[PASSED] IIP-29 Safety Pool & ICCP-4 Hold Funds from the Illuvitar Sale

[remote violet]

Simple Summary IIP-29:
Create a Safety Pool within the Illuvium Treasury. The Safety Pool is a separate grouping of funds up to a maximum of $15M USDC. The Safety Pool may be utilized to cover DAO costs. Alternatively, the funds in the Safety Pool may be transferred to the Vault for regular distribution.

**Simple Summary ICCP-4: **
This proposal aims to hold revenue generated through the sale of the first batch of Illuvitars in the Illuvitar Safety Pool (IIP-29) separate from the Treasury and runway funds. This will serve to mitigate the risk of uncertain macroeconomic trends by providing an additional source of runway for game development, if necessary. The intention is to hold revenue until the council has greater certainty that various upcoming revenue streams have the ability to sustain the DAO.

Entire IIP/ICCP:
IIP-29: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aKhsRJlJw42tNl1lVTrCtJlbpOHenFyT1UFnH23-vRE/edit
ICCP-4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RD6yZ7A95KPRJdWdwmHO9Iu70Gde8IeWh-XCcO8zJYg/edit

<@&814435151307866142>

[fleet raptor]

So in the overview of IIP-29 it says "Revenue generated from purchases will be swapped for USDC on the open market and moved directly into this wallet."

To me this reads as if it applies to ALL revenue from all sources, not only revenue sources specifically outlined by ICCPs. Based on the existence of ICCP 4 I have to assume the intent was that only specifically approved revenue streams would automatically go to the safety pool.
This probably just needs a minor edit to add clarity.

Overall this is going to be an important step in ensuring sufficient funding to get us to a state where the DAO can be supported by the treasury. Holding the funds specifically under the jurisdiction of the council is an excellent choice that highlights Illuvium's decentralization.
Hopefully Illuvitars kill it, we get our $15 million and we can end the concerns surrounding runway once and for all!

[next maple]

Wasn’t it mentioned previously that there are already enough funds for 3 years of continued development even without any revenue? Maybe a minority opinion, but I figure the team already has a decent sized wallet of tokens that will be benefitting from Revenue Distribution, revenue that they could choose to create a safety pool for further development if they wish. I just see this reasoning being continually proposed in further revenue streams and devaluing the desire to be an ILV holder. I personally don’t agree with RevDis mechanics being manipulated in a way that devalues token holding. But that’s just me.

[fleet raptor]

Also can we get a clarification on what the "first batch of Illuvitars" includes? Is this all Illuvitars relating to the first set of Illuvials, or the first tranche of Illuvitars consisting of the first 25 Illuvitars sold.

[next maple]

The thing is the “safety pool” sounds more like a permanent thing. Essentially the next $15 million of revenue would go 100% to the team. And unless an equivalent of 125,000 mega d1sks are sold from Illuvitars (at current ETH prices), that $15 million cap will then continue to be filled from further revenue streams. And if the safety pool funds get used and drained, this could create a precedent where seemingly all revenue could keep going to this safety pool. This could easily be abused how it’s currently proposed. And again, the team already has their own stake of tokens in Revenue Distribution. I think it would be more fair overall that the original concept of shared distribution across the board be upheld and respected.

[fleet raptor]

I believe you're misinterpreting the parameters of what revenue goes to the safety pool. As I mentioned above IIP-29 is not clear about what revenues are directed to the safety pool but based on ICCP-4 specifying that the safety pool is to be funded using revenue from the first batch of Illuvitars, I believe the intent is that only revenue specified in ICCP-4 or revenue specified in a future ICCP would be automatically used to support the safety pool.

Hopefully a council member can clarify the intent here better than I can.

The revenue also does not necessarily 100% go to the team. The revenue is set aside and held to be used in the case that it is needed. In the case that Illuvium starts generating enough revenue to support itself before the existing runway is exhausted, the safety pool can be returned to the vault and the revenue would be distributed normally.

As far as team members somehow using their personal tokens to support development costs, this doesnt make sense to me. The tokens are already owned by the team members who they were given to. Asking them to use their tokens to bear the brunt of development costs is akin to your employer asking you to use your paycheck to pay the rent for their business and is in no way appropriate for an organization that hopes to attract and retain top talent.

[shrewd oracle]

They have less than a year

[next maple]

I guarantee the safety pool is a separate proposal for a reason. Illuvitars is just the first (and next) source of revenue so that’s why it’s being proposed soley for now. If it doesn’t generate enough revenue, I wouldn’t doubt that the next revenue sources would then be propsed for the safety pool. And again, this could be perpetuated indefinitely depending on how quickly these funds end up getting used.

[next maple]

Kieran or Aaron mentioned in a interview there was like $50 million in funds that would keep things going up to 3 years. Where did you hear 1 year left?

[fleet raptor]

He said that 2 years ago... thats how we got to 1 year left.

[shrewd oracle]

Question :
The safety fund reach 6m$
The team need 3m$ to deliver the game
Safety funds down to 3m$
The game is release and generate tons of $
Safety funds reach 15m$
Council decide the safety fund is not needed anymore
15m$ will go to the vault
What about the 3m$ used ? Would the treasury revdis been return to the community or we assume it’s gone ?

[shrewd oracle]

12 months is what they announced in the council document of December.

But it’s actually important that those iips try to solve a problem, but there is no problem statement or numbers or anything…

Maybe important for people to understand what problems those iip are trying solving…..

[fleet raptor]

I definitely agree that I would like to see this re-routing of revenue happen as little as possible. At the end of the day though if the DAO runs out of money the token goes to 0 and protecting any current or future revdis structure is meaningless if Illuvium shuts down.

Keep in mind that the people who decide whether or not revenue would go to revdis or not are elected by the token holders. I have a hard time envisioning a future where token holders repeatedly elect council members who choose to withhold revdis so I dont really buy the slippery slope argument when it comes to this particular issue.

[next maple]

The slippery slope starts with creating a safety pool to begin with. Future council members cannot revoke old proposals if I’m not mistaken, so the precedent is already set with this being approved. And it also mentions in the IIP-29 that “Additionally, as a standalone proposal, it is more straightforward to release funds from the Safety Pool, or to modify values within the Safety Pool in the future.”

The ability to “modify values” is unclear, but could be interpreted as being able to increase the cap above $15 million in the future if desired. Though I might be reading that wrong.

[shrewd oracle]

Well we are already in the middle of the slope lol

The time isn’t about « considering » a contingence plan, but it’s about « deploying » a contingency plan.

The need of something is already there.

= safety pool

What better solution to the problem would you propose ?

[flint sparrow]

Future councils can absolutely revoke existing proposals, or modify their values. That's a big part of the reason these proposals are split - The Safety Pool will likely need to be modified (or gotten rid of entirely) in the future, and we wanted it separate so that changing the maximum value or getting rid of it entirely doesn't need to involve the Illuvitar revenue diversion.

An ICCP is required to release any funds, but an ICCP could also reduce the maximum value of the Safety Pool, or modify the functionality.

[flint sparrow]

This can be clarified - Proposals ARE required to divert revenue, but that didn't come through clearly with the current wording. I'll make the changes in the next few days and we'll get an updated version.

[flint sparrow]

The team doesn't own the Safety Pool, the DAO does, and the funds can only be released by Council approval. The funds may be used for game development, but that would require an ICCP releasing funds to the team for development.

[flint sparrow]

It's worth noting that there's a clause in Gov V2 that allows the community to remove council members. I understand your concern that the Safety Pool could be misused, but in Gov V2 you would be able to start a Vote of No Confidence against a council who, for example, voted to increase the Safety Pool's sizing. Additionally, all proposals require community backing to even get off the ground. The source of both of these proposals were community suggestions that had fairly widespread support.

[ember iron]

My thought is whether it is a “safety pool” or “additional runway” however you want to phrase it…the absolute priority is that the team have the capital and resources to hire and retain the very best devs, designers etc. to be able to release the most high quality, innovative and addictive games the world has ever seen…..thinking about individual rev distributions before the games are released shows a very short term view as an investor in a project that is all about quality of product and long term sustainability.

[flint sparrow]

To take this back to a high level - The idea behind a Safety Pool, instead of directly funding the Treasury, is that there's a chance the diverted revenue will not need to go towards DAO costs. If that's the case, this gives the DAO flexibility to release the revenue to the Vault at a later date, where it would be distributed normally. If the revenue IS required to cover DAO costs, we'll have it on hand and be able to release it with an ICCP. Again, the community would need to support either of those proposals for them to be put to a vote - The council can't act without community backing.

[shrewd oracle]

The land sale brought 70m$ but 90% was silv2, so 7m$ in eth initially.

So to fill the safety fund, we would need an illuvitar sale 2 times the size of the land sale.

Has the council access to any numbers, forecast, expectations, etc ?

I mean can be useful to see what are the following steps ….

[lusty breach]

I like the idea of a safety pool. But it is not ok the way it is written. The community deserves some RevDis from illuvitars.

It would be far more fair if the safety pool was built by dedicating a percentage of revenue up to $15m USDC until the 15m is reached.

Pool first then distribution if there anything left I feels like a slap to the face for the community. Not fair, not ok

[lusty breach]

Yes. Plus the fact that there is still a decent amount of sILV2 to burn through before we even get to any revenue.

[flint sparrow]

We haven't seen any forecasts, no. Obviously we have personal opinions about how much revenue Illuvitars could bring in, but those opinions weren't necessarily a factor in sizing the Safety Pool. The size is a reflection of the minimum amount the council was advised that runway could be extended by to cover a worst case scenario.

[lusty breach]

I know the numbers for the land sale and the total amount of sILV2 and related figures like this are public record, but it's convoluted and beyond the skillet of most to access and make sense of all that data. If you're going to put out a proposal like this, it would be courteous and professional to compile pertinent historical and projected data and include it in the proposal. The way this is written is like sending a 1 page business plan to an investor and expecting them to fund your startup.

To the author of this proposal: I know you don't mean any harm, and the entire team is doing great things. I appreciate you all greatly. However please treat the community with more respect than that

[vast lance]

I love both proposals. Both are well-written and have taken a lot of community feedback. Huge kudos to the council members and whoever helped in this.

[lusty breach]

I have no objections to the size of the pool. I definitely object to 'fill the pool first and give the community what's left'

Fund the pool and give RevDis at the same time. Make it a split percentage untill the pool is filled.

[flint sparrow]

The team didn't draft these proposals, the council did. I'm happy to talk examples if you'd like.

There are 104k sILV2 in circulation, ILV is currently worth about $60. That means about $6.2M worth of sILV2 is circulating, if it were all spent on Illuvitars at current prices, that's the maximum amount that could be spent. There are some pending rewards as well which could be claimed as sILV2, but it's relatively unlikely those would all be claimed as sILV2.

The maximum impact the Safety Pool could have on ILV stakers is on the order of $2 per ILV, in the circumstance that Illuvitars generated $15M+ of non-sILV2 revenue.

The land sale (IMO) was a different kind of sale in different market conditions. Only about 10% of spending during the land sale was in ETH, the rest was sILV2. If you extended that model (I don't believe this is an appropriate way to assess the total spend for Illuvitars BTW), Illuvitars would have approx $5M of sILV2 spending and $500k of non-sILV2 spending. If that were the case, the impact of revenue diversion to ILV stakers would be about 7 cents per ILV.

I'll reiterate that I don't believe extending the land sale to Illuvitars is appropriate, but if you did believe it would follow the same trend, that's what you'd be looking at.

[lusty breach]

Thank you for the info. That's something that should be in the proposal.

With that being said. My only objection is that the pool should be funded as a percentage split with RevDis so they both get funded at the same time.

I appreciate this proposal and it was great for sight by the counsel. If it were up to me, I would approve it with the only change being the percentage split.

[flint sparrow]

We originally included examples, but decided to pull them out and just discuss that kind of thing here. Ultimately, the examples are part of the discussion, not part of the proposal itself.

[lusty breach]

Got it. Thanks for that clarification 👍

[flint sparrow]

I appreciate your feedback though, I'm generally a fan of examples as well but proposals get quite long when we include them.

[vast lance]

May I resurrect an old topic, that has been discussed? Written it in ideas to collect some support.
#1068428267587117066

[next maple]

For correctedness sake, the interview was from 10 months ago, not 2 years ago. ILV/sILV2 tokenomics deep dive. And Kieran additionally mentioned that there were planned future capital raises. So I guess an additional area of discussion is what ever came of separate capital raises, which would be carried out by the team themselves instead of the council taking it upon themselves to alter the tokenomics? I understand the interest in longterm success, but RevDis is one of the biggest incentives for longterm holding, and the reason many have locked up investments for 1 year, increasing weight of holdings in anticipation of upcoming RevDis events. I guess it’s just odd to me the scope that the council has in terms of tokenomics, regardless if it was a community driven idea or not.

[flint sparrow]

The Forge proposal did not get passed. We can hash up some things that happened in the past more if you'd like, but this probably isn't the best place to do so, because the reality is that a capital raise didn't happen, and we're here in the present, dealing with the current situation. Looking at why things didn't happen in the past isn't going resolve runway now.

I think you may misunderstand how the DAO works. The DAO (through the council, who are voted in by ILV stakers) is absolutely able to create proposals that change aspects of the ecosystem. If Illuvium were a government, the DAO would be in charge. With that said, this is a proposal. It will follow the normal rules for that any other proposal would abide by. It will require community support before going to a vote. The community is absolutely entitled to disagree with this proposal, and if it doesn't get enough support, it won't go to a vote.

My main question for someone opposed to this proposal (or the overall idea of runway security) would be what their plan is. We've come up with what we believe to be the best plan available to us, based on advice we've received, community sentiment, and our own judgement. We have $15.5M USDC in the Treasury, at an approximate burn rate of $1.3M per month. We absolutely need to ensure the game can launch regardless of what happens in the macro environment. Doing nothing is not a robust option, so I'd ask what your suggestion would be as an alternative to what we have proposed. I'm also happy to go through the options if you want more detail. You can see the overall list we drafted in the council notes here: #📯〕council-chambers message

[uneven schooner]

i think giving the full revDis to the safety pool will earn you more money in the long run - by giving the project you trust and invest in, the liquidity to make the best products possible - instead of getting a few dollars from illuvitars sale revDis, like it happened on the way bigger land sale.

[steady spade]

you should have a long term vision here, then maybe you wouldn't be complaining about having a percentage for the revdis
we have less than a year of runway. if there's no runway, there's no game and there's no revdis
will you be happy with $1 dollar revdis? maybe you should aim higher. this money gonna be much more useful if it goes to keep developing this huge project
by the way, consider that we are already receiving revdis by burning the silv2. in long term, this reducing-supply mechanism gonna be SO much better for the future revdis
Stop short term thinking . We are all here for the long run

[vast lance]

Wouldn't defining the safety fund based on burn rate be better? In case the burn rate changes or inflation goes rampant, no new IIPs have to be made to amend the fixed 15 mil amount.

Example. 2 years of runway safety fund.

I just realized that this makes almost 0 sense, because we have only a single proposed event to fill the safety fund.

[worn lark]

the $3m in your example should be returned to the community otherwise I wound't agree with this

[ebon drum]

The $15 million was determined by the council in consultation with Danny (CFO), and is more pertinent to the current economic situation rather than establish an ongoing pool of funds separate from the treasury. Thinking optimistically, the safety pool is a concept that can be eliminated once current products produce sustaining revenue under the original tokenomics model. It was discussed to define as a percentage (or my idea was to define the safety pool size in number of months of runway), but ultimately a fixed dollar amount was deemed most appropriate to highlight the role of the pool to solve a specific challenge of ensuring runway to achieve product launch, solidifying confidence both in the community, and potentially more impactfully, the team, offering greater stability to stay with the project.

[pine swift]

100% agree with that!

[ebon drum]

The $3M question is far more complicated. Who is “reimbursed” if the safety pool is utilized to sustain operations? The eligible tokens at the time the revenue was originally received? When it was used for DAO operations? When it is distributed? This creates a far greater logistical challenge for the DAO to manage and maintain numerous snapshots of eligible wallets at every time point.
As the entire treasury is at the community’s direction, this “reimbursement” is effectively authorizing an additional disbursement of $3M unrelating to current revenue. While possible, it should be up to the community and council to determine if and when such disbursements from the treasury should occur. Being the pessimist for a moment, remember that revdis is paid in $ILV. Use of the safety pool is essentially a safeguard to prevent the DAO from ceasing to have funds to maintain operations, which likely would result in the token price going to $0.
We need to maintain perspective of why Illuvium exists, and the core reason why this community is here – development of high quality gaming products with player asset ownership, and community benefiting from the proceeds, in that order. There must be products, there must be players, and then the community benefits. Right now, the safety pool is being created to ensure we get to quality products with sufficient resources to drive player adoption. Community benefit comes after these, because of these.

[maiden trellis]

Totally agree on your opinion and all my friends and business partners who are hodling ILV are supporting this IIP and ICCP.

Saw some people suggestion the owners have big bags and should take it for us. This is a DAO they will personally bleed as everyone else we are a DAO and we do that together! We will also become the biggest Gaming Studio together!

Could be that some VC get scared off because we change RD. But everyone who does is not here for the long term anyway and should not be invested in ILV!

[steep trout]

Another thing that could be proposed is $6M goes to the vault. Then team receives their portion of RevDis. Not saying that's a great idea but one way I see the safety pool working.

Or since the $3M that is given to the team to deliver the game is done through ICCP/IIP. Stipulations could be in place to have this repaid to vault in some way.

[lusty breach]

I'm disappointed that you would come at me like that without even fully understanding my comment.

It seems you may not understand my posts. Blicker got the point. If you read my posts fully and his responses, it might clear it up for you.

The point is that the people in this discussion are relatively very few compared to the whole community. The people in here are the people with a long term vision like yourself and I, and we see things differently. I'm looking at this with a broad community viewpoint and concerned with how to accomplish the same end result while also having good PR. The concern I have is with damaging community trust. By filling the pool first, it is bad PR. Cut and dry that is my only concern.

By splitting a percentage, it avoids the potential community perception that stakers are being put last. Even a 90/10 split with 90 to the pool I bet would be good enough

My concern is with public perception and PR only. I'm advocating for the community, not personal interests. I'm obviously not going to make enough to retire on the illuvitars sale if that's where thought I was going with this lol

Also of you think a percentage split is going cause the $15m pool to not fill fully, maybe this will help with your level of confidence in the success of the sale. IMO it will do far more than $15m

If just counting the Twitter subscribers I think we would sell a minimum of about $17.8m. I have every bit of confidence we will be more successful then that. So let's say we attract at least one additional buyer for each subscriber (still very conservative IMO). That's $35.6m. take off the $15m and that leaves $20.6m. minus the $6.2m of sILV2 and that brings it to $14.4m. then split that among about 2.355m staked ILV and that's something close to $6.11 RevDis per token. That's a lot more than your $1 example.

As I stated, my concern is with community PR Getting RevDis from Illuvitars Will be exciting and awesome even if it were only $1 lol. personally it isn't important to me for make a profit from this sale. My concern is the next 5, 10, 20 years. If you knew how long I've been here and the amount of personal Capital and time I've invested in this project it would be obvious to you how long term my vision is.

I made it VERY clear that I feel it's a great idea to have whatever amount in a pool as the project needs. If it needs $30m then let's do that. I stated multiple times that the amount of the pool is fine. Even if it was a 90/10 split with 90% going to the pool it would be fine. How much RevDis I get from this sale personally is of low priority to me.

[lusty breach]

I agree. The pool is a great idea. If you read my posts fully it will make more sense. The concern is public perception and good PR with the community. I'm confident that the sale will yield far more than $15m so IMO the pool will be fill either way. I have very little concern over how much RevDis I make personally off the sale. IMO wether the pool fills first or there's a split, it will have the exact same end result. But splitting it as it's earned will have the added benefit of protecting community perception.

[placid goblet]

Hey Anorak. I had a chance to give my take on this in a bit more detail in the town hall last night if you get a chance to listen to the recording but will try to summarize. I also held the same view as you and argued that point on the council. During the discussions, my co-council members persuaded me to the current approach. I fully agree with your premise on a revenue split feeling better in the short term. The risk though is with that revenue split, we would simply need to extend the next revenue stream out further indefinitely until we reached the $15M identified. In lieu of a perpetual, rolling extension of part of the revdis going to the safety pool for months and months from different activities, this tries to lock it up all at one go and then funnel everything back to token holders. It stabilizes the project runway while still in startup mode, allows us to capitalize on great talent available now and over the next months from other projects that are failing, and reassures both team and investors that even an extended bear market or other risks will not harm the project long-term.

I’m very cautious about changing anything related to revdis and we have looked for a number of alternate and better options. We have some other sources but many elements are linked with Illuvitars in some way (partnerships for instance).

The discussion has been very productive and I would ask everyone to continue to respect different points of view. It’s very possible to hold the opinion that this is not the best path forward and still be fully committed to the long term vision of the project. That’s why we build and discuss publicly.

[tender seal]

I fully support this proposal. I would rather defer a relatively small revdis payment now to ensure the success of the project and long term revdis

[somber galleon]

I am fully in support of this proposal as well. Talent churn due to runway & industry risk before launch would be particularly detrimental to the project. The safety fund is also a good buffer for Illuvium DAO to get legal opinion the regulatory risks around governance tokens with revenue-sharing properties (see recent Mango case and statements on it being a security) before going forward with RevDis.

[icy coral]

Reading IIP 29, im in agreement that this clause needs to be reworded or even fully removed "Any revenue in excess of $15M USDC will be treated as normal revenue, and will go to the Vault for distribution."

Its clear that 15m is the max for which the safety pool can hold but this statement makes it seem that all revenue will first go in the safety pool first, when in fact, this is covered by separate ICCPs redirecting revenue streams to it. It prioritizes filling the pool up before the vault. Therefore, the statement is best reserved to those ICCPs where we redirect revenue from.

Ex. ICCP 4 - The Council proposes to fund the Illuvitar Safety Pool (IIP-29) with revenue up until it receives funds denoted in USD up until the limit set by (IIP-29) in non sILV2 revenue. Non sILV2 revenue from Illuvitars in excess of $15M USDC will be treated as normal revenue, and will go to the Vault for distribution. (clause added by me)

This clears up that in the event that Illuvitar sale's non silv2 revenue goes above 15m (IIP 29 safety fund max limit), the rest of the revenue goes to the vault for distribution. I believe this is what was intended in the first place.

I support both proposals with the hopes that these changes would be incorporated to remove doubt and confusion.

[steady spade]

Well ok, so you received revdis from the land sell i suppose. Did you find it awesome and got excited about it?

I received something about 1 ILV by the time. And you know what, I wish I didnt. I wish it was sent to the vault. It just dont worth claiming, and it is stucked there.
It was exciting for 2 days, than it doesnt matter. Now I see it was a mistake to not sending 100% of the eth revdis to the vault. But maybe people got this same ideia of you, "lets get people excited by sending them some fraction of ilv. at least until they realise it doesnt worth claiming".

[shrewd oracle]

« We have some other sources but many elements are linked with illuvitars in some way (partnerships) »

This whole thing is so so risky. Is anyone raising the question : if illuvitars is a flop and make very little eth revenue ? What’s the backup plan ?

Why the hell wait. Can we already get in line the revenues from the game to replenish also this safety fund ?

Is there any sense of urgency in the council and team to release the games before it’s too late ?

[fleet raptor]

I support keeping the team funded in order to keep progress moving, but this is just an emergency fund not necessary fund correct? So at what point if not touched does this pool get sent back to the vault? And my second question is this a refillable pool or once that 15m is hit a lid is put on it and it’s drained until empty and a new pool could be created if necessary in the future. I personally don’t think it should be refillable because then what stops the team from not treating it as an emergency and just as a faucet to fund anything they feel. I read back as much as my brain could handle so if any of this was talked on don’t feel bad telling me I’m a donkey 😌

[lusty breach]

That's makes sense. I'll check out the town hall. Thanks for taking the time for the detailed response

[lusty breach]

You're still missing the point of what I'm saying friend. We're basically on the same page so there's no need to squabble lol. I'm also not concerned about RevDis right now. Long term? Yes

Right now the only concern I was addressing is PR.

let's just de-escalate this. All is good 👍

[remote violet]

Do you not see the risk in launching an unfinished product?

What’s “too late”? Who’s even close?

[shrewd oracle]

Well I’m not saying the team should be stupid and release a shit product I say they should be smart, cut what’s not necessary and do anything they can to release a product that make them money. Tweaked the drop rate, get the only region ready but a full player experience loop in, and release anything that isn’t core to the loop, later, for example.

It’s called a MVP, and both M and V are very important.

But you focus on that and this is not the topic of this iip, i think you missed my point so I say it again : what if illuvitars is a flop and do not bring eth ? Should we face the reality that it may happens and have a plan ? Already have an iip voted for more revenues stream to go in the funds ?

[remote violet]

I just pointed out that you focus on the wrong things, the council is ready to deploy more IIPs for funding runway if necessary, and the team is well aware of how/when to launch a product, not sure how many games you’ve launched personally but I haven’t launched (other than being involved here at Illuvium)any but I’ve seen the results of games not being ready and being launched. All that being said if illuvitars did flop (which I don’t think it will) like I said yes the council has other backup plans for extended runway options

This has been outlined in the many council meetings since the new council has onboarded

You say the same the things over and over like they haven’t already been addressed… I won’t go into it here but you’re in your own echo chamber

[onyx portal]

No, none at all. Those who have put their entire lives into building a game have entirely disregarded all risks and thrown caution to the wind. Some dude who thinks he understands business and game development knows better than an entire team of experts. I’m so sick of hearing your version when you have no context; you position yourself as an intellect because you have navigated Dune analytics, and even then, your forecasts are grossly wrong. I get that you are highly emotional, evident from your constant use of ‘lol’ in your comments but coming from someone who knows what is going on, I suggest you leave decisions up to the council and core contributors because, in a matter of months, you are going to be embarrassed by your continued naive comments. I totally accept the community being critical of the team, and rightly so - but you, come off as someone who can’t handle that things aren’t quite going as planned.

[fleet raptor]

Personally feel that is a little aggressive coming from a top ched of this company. You may not agree with what he is saying but I don’t feel like insulting him is the way to go about this. We are the investors your building a game off our backs essentially and set up the profit sharing in such a way that intrigued us and are now asking for 15M in “just in case” money. His point wasn’t release an unfinished game his point was release a portion of that game that was finished to its highest potential to begin making money off of that so this “emergency money” isn’t needed. There is risk in everything and we took on part of that in signing up to invest but I don’t think it’s professional for the big guys to spit on the little guys for voicing their opinions… again I support funding you guys and ensuring we get the best quality game and product but doesn’t mean I don’t have concerns about how much money is required to do so. People are excited to start making money off of this just like you guys so please understand before insulting while sitting in a professional position

[onyx portal]

We are taking the appropriate steps to ensure the best possible product delivery with our runway. Because we have more skin in the game than any individual investor, it is in our best interest to ensure we generate revenues before extinguishing the runway. The council understand that as well. What is not effective is the same guy's emotional response and continual condescension toward the team. Patronising us with childish comments over and over frustrates the team.

Additionally, you are missing the point. He agrees with using illuvitars as revenue; I'm simply pointing out that the smug attitude continually shown is offensive to a team putting in a ridiculous amount of effort. Suggesting that he knows better than our team without even working on the project is absurd, and I'm sick of it.

But unfortunately, I've just given him exactly what he wants, once again—entertainment vs effectiveness of the DAO.

[fleet raptor]

I agree 100% that you guys have committed your lives into this and by far have out invested anything that any of us can do and fully support your team as from what you have provided thus far has been astonishing and I appreciate that! And I understand the frustration on people who undermine your value I just think there is a better way to deal with it then one of the top guys shooting shots. We could start with chat warning or bans maybe just to try and de-escalate the situation first. I am new in this chat so I’m not sure the history here, I just saw someone voice an opinion and the boss tell him he is an idiot and we’re all professional so leave it to us… and I’m seeing that, with me being spiteful I want to say if your so professional why are you asking us for 15M more dollars instead of finding a way to utilize what you have already (AGAIN I fully support supplying more money to the team!!!!) but being talked down to isn’t the way to get it. Unfortunately you are the professional and don’t get to have that freedom of insulting people without considering how it will affect your company which in turn affects me (and the rest of us). That is my point maybe I’m right maybe I’m wrong.❤️

[onyx portal]

I don't believe in banning people from having their opinion. But I’ll also defend our position if I think it's right to do so. As you can see from the comments of our community manager, this is a continual thing on multiple platforms. After a while, it becomes tiring.

As for your point about the $15m, it's not “us” asking for it. The council has asked for the DAO to receive it. For the betterment of the organisation. The intention is that YOU and other investors will be better for it.

[fleet raptor]

I don’t think your understanding my point and I don’t want to argue or keep this going any longer. I don’t care how much money you need I think an emergency fund is a totally realistic thing to have it’s better to have funds there that are not needed then not have funds and scramble to finish when the end comes. But now your saying you want people to be able to voice their opinions but if you don’t like it you will openly insult them and that is not professional. You are not just a member of the team your one of the head guys. If you want to slap someone with your words use a lower guy in the team not the head guy that looks horrible and petty. It’s one thing to defend it’s another to insult just stay humble and that’s my point take it or leave it I’m done with the conversation. Please keep up the great work!

[uneven schooner]

I think the opposite is true. I'm tired of "head" people acting like some fake PR machine. One big reason why I trust this project so much is because the heads come as raw and real as they are. If someone keeps edging you on and pissing you off I think it's fair to tell them straight up your opinion and not hide behind formalities to look good.

[fleet raptor]

Again I don’t want to keep going I had an opinion. I stand by it, there is a way to be raw and defend your honour and company and another to disrespect the people who are helping fund this project. If everyone is entitled to their own opinion don’t say the are stupid for having it. And if anyone else would like to continue this convo we should probably move it somewhere else as this is for the safety pool so I apologize for starting it here but we should move somewhere else if y’all choose to continue

[pearl depot]

Let’s not lose sight of the objective. Longevity, transparency and a great fun game.

[lethal holly]

Sounds like another rule to funnel $ to the devs

I got $8k in the project… I’d like to see it go to the people who put $ in it

Maybe I have no idea what I’m talking about … 🤷‍♂️ I’ll just shut up and ride ur market price and trade ur nfts

When are the illuves goin on sale ?

[mossy mauve]

I agree with Kieran on people becoming emotional about changes, especially when it involves money. People that become so emotional like this are the ones that are either new in investing, or are over invested. If it's for the sake of the health of the project, I agree 100% on getting an additional runway on the side to be used if necessary. I take my hats off to the team that actually has to listen to criticism that are most of the time pointless, they have no idea what goes behind the curtains, the challenges, and the man hours needed to build a AAA game.

[lethal holly]

Ya but not tha#T much …

[mossy mauve]

You must be expert, enlighten me..

[lethal holly]

I’m not … not at all

Like I said … I’m a investor. I bought land and tokens .. staked and I’m the liquidity pool …

I’m just riding the wave .. now it would be nice if they state how much is goin to what area of the project…

I read $15 M …. Might be wrong .. but if they only use 5 mil on the project.. then pocket 10M …. That’s to much feed Us investors.. pump up the tokens and land prices

[maiden trellis]

Right we have the power to vote the council they have the total overview.
If we don‘t share the same values and opinions we simply vote someone who represents us better.

It‘s simply not possible to give everybody in the DAO all the information. If you are like Lehalel and not happy with the council/team or whatever there are two ways to change that 1. convince people to vote for a council member who represents you 2. get voted as a council member yourself.
No need to push down the team day by day with only half of the truth on several platforms.

This IIP and ICCP were not proposed from the team it was a great idea proposed from @round rapids from the community who is not connected to the team in any way and thinks about the sustainability of the DAO!

[lethal holly]

Haven’t u noticed … %70 of everyone always votes yes …they don’t even read it …

Look at# other votes on other platforms… y#es yes yes no ..

But what# ever .. I’m not goin to vote 🗳️… I don’t want to throw a wrench 🔧 in yallz progress and program … I just read the docs and follow charts

[tender seal]

I mean if you read the original discussion linked in the proposal, it’s like thousands of comments long with like 90% of people saying they were in favor. So clearly the community is aware of what’s being proposed and they are in favor.

[ember iron]

Taking pot shots at @onyx portal for addressing a community members opinion that he disagrees with is extraordinary! Kierans passion directness and leadership are what on boarded most of us in the first place. The opinions that the team and core contributors have come from so much more of a wholistic project base compared to your average community member wanting some earlier rev dis is laughable!….keep up the outstanding work Kieran and team!

[night yoke]

this channel went south real quick

[placid goblet]

I agree @night yoke. Let’s try to keep it focused on the content of the IIP here everyone. I recognize it’s an emotional topic. Open to feedback on how to improve the IIP on margin but the community has very clearly asked for this (including the original idea from @round rapids, hundreds of supportive comments in the different threads discussing this, and dozens of upvotes across both).

Everyone here agrees we need to extend runway.

*Launching unfinished products isn’t an option - A delayed game can eventually be good, but a rushed game is forever bad.
*A capital raise against the treasury tokens isn’t a good strategy in current market conditions, although it is possible.
*Other options have been and will continue to be explored.

[onyx portal]

Agreed, I've edited my comment and removed the name-calling. Let's stay on topic. This proposal is a crucial one and we need to discuss without emotion. Myself included.

[unkempt elm]

The text of IIP-29 does not mention Illuvitars. It seems like it should be included to help clearly define the safety pool. Or simply remove Illuvitars from the title (and then correct ICCP-4 references).

[unkempt elm]

Unfortunately, the DAO finds itself in a less than ideal situation. But, these proposals seem to be the best options we have available right now.

Perhaps one upside is that the team needing to, at the very least, request disbursement from the safety pool can only further demonstrate the decentralized nature of this organization.

[round rapids]

Just my two cents here, this was an idea developed by myself and the community (DAO) in the thread. Nobody on the team asked for this, however many expressed support in the original idea thread. The goal here is for the DAO to support the team. Its the power of Goverance and if you dont agree @shrewd oracle with these types of ideas passing despite wider community support. I would say you could run for council once Gov V2 is out and vote down anything you disagree with. I have a very different opinion to yours and think this shows how strong the Illuvium DAO is. Illuvium is and will be a shining example of what a DAO can be. It's exciting to see how far governance has already taken the DAO and what lies ahead, specially with Gov V2 around the corner.

[icy coral]

Yeah, better to remove "illuvitar" from iip 29. It opens up other revenue streams to be added into it in the future if illuvitars arent able to fill the pool. Or may need to be filled up again

[round rapids]

I agree, merch etc etc.

[steep trout]

I think it was a hold over google doc title, inside it has the IIP-29 title "Safety Pool"

@remote violet could we pin the original message, so you don't have to scroll all the way up to if we want to re-read/review?

[somber galleon]

Quick question - does/will the council have access to team budget, composition of the budget and implementation details when voting whether to release funds to cover team costs? Several DAOs I'm actively involved in are transparent about financial reporting. Is this on the agenda? Thanks.

[soft siren]

Technically if the DAO sold off the entire treasury then yes. However the treasury is also their future source of revenue. In the sense it essentially gathers 10% of the revenue from ingame purchases. If this were sold then funding runway with these funds would limit the runway in the future a lot

[soft siren]

I cannot 100% confirm but I believe the council will have as much information as it pertains to the DAO's finances when making these decisions. Worst case scenario we meet with Danny who tells us the situation. In terms of transparency with the rest of the community I am unsure how that would be handled if possible. But yes the council will always have the relevant information.

[soft siren]

If it passes another vote by the council. It would 100% go to the runway. Things like team salaries, expenses such as servers and so on. We would be transparent at that time.

[rugged flicker]

the amount of SILV2 getting sucked up right now is impressive, internally I think all long term investors wont be spending much eth at all, its up to the NFT world to decide that outcome... hopefully marketing nails it, the ama with RugRadio did raise quite a few eyes and interest from that crowd, hopefully some more of that happens, sorry i was stuck in backlog

[remote violet]

[VOTING] IIP-29 Safety Pool & ICCP-4 Hold Funds from the Illuvitar Sale

IIP-29 & ICCP-4 are officially posted for voting!
https://gov.illuvium.io/#/proposal/0x7b20e1ea653608da5b31a5f2b54147c73a0854bd79439d08d4b88afdafbbfc15
https://gov.illuvium.io/#/proposal/0x38d3dbcc820ce445be789b470a5ace26f628b0b449aebdf7ed8bd5ce0231898e

[flint sparrow]

Some changes per community and team recommendations:

Specified that revenue funding the Safety Pool must be specified by a proposal (such as ICCP-4).

Specified that the Safety Pool be stored as USDT, per team recommendations for tracking. This way, the Safety Pool can sit in the Treasury wallet and remain distinct from USDC runway.

[lusty breach]

The original language said USDC. not the official proposal alternates betweens USDT and USDC. Which is it?

[flint sparrow]

The official proposal is for USDT, as I mentioned in the post above yours. There's one mention of USDC in the Safety Pool proposal, in this line:
"USDT was chosen to avoid reduce risk associated with market trends, and to provide a separate currency from USDC for tracking purposes. "

It doesn't alternate, it's USDT.

[pearl depot]

Is it also safe to assume that the safety pool will not be held on an exchange to avoid any FTX-like fiasco?

[unkempt elm]

It will apparently be held in the DAO treasury multisig. Along with the runway USDC. But as USDT so it’s easily tracked even though it’s the same wallet. https://etherscan.io/address/0x58c37a622cdf8ace54d8b25c58223f61d0d738aa

[fleet raptor]

Once the 15M is reached.. remaining money goes out for distribution, but say 1M is used from the safety pool, does that mean it needs to be refilled next time revenue is generated? Or is this a 1 time 15M and then empty it until it’s empty

[flint sparrow]

The maximum amount the Safety Pool is intended to raise is $15M, it's not intended to be a persistent pool. To answer your question specifically, it does not need to be refilled. Additionally, any revenue diverted into the Safety Pool needs to be approved by a separate IIP or ICCP (such as ICCP-4).

[fleet raptor]

Thank you

[lusty breach]

I just misread. My bad.