic here...
But most things happening with illuvitars should have happend with illuvials who knows how the whole eco would have turned out.
Comparing them now, after putting so much effort in beyond and zero effort in fuel economy is not to be taken serious.
Somehow there was a decision made to rather focus on side assets than main assets.
I don't believe that beyond doesn't take much dev time and is more of a sidehustle for devs when they have some free minutes a day, so in my opinion beyond is the worst thing that could have happend to the IP at this point in time.
Beyond would be super cool thing to have when the IP is set up as a follow up project.
But it is what it is.

[plush timber]

It took 3 months because of Beyond, everytime we tried to move to Fuel Changes, we've been forced to go back and do update / fixes to Beyond

[candid helm]

it's all great to have 2 years of runway but you guys are shorthanded...

[midnight sparrow]

Allow me to share IMC's statement regarding the recent results of the peer evaluation:

Following Fight4Eth’s ("F4E") low peer evaluation, the IMC initiated a review to understand the reasoning behind the scores and to give F4E the opportunity to share his side. This involved gathering the justifications of the other ICC members and conducting a meeting with F4E separately. After a discussion and careful consideration, the IMC found the evaluation scores to be justified. However, given F4E’s decision to resign which has taken effect this March, the IMC decided that proceeding with a VONC would only create unnecessary division and prolong the issue, making it best to move forward without further action.

Should you have any comments and/or feedback feel free to tag any of us or directly message.

[ivory ingot]

Wild to call this an exploit. lmao

Could have just shut down fuel exchange and let people play with what they had.
Instead you let them keep buying under wrong impressions, actual soft rug for what, some 4-5 figures?

[thick lantern]

What's your Rationale gents? IIP-74 🤔 💭

@native pilot @glossy knoll

@midnight sparrow

[thick lantern]

#1361546297680593048 message

Will <@&814435151307866142> and <@&1107754780744487002> be postponing the elections process for Epoch 11?

If so, a message in #📰〕governance-news seems warranted. With all the changes around Jag's GCCP, it will affect the remuneration for those deciding to elect

I shared this feedback over the past couple weeks with several of you after my phone reminder went off several weeks ago: "Look into Nominations - Epoch 11"

[fiery fog]

hopefully we can approve it tonight

[thick lantern]

GCCP vote by ICC & IMC?
If so, would require 7/10 to pass

Or an announcement advising a little delay? Or slightly amended election process timeline?

[pallid star]

Luckily the timeline says approximate

[fiery fog]

https://tenor.com/view/game-over-drop-winner-winning-gif-23368612

[night sable]

People have a long time to nominate themselves. This needs to be approved/denied during that period, not necessarily beforehand. If it enters revisions and is delayed then yeah that presents a problem.

[lament harness]

Almost 2 months of no Meeting minutes <@&814435151307866142> <@&1107754780744487002>

[fiery fog]

👀

[orchid sonnet]

Will check on this ^

[pallid star]

This could always partially be on me, as i have some admin to do usually, but don recall being that far behind

[alpine crescent]

Coming through! Sorry for the delay from ICC side, took longer than usual to get it approved by everyone and then I missed to push it to Rich to release them.

[stray patio]

Where can I learn more about the role of the different council ?
Where to see the global vision of all committee ?
• IMC Council &
• Committee Council
• Esports Committee...

[lament harness]

can dig through past governance proposals

like for example:
#1283193321233059965 message

---

#1164251619819540591 message

---

etc.

[pallid star]

Updated

[pallid star]

IMC Slot 1 Panel Interview w/ Timestamps: https://youtu.be/g26BPBJhGpY

IMC Slot 2 Panel Interview w/ Timestamps: https://youtu.be/0i9B6gahsXM

[thick lantern]

Thanks Rich! ❤️

[lament harness]

The <@&814435151307866142> can just like that extend their Epoch?
That somehow doesn't seem to be right

[proper eagle]

I know it doesnt seem right but its just that the new stacking v3 isnt yet integrated for voting. Elections will take place when this is addressed

[lament harness]

Totally get that staking v3 not supporting voting yet puts things in a weird spot, and it makes sense to avoid a gap in governance. But the way this is happening right now feels a bit too open-ended.

There’s no clear end date, no DAO vote, no ETA on when voting will be fixed, and no fallback plan in the meantime. Even if the intention is fine, this kind of setup can become a problem if it’s not properly constrained.

If epochs can just be extended due to “technical issues” without clear limits, it starts to shift things away from rule-based governance toward trust-based decisions. That’s usually where things get messy over time.

Would be good to see this formalized properly through a proposal.

Not saying anything malicious is going on. I just think it’s important to tighten this up now so it doesn’t become a pattern later.

There should also be an update to the proposals that determines how governance works, setting up a clear path that is being followed in situations like this... in best case with a alternative voting path.

[pallid star]

(Posting here because Collab Bot Broken but will repost in #1126838877429182506 soon)

IIP-XX Removal of Financial Compensation for the Main Council

Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aXEm4gAA-rvzBH4kYxLBIGGCwFDteX0VpFBEyFmnVPc/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.qtwsborj33x

Rationale: Why We Must Transition to a Volunteer <@&814435151307866142>

The recent announcement regarding the Epoch 11 Extension has exposed a significant flaw in our current governance model. Because Staking V3 isn't ready for voting, the Council has effectively been forced to extend their own term—and their own pay—indefinitely. While there may be no "malicious" intent, this sets a dangerous precedent: Governance by technicality rather than by the will of the people.

The Financial Reality
Our project is in a fight for its runway. We have seen dedicated team members take pay cuts and others lose their jobs entirely. It is a slap in the face to those "in the trenches" to see a Main Council continue to draw a check while the people actually building the games are sacrificing their livelihoods.

If we have enough "resources" to pay the council $5,000 a month, but "not enough resources" to hire someone to fix our Snapshot voting integration, our priorities are fundamentally broken. That $5,000/month should be going toward a developer who can fix our voting system so we can actually hold an election.

The "Value" Problem
Let’s look at the data. In the last month, Discord activity from the council has been minimal:

• Patate: 50 messages
• Josh.eth: 30 messages
• Paz: 22 messages
• Filo: 71 messages

For a paid role, this level of community presence does not justify the expense. We have community members—and even team members—who are contributing ten times this amount of effort, out of sheer passion. The argument that "we won't find qualified people for free" is a myth. In the current Web3 landscape, there are plenty of holders with significant skin in the game who would gladly provide oversight and NDA-level feedback to ensure their investment succeeds.

The Solution
We need to move back to Rule-Based Governance, not Trust-Based Governance.

1. Stop the Pay: Remove the financial incentive. This filters for people who are here for the project, not the paycheck.
2. Fix the Voting: Use the saved funds to incentivize the Staking V3/Snapshot integration.
3. End the Epoch: Once the tech is fixed, hold an immediate election.

Kieran has mentioned before that he supports removing council pay. It is time the community stands behind that sentiment. If the council truly believes in the "greater good" of Illuvium, they should be the first to volunteer for the same pay cuts/job loss the core team has already endured.

[tropic token]

The IMC are effectively board level positions, collectively able to approve or decline things team members cannot.

The importance of the IMC and it's role is poorly reflected in your post.

It's one of if not the most important positions within Illuvium from a collective powers perspective.

Council does a lot more meaningful work in chambers and in private collaborative messages and doesn't reflect in messages in the discord. It's a terrible representation of input.

The financial reality is the ILV stipend is paid every 3 months and due to market volatility often much lower than the $1250 monthly value.

This capital comes from ILV reserves and not runway. Paying the council in no way impacts the runway or meaningfully depletes the treasury ILV.

In reality removing incentives simply doesn't work. You will end up with less activity and the council likely becomes pointless as people fail to attend.

In no serious tradfi/crypto company would a board level position come without incentive.

Us doing so would only make a mockery of our DAO in my opinion.

I'd be for reviewing paying council members at the end of an epoch or vesting the ILV.

However I think this step is a big step in the wrong direction for the DAO/Project.

[pallid star]

So ILV from the treasury, thats given to Council has a zero net negative effect on the treasury? So what if we were to do a raise? Wouldnt more ILV help that?

[tropic token]

It's not meaningful. It's almost a negligible amount Rich.

[pallid star]

I beg to differ when we are losing employees and runway

[tropic token]

The role the IMC partake in is an essential part of the DAO.

[pallid star]

sure, but they dont need to be compensated for a 30 min meeting a week

[proper eagle]

I may be biased as im on the imc but this has been discussed multiple times before (while i was not on imc or on council at all) and my conclusion is still that a free imc doesnt make sense

Without pay you cant demand anything out of the role and people cant really be held accountable

The IMC role has some legal risk attached to it, thats why it was more paid than ICC. Who would work and expose himself to legal risk for free?

If the council truly believes in the "greater good" of Illuvium, they should be the first to volunteer for the same pay cuts/job loss the core team has already endured.
Through that period the council got a 75% pay cut and have seen its head count being reduced from 9 to 4. This is more than comparable to "what the core team has already endured"

"we won't find qualified people for free" is a myth. In the current Web3 landscape, there are plenty of holders with significant skin in the game who would gladly provide oversight and NDA-level feedback to ensure their investment succeeds.
Thats what we thought for the committees and it didnt turn out to be true at all

Now for IMC you would add

1. an actual consistent workload (even if you make it as small as you could you would have voting and from time to time meetings at a bare minimum)

2. legal accountability

[pallid star]

It’s seems the only ppl supporting councils theories is council

Committees isn’t as obvious as it looks either

Council literally did zero in terms of find and or recruiting ppl for these positions or even using them for that matter, we had to push you guys to even attempt to communicate and not just depend on Kieran

Yes the council took a pay cut. And community council lost their job.

Would you like to know how many of my team members lost jobs completely and how it actively affects development, morale and team in general?

More comparable is a joke

I’ll also say some council members are basically just actively calling me @fiery fog now, jm guessing to insult me? When I’m bringing up things that are a genuine concern of mine and the community’s. Just silly. They have an active interest in saving their pay but dismissing the community concern

I’m a community member first before I was a team member.

I’ve been at Illuvium working full time for 4 years. I think I had maybe 2 vacations in that time and some time off for the birth of my son. Well over 8 hours a day sometimes stints of no sleep for several days. And I’ve watched, lost and seen many of my teammates leave for various reasons over the years. These were all very hard working people that most mirrored the same work ethic. These common theme? Why is council making more money than Me or x person? Try to tell someone with a wife and kids killing themselves to push out products for Illuvium that council pay is worth it. You won’t convince me or anyone else on the Illuvium team of this. Not a single one

So whose opinion matters most? 4 paid “board” members? Or the Illuvium team and what appears to be the community? And how do we solve this when <@&814435151307866142> obviously won’t vote to eliminate their own pay?

[tropic token]

Not true, I opened a counter thread back in September and had equal support for keeping or increasing pay through KPIs.

[coarse patrol]

How much time a week does council duties take?

[pallid star]

We are now here, in April pretty much 6 months later and I felt the conversation was warranted to have a again, and when I disagree with council I’m compared to someone that council disliked.

Jag maybe be unsupportive of the project now, but I’m anything but that.

And there was a time where he got a popular vote to be in council.

[tropic token]

Nobody is saying don't bring this up. Council have the same view as September.

We will put our view to the community when appropriate.

[pallid star]

Translation = we won’t eliminate our pay because why would we

[tropic token]

Absolutely not, again we have posted above some rationale behind personal stances.

I'd avoid attempting to read between lines which are not present.

[fiery fog]

the imc is not board level position. it is more like advisors

i should know, im a board member in a tradfi company who actually generate revenue

we build power plants

what legal risk is associated with the imc, you guys are not even technically imc members

read the deed

and the dao is not registered anywhere

[tropic token]

Disagree advisors typically give non-binding opinions or recommendations without voting rights or executive responsibility.

The IMC does the opposite

IMC holds the actual voting power and is the final decision-making layer.

[fiery fog]

no it's not. legally labs can ignore or do the opposite of the imc vote

[pallid star]

I never started this to have some crazy back and forth, honestly thought council would just agree that they don’t do much in the current state of things and agree to forfeit pay to show solidarity with team and community at large. Instead I was met with being called Jaganite (as if bad), accused of “not liking council and being mad that I couldn’t be on council collecting a check”. So why such resistance? Council could always bring back pay when activity or they can prove that we can’t find people qualified and willing to do what they do for free.

[fiery fog]

lets pretend the "DAO" rules are binding. Gov v3 is saying that the epoch is ending. you need to do a GCCP if you want to extend it

[pallid star]

Simple test, if you would join IMC and do what they do currently for free. Which is a meeting a week for 30 mins , some note taking and maybe some dm conversations about Illuvium’s future success. (Feel free to add tasks on here if I’m missing them <@&814435151307866142>) simply add a check mark on this post.

[fiery fog]

IIP-42 Governance V3
"Length of an epoch
Councils will now operate in 9-month epochs, an increase from the previous 6-month duration. The extended term addresses the limitations of the shorter cycle, offering council members additional time for effective onboarding, strategic implementation, and community engagement. The 6-month epoch was often constrained, with initial phases focused on transitions and the latter on elections. A 9-month term ensures ample opportunity for deeper project engagement, long-term planning, and strengthened community bonds whilst maintaining the flexibility for future adjustments per the ecosystem’s evolving needs."

"GIPs/GCCPs introduce a combined voting process involving the IMC and the Community Council where governance-specific changes can be debated and voted on, where a supermajority of 7 out of 10 votes is required for approval."

[tropic token]

Being on IMC has been as is more than one 30 min meeting a week and a couple of DMs. At times the time commitment changes but council meetings are often unsociable hours for some and changed with little notice. It has been frequent this last epoch to have numerous meetings weekly between members and I've had to personally deal with a lot of council-team communication that required immediate attention.

The role the IMC partake in and decisions made a lot more serious than it sounds framed one 30 mins a week meeting and a couple of DMs.

[pallid star]

This all reads to me that you feel that your pay is more justified than giving it to a new team member that could help push development of the project ahead further.

Which you’re entitled to that opinion, but I just can’t find anyway to justify to continue paying you guys when we have team members struggling to work the hours required for less money as it is

And on top of that not being able to hire in departments that need help due to runway.

Although you think 5k a month is negligible, that is literally 1-2 bodies that could help take workload off someone else that’s been pounding away non stop for 4+ years to try Make Illuvium successful

That’s reality not opinion

[tropic token]

It's more like 1/2 due to being paid every 3 months with vol. This council epoch we passed the safetypool extention with a 3-2 in favour. That alone has brought more needed capital to the runway/potential for more than the collective stipend for the 9 month epoch.

The council absolutely adds more value to the DAO as a whole than the stipend costs for every reason noted above. Not to spam this chat but collectively we will post our councils rationale into an idea thread for the community.

[fiery fog]

how much of runway has the 2nd safety pool brought?

[fiery fog]

using your logic, no employee should be laid off if the result of their work exceed their salary.
for example, a salesman with a salary of $5k/month should not be fired because he sold $100k of product with 50% margin even though the minimum target is $200k. he made the company 10x of his salary.

using your logic, no team member should be let go or take a pay cut , because they are the one who actually generated ALL of ILV's revenue

the role of IMC and ICC on the 2nd safety pool is to vote and give rationale. using your logic, we should keep the ICC because they voted for the 2nd safety pool.

voting and giving rationale is part of the job. you already got paid for it.
using your logic, we should be paying everyone who got their proposals passed

[vapid geyser]

I am all for this.
I ask council, what are 6 things the IMC have to help make a positive impact for illuvium in the past 18 months?
Coz when i look at the state of the game and the path its been on i cant see much, justifying the paychecks being given.
"Board members" should have real world experience. Helping steer the ecosystem to help make a positive impact - Assisting with decisions to save money, grow the player base and drive revenue up, imo.
As rich stated the money could be better used to help with team, relieving the stress & have a stronger impact towards the development of the game/ ecosystem.
TBH If i was a dev seeing the amount of money being put towards council for the amount of workload comapared to me id be pissed. Maybe even consider finding a new job with better pay/ working conditions - we dont want that level of moral lingering, hindering the progression of development.

[pallid star]

Well said ser

and i can confirm it does have a direct impact on team morale

[vapid geyser]

Fucking oath it would.

IMC.. you need to be looking at the long term value for the DAO when it comes to making a decision on the subject matter. Imo having bag of ILV, wanting it to pump should be enough incentive to be a council member - The more value you add, the more value to your bag

[coarse patrol]

@pallid star do you need 35 thumbs up here for this to pass or is it waiting to get put on the governance ideas page?

[pallid star]

I’ll need to post in #1126838877429182506 and then hit the threshold I guess unless <@&814435151307866142> have a better solution so we don’t have to go through that, but not sure that going through the process properly will even work as they have to vote on it and have made it clear they think they deserve the pay so we might need to find an additional route, either through emergency proposal or possibly VONCs

[proper eagle]

That kind of proposal needs to be voted via community vilv as it doesnt make sense to have imc decide on this kind of decision

Just like election voting this is currently unavailable

Anyway without new elections if the pay would get removed this would put NA on IMC so this whole discussion is just making it more urgent to fix the stacking v3 integration if the community really want to remove pay for IMC

Filo will bring a potential solution for the integration to kieran at our meeting monday and we will definitely discuss this whole thing with him

Our stance hasnt change and is still that removing pay for this role doesnt make sense. Some of us who can write here explained some point already but i can sumarize a tdlr of our views on the arguments presented in this iip:

1. council has already been hit as much as the team

2. its not true that the role is 30m a week meeting + optionally couple dm's

3. saving council salaries doesnt equal in 1 more dev

Labs uses runway (usdc raised) & council uses treasury (ilv bag of the DAO)

4. removing pay removes accountability and ignores risk

You can’t expect consistent governance from a role with responsibility, risk, and no incentive.

If despite considering this other perspective the community still agrees that council pay should be 0 then thats what its going to be as we are a DAO, but at the very least i would advise that this waits new elections because otherwise we get NA on IMC and i dont think anyone would want that

[fiery fog]

why would we get NA on IMC, thats a fallacy

i repeat IIP-42 dictates that the epoch ends after 9 months.
Maybe the council need to at least learn about governance, you know, earn the pay.

this just proved why the council should get 0, you dont even know about the passed proposals.
maybe Opus 4.6 can do a better job

[proper eagle]

Because with current epoch 11 elections, if pay goes to 0, considering people leaving + not accepting to jump in it goes down to NA

As rich also properly stated in this iip draft, we were effectively forced to extend this epoch. Its not a choice, the voting system isnt yet implemented

[fiery fog]

you are making a wild assumption about the result of future election.

no one is forcing an extension, IIP-42 is clear as day, read it.

with your logic, the us government would have never had a shutdown from hitting the budget ceilling

grok how many times the us government had a shutdown?

[proper eagle]

Im not talking about future elections, read again what i said maybe

Please tell us if you have an alternative to extending the epoch while we find a way to make the system work for v3 stacking to count in voting

[fiery fog]

why would you need to extend the epoch? Thats a fallacy

proposals can wait, if there is any.
labs can still perfectly function without council.
The only urgent reason you are giving me is continuation of salary

maybe read the deed so you actually understand how it was set up, oh wait, you dont even know theres a deed do you. Yea
maybe sit back and listen to someone who does know more about governance

[proper eagle]

Jag cmon now that way of presenting your opinions doesnt help you at all. I will simply not further engage with you on this topic, we wont get anywhere 🤝

[fiery fog]

Yes because you need to read IIP-42 and the deeds to further engage on governance topic.

What's written in IIP-42 and the deeds are not my opinion. They are facts and one of them is a legal document.

[coarse patrol]

How long are we talking until it is ready? Days, weeks or months? Any idea?

[pallid star]

I mean… honestly… I haven’t personally looked into it but I’m sure Claude could help… don’t think Patate knows much blockchain stuff not meant as an insult. But I’ve setup up the previous snapshot stuff in past with others. It’s more a matter of, it was missed during staking v3 integrations (I was out with my sons birth and such) and with everything going on no one I guess considered it until the election came up and I mentioned we couldn’t hold the election unless they wanted to exclude all v3 staking which obviously wasn’t an option

IMO we should contract out the guys who did v3 staking for us and have them integrate it on snapshot, not sure what they would charge but I can at least find out how long it would take them… or other options is we just use AI… test and make sure its working correctly… and save time and money… idk best option here. But it’s not like crazy complex imo. It’s reading already written contracts, holdings, lock ups etc and giving you a vilv amount. I’m obviously of the opinion that AI could do this but I’m sure others wouldn’t feel Comfortable which is understandable

[coarse patrol]

It is council's responsibility to ensure elections happen. It was up to them, not you, to have thought of the fact that the people they represent wouldn't be able to vote.

It would be good to know how long it would take the guys who did the v3 staking for us to do this.

[fiery fog]

Technically, epoch 11 will end as scheduled unless they pass a GCCP to revise IIP-42.

Wait if epoch 11 started on 5th of june 2025, that means the current epoch ended on 5th of march 2026

@pallid star please remove the imc and icc roles

[proper eagle]

What rich said is accurate

We will discuss this with kieran monday

[proper eagle]

The council wasnt overlooking the people that were doing this stuff

Its not ours or rich's fault

The moment elections were about to happen rich told us that we cant hold elections with stacking v3 integrated. Now that we know it, yes we try to help find a way to make sure elections can happen

[coarse patrol]

Someone dropped the ball. You guys knew elections were coming up, knew about what was happening with the V3 staking and should have been the ones to say, "Hey, how is our community going to vote, is that set up?" It is understandable if it was overlooked because it is a new new situation, but it is still council responsibility to think about how elections will be held I would think.

I like the people on the current council. Talked with you all for a long time on here. This isn't against any one of you as a person.

[tropic token]

Council wasn't aware of the issues around V3 etc until very recently.

[night sable]

Under normal circumstances, I would be in favour of this. But the amount of ILV given as game rewards with almost zero benefit to the DAO, makes this entire discussion meaningless. I'd argue the council provides significantly more value to the DAO than the rewards given to Gauntlet/Ascendant.

To be quite honest, I'd be in favour of deleting ILV emissions entirely across the board, anything less is posturing rather than genuine execution.

[coarse patrol]

Any answer on this?

[proper eagle]

~3 months give or take

Another alternative has come up since that meeting though but we need again to discuss this with kieran to make a proper decision

[fiery fog]

so u guys decided to pay yourself additional $3750 each?

[vapid geyser]

still waiting on an answer on "what are 6 things the IMC have to help make a positive impact for illuvium in the past 18 months?" <@&814435151307866142>

gotta feeling council be ghosting the hard questions.. honestly at this rate $100 a week would suffice.
I would even consider allow team members to be part of council in the next epoch.. give them an added bonus instead of people who probably meet once a week

[proper eagle]

You can check out #1024051771624136774 for direct public proposals that happened in the last 18 months then if you want you can also check the #📣〕announcements or meeting minutes on the website if you want more details

[vapid geyser]

After reviewing.. granted there has been positive ones back in 2024-2025. The ones from the past 30 days seems like there are just a bunch of "yes's" been said to approve devs ideas.
With the main focus being on MMO & deathmatch being developed, until release, what else is there for council to really do till then?

Real questions;
How many hours do you guys meet a week?
How many hours do you work behind the scenes?
Do all those hours equate the entilted monthly paycheck, during a time the DAO is cutting costs to save on runway?

[proper eagle]

There's actually a lot going on right now with the risk2earn, beyond promo/arena tournament, arena web2 & new platform

[proper eagle]

the weekly meeting propably averages 1h15. All together or sub groups of us at times will do extra meetings when necessary

[proper eagle]

This varies a lot of course and i can only talk for myself but id say minimum 5h a week and at times where there something important to push/research it can be almost like a full time week

I previously stated, yes i think is worth the pay for that type of position

The council headcount has been as much cut as the labs team and the council pay has been reduced 80% already (most likely more than the team salary cut but i dont know that number for the team members)

[vapid geyser]

1.15 hr meetings a week.. Lets say it 2 with all possible the add ons that would be $100 a week worth of meetings ($400 a month)

As for the "research" pretty sure that would be an added responsibilty for the position, not an added on cost - imo think an unpaid dedicated council memeber would scroll through discord and google to learn more and strengthen thier position for future roles - Pretty sure council members were doing that before being elected