Top Management token as additional treasury safety

[outer thorn]

As unlocking rewards are part of the tokenomics, the top management of Illuvium receive 1 278.54 ILV per day, for 3 years. We've 730 days left (933 334 ILV).

Projects have not been delivered on promises (launch q1 2022, IZ in november 2021, etc.), and now the project need risk management, those 1278 token a day, generate for the founders 76 712 $ per day.

1.4M ILV token total means 84M$ at current price.

Stashing ILV isn’t ideal as it doesn’t mean cash available if needed, but still better than nothing because:

• Can be used to replenish the treasury if needed
• Can be kept in the fun but revdis can be used to replenish the treasury
• Can be send back to the top management any time if not needed (even if they have been transferred to the treasury, just need an IiP at the right time)

❤️ Community game up revdis for the safety fund
❤️ Council gave up salary % to reduce expenses
❤️ CCs giving their life time to deliver

Shall we move forward with the top management fund, stashing the ILV distributed (as ILV) in the next 730 days or until we know the games generate enough revenues to sustains the expenses ?

Control by the council & DAO

Accountability of the elite to save the project ?

What do you think, is this a good risk management solution ?

[prime thistle]

Interesting thought process @outer thorn .
Executive remuneration being tied to core deliverables is pretty standard for listed businesses. Makes a lot of sense here and I'm sure something reasonable could be agreed (or volunteered).
A no recourse loan from upper management would be handy too, but I guess it is only a bridging idea to get us to MVP.

[graceful steeple]

I agree there needs to be some accountability.

I'm not sure how that should look. Perhaps it's time for more absolute timelines and if the team does not make those, there are deductions that sharpen the further the estimate is off.

I'm curious to see the timelines that are supposed to be dropped soon.

[keen aspen]

I see benefit in the upper management selling some of their tokens for the benefit of the DAO. This can set an example, that will shut a lot of FUD.

I'm confidant the upper management is not dumping their tokens. And I know they can't sell their tokens without raising concerns. And due to slippage they can't get even half of their money if the want to cash out.

So it can make sense in using these tokens, that are mostly unusable (if we disregard revdis) fund the project.

I can suggest the upper management to follow the DAO example and set aside a safety fund, the same way the DAO did. This is just fair.

[outer thorn]

Well, let's hope it look better than what we faced until now

Few picks:

• Game by Q1 2022
• IZ by Q4 2021
• then game before unlcok of june 2022
• "so many revenues streans by unlock that it won't matter"
• "Game by EOY 2022, we need to have first mover advantage"
• "revenues streams are coming faster than you expect"

Anyway, past is past, raise or not, timeline or not, I agree with @prime thistle it's how most of the company works. Perform and be rewarded, don't perform and don't be.
We already rewarded the seed to be seed with a 0 downside and 5000-100000% as they good unload without a game delivered, and keep asking more to the community (token, land, illuvitars, safety fund).

@keen aspen idea is pretty good actually, a specific safety fund. But it have to be in USDC or ETH. We saw in the past few months what have collateral in the own project token can bring ... project start going down, colleteral is worth nothing, dead. As I said, market impact will be limited, and if there is it'll sustain the project. It's not the ideal scenario, but it's risk management and hard decision that need to be taken. If there is a raise, then yeah this safety fund can remain in ILV. Very good idea.

[slow canopy]

In addition to not being able to start revdis, I also find it odd to sell Treasury tokens without community consent. (is that true?

This idea may have to be realized somehow in order to regain the trust of the community.

[outer thorn]

I would be totally OK with that, if it's sold on the market (because there is no other implications) and with Council agreement.

Why ? Because if you say openly to the community you'll sell treasury token ... it'll get shorted and abused.

That said, I don't know if the raise will be submitted by IIP and council approval. Should be but.. oh well..

[keen vessel]

@outer thorn, it's clear that you're new to the crypto space. If founders started dumping their tokens right now, it would create a panic and have a catastrophic cascading effect. The amount of fear, doubt, and uncertainty it would cause would be insane. While selling tokens may be a last resort, it should be done through OTC with a lockup to prevent additional negative effects.

We have 15 months runway and are already generating revenue, with multiple games coming out this year to add additional revenue. We are in the middle of brokering a deal, which may take longer than expected, but we are working hard to make it happen.

As founders, we have a vested interest in making this project successful. The initial investors trust us to deliver a premium product, and we will do everything necessary to ensure the health of this DAO. However, dumping tokens on the open market with a signal that we are going to do so is one of the most obnoxious proposals I have ever heard.

While we appreciate your concern, we have not yet heard from you in any active discussion apart from tweets and discord messages. It's important to understand that we are committed to delivering a high-quality product, and delaying a game to increase its scope and delivering it with transparency does not justify idiotic proposals like the one above.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that @outer thorn has not run for council or provided any evidence of their expertise in this area. We appreciate feedback and constructive criticism, but baseless accusations and uninformed proposals only serve to undermine the hard work of our team and create unnecessary panic among investors. As a community, we need to come together and trust in the founders' vision and commitment to delivering a successful product.

[brittle verge]

If we are going to raise capital for an extended runway are we no longer doing it via Forge? Give the community a week or two to get discounted ILV and if we don't reach the amount we need then sell ILV to a VC. Y'all said the Forge was being built awhile ago, might as well use it.

[steep creek]

We've done this before, didn't end well.

[brittle verge]

We did?

[keen vessel]

We are still faced with legal complications in using the Forge. The ideal would be to do a combination of both but don't have the clearance to use the protocol at this stage.

[steep creek]

It delayed the raise and was offered to community who voted it down then the market tumbled and here we are. I think having the forge seperate from the seed raise is fine. In my opinion 🤣

[keen vessel]

I actually thought there was no one who remembered how this went down. Thank you

[brittle verge]

What do you mean by have in separate?

[steep creek]

Once the raise is complete and an agreed allocation+ dollar amount has been finalized then once the forge is complete and compliant they can offer extended sales as per the forges intent.

[strange topaz]

I do sadly remember it; too, you got a great deal that had the chance to give it enough runway for almost any scenario...

But it's great having such founders like you Warwick brothers, who never surrender even when you face the most substantial headwinds!

[keen vessel]

I've been running startups for half my life. I'm used to adversity. And I appreciate your kind words greatly

[outer thorn]

For your point about selling, making a saftey funds with the top management token wouldn't be seen bad at the contrary. And who would see badly selling of token to replenish the treasury, it's short sighted vision, but OK, doens't matter. Let get to 2 important questions :

Can you explain to me, with a current 1.53M$ monthly spending, you simulate 1M$ monthly spending ? Because you excel is very basic here, I suppose the spending using in the first table is the next 12 months spending, otherwise it doesn't math your last year or few last months spending. Curious to see the -50% reduction in spending though, that will be impressive.

Then for the community, because it isn’t clear, the safety fund is in there. Counted as part of the runway guys, just so you know.

And second question, in the end maybe we talk for nothing, with 15 months runway ............. why is there any need to raise capital ? I mean September 2021 -> Q1 2022 -> Q2 2022 -> Q3 2022 -> Q4 2022 are the past expected delivery dates, so we should be close, or are we a year away from delivery ?

I also didn't know the treasury used so many token already. 1.5M + balancer left over + SLP selling you should be a 1.89M +/- and I see 1.47M .... and you talked about the ability to sell 300k that are from the balancer left over and still would not change the initial tokenomics ratio (1.5M = 15%) ... this doesn't add up.

PS : and for all the insinuations in your message, it's exactly why I'm never going to dox to you, you've a track record of immatury in your messages and reactions. No way for me to risk my day job.

-- updated chart a bit better than an excel file --

[true flame]

"in the end maybe we talk for nothing, with 15 months runway ............. why is there any need to raise capital ? I mean September 2021 -> Q1 2022 -> Q2 2022 -> Q3 2022 -> Q4 2022 are the past expected delivery dates, so we should be close, or are we a year away from delivery ?" - as an investor this is certainly the question I'd like answered most

But seeing @keen vessel's recent comment that by week end we'll have a public roadmap coming, that will answer this question

[muted dirge]

Thank you Lelahel for always coming with the calcs/docs that the DAO needs. As an investor i truly appreciate your work, keep going man 🙂

[steep creek]

2nd question: Risk management, base case for launch cant be hyper success and money flowing in at a level that covers overheads inc revenue distribution. The raise adds needed resilience and protections to the project. Whilst we face a real possibility of global economic uncertanity.

[neon wind]

Forge cant and wont be rolled out bc of legal issues (consititues a launchpad), they said so in a podcast

[muted dirge]

I mean all of this kinda ties back to the famous "wen" that is very hard to answer but perhaps Investors would appreciate having a realistic triple roadmap, with 3 dates for every step :

Something like: in the best possible world this step is completed and delivered by the "X" but realistically it would look more like around "Y" and worst case scenario it's done by "Z". I know it's hard to evaluate but all of this runway chat is sort of irrelevant without timelines or at least rough estimates about delivery.

If the game starts generating revenue in the next 3-4 months i'd say 14 months of runway left is a nice and reasonable buffer. But if we are 10-12 months away from generating any revenue, this suddenly starts looking like a risky gamble...

So yeah perhaps @keen vessel could give us some more accurate and up to date look over the current internal timelines? that would be very helpful for this discussion imo.

[steep creek]

They are being proactive with runway learning from lessons of the past. They can ill afford waiting until it's urgently needed to try and raise.

[heavy wolf]

we know that developing a game can take longer than expected, even in web 2 there are often delays and when we see the quality of the overworld and leaks I can wait but having a roadmap is essential to have a follow-up, so your idea of triple roadmap is excellent

[outer thorn]

I think you didn’t understood the ironic part of my question about why a runway extension is needed, when I ask one since a year 🤣

[steep creek]

That was then, this is now. Raising now shows they are being proactive and should be supported. No point looking back and pointing fingers, look forward. This is what they are trying to do.

[outer thorn]

Good, back to the point of my idea. Risk management.

[steep creek]

They are managing risk for the treasury via a raise. I would say if the founders wanted to bolster investor sentiment they could forgo some personal token allocation and put it into the treasury post raise at a time they wanted to. This is a hypothetical IF* however I dont think that it is needed.

[agile patrol]

Founders selling tokens to refill treasury can easily be framed hyper negative and sceptic, sounds like an idea could be coming from a good place, but lots of possible negative concerns about it and hyper drastic when it doesn´t seem to be in a dire state atm at all.

[steep creek]

I agree with @agile patrol done correctly looks good, they have the option to refill the treasury themselves and if they decide to then great,
an IIP from the DAO forcing them to sell looks fucking awful

This sounds like every single socialist eat the rich type BS u see these days.

[agile patrol]

you don´t understand, this time socialism will be different and work

socialism and totalitarian is the same

[rigid leaf]

It is hard to comment when not knowing full picture about financial situation / runaway. I agree with accountability part, there has to be one in every business. I don't see any reason why top management should basically donate their tokens just like that. What could be considered is transferring those tokens into treasury if we already know in advance that we will need to sell treasury tokens to extend runaway. Those tokens transferred into treasury will be returned fully or majority of it when game is released and generated revenue can sustain ongoing development.

[lethal harbor]

Last I saw, we have 14 months of runway.

Plenty to last till launch and several months after, according to every reasonable expectation.
Yes deadlines have been missed in the past, but controls have improved since then.

After launch, if the game doesn’t do well, the team will have to make some hard choices to balance the books.
Like any other company.

Come back in 6 months. If we don’t have significant progress by then, your idea may get some traction.

Right now this is going nowhere.

[dawn oar]

This is basically performance-based compensation. I don't see a problem with discussing this idea.

One example would be using new roadmap:
delay = % Management ILV to safety pool.

Or OTC deal:
delayed = % Management ILV to safety pool and possibly converted to USDT.

I am not an expert and I'm not saying these are good ideas but worth a discussion and getting expert opinions on.

I do see a lot of FUD lately and the timing is probably bad with trying to broker a raise. But I do not see this idea as "obnoxious" or "idiotic" @keen vessel it's not only offensive to the OP but to the 17 people that up ticked it.

[steep creek]

Creating an idea with the intent to get an IIP voted on that would force founders/upper management to sell would damage the image and rep of Illuvium insane amounts.

Discussing if you think the founders should show support for investors by giving token allocation back to the treasury is different completely. I would still disagree but thats an open discussion this is a witch hunt IMO

[dawn oar]

I'm not saying selling on open market is good idea. I'm not even saying doing performance-based compensation is good. I just mainly think it's not good to name call an idea, just state why it's misinformed and leave it at that.

[agile patrol]

sounds horrible and would put the idea of releasing unfished and unpolished products be a thing on peoples minds due to not getting a salary cut

[crude hinge]

@outer thorn

This you completely missing the plot for the land sale revdis discussion?

#💰〕token message

This is relevant bc your assessment of 'numbers' seems to be WAY off consistently, and your assessment of incentive alignment remains misguided.

I agree with Nick. Get some stuff right first then try again.

[crude hinge]

This is one of the most toxic ideas I have ever seen in crypto or otherwise. There are better ways to achieve your goals.

[true flame]

the idea might be bad, but bashing community members like this that have taken the time to share an idea is actually gross

[muted dirge]

I really don't like how @keen vessel , @low raft or other team members act lately. You are on your right to not like or disagree with X or Y idea... but at the end of the day, you guys represent Illuvium and should NOT be bashing or insulting people publicly like you do. Show the example. where are the <@&821154860816793604> ?

@vocal garnet Do you see now why most people talk on twitter rather than on this discord?

[true flame]

and shaming people that dont want to dox, when has this been part of the illuvium ethos

[short lichen]

Huh? Majority of startups have performance-based KPIs linked to equity sharing. That is not an uncommon occurrence; quite the opposite actually.

[short lichen]

From a value-add perspective, why not identify what is wrong? Dick attempted to do that by identifying the fiat discrepancy but 500k is 1.5-2 weeks runway max and accounts minimally. Alot more worthwhile to flag a miscalculation rather than simply state “hey, get it right” (and I dont mean referring to a custom excel spreadsheet).

Additionally, referring to a message from May 2022 where the environment (even on USDC alone) was completely different and major assumptions of land being a huge success + game release dates is useless 🤣

[latent tundra]

Since I’ve been pinged I’ll just say: IIPs should be used for things controlled by the DAO. Vesting tokens aren’t controlled by the DAO.

We have committed to not unlocking out tokens until the game has been delivered. I haven’t even staked mine so as to not dilute the pool.

I get people being frustrated. But we aren’t evil. We’re here every day working.

IIPs should be made for things that the DAO can execute on. I would suggest sticking to that. You can suggest an IIP to remove me but anything to do with already vested tokens needs to be voluntary. We already delayed ours to 3 years, removed yield farming, delayed unlock starts. For anyone asking “where is the show of good faith?” Are you actually serious, or just new?

[latent tundra]

And for any new equity you can certainly do that. Anyone receiving new tokens from the treasury could be given any sort of KPIs you want. There’s currently no shouts from anyone for us to receive new tokens.

[short lichen]

I agree. Moreso the question of “why is it time- instead of kpi-based bonuses” in the first place rather than elimination of existing. That being said, reductions arent unheard of either

[vocal garnet]

“Most people” is a stretch, and not sure what you need lead mods for? You guys bash the team/project all over twitter and expect not to get a reaction? That’s just silly 😜

[muted dirge]

wait what? how is that the response you come up with ?

[agile patrol]

bro, at this point how will anyone not think you just try to get emotional responses and some attention by the way you act out and attack people over and over
I have talked multiple times to you in the past and everytime you are proven wrong on something you say you go ahead and repeat it another time hoping the new listeners won´t point out the flaws and mistakes in what you are saying, how are people not supposed to think most of what you and people like lelehael say comes from bad faith after you keep doing this. You act like a politician that wants some cloud from their pre fixed mindset voter base.

[vocal garnet]

Thanks, that’s what we do

Our jobs

You wouldn’t know if he got a warning either way

https://tenor.com/view/i-agree-to-disagree-nope-i-dont-think-so-disagree-jason-bateman-gif-16280507

[sleek quail]

https://tenor.com/view/anchorman-steve-carell-brick-lamp-gif-5715014

[prime thistle]

Different thread for moderation feedback
Back on track, @latent tundra rightly stated that it is not possible/reasonable to enforce retrospective conditions on their assets. However, remuneration moving forwards is within scope and attaching KPIs is a good idea IMO, and long overdue.

In respect of runway we are in a position where upper management have an equivalent amount of tokens as the entire DAO treasury. Seems logical for the holders of those tokens to explore ways to use them to improve the financial situation of the DAO. Call it enlightened self interest.

[short lichen]

How in the world do you think the correct response of “you “attack” me, I get to attack you” is the way to go o.o albeit being a veeeeery big stretch of identifying publicly available data as an attack. As much as Musk is a loose cannon, even he would enter feuds like this 😂

[vocal garnet]

I can cite plenty of phrasings that are not “identifying public data” and I didn’t say you attack me I get to attack you I said don’t expect not to get a reaction.

[short lichen]

So what relevance does your comment have to this discussion then if referring to other instances? Also, what else would you call a direct inflammatory reaction as Nick displayed earlier?

[crude hinge]

This is an OPEN forum.

You are you guys trying to control what other people do with their words and value(tokens)?

[vocal garnet]

Ok I think this thread has gotta a bit off topic will start a timer

[latent tundra]

We’ve so far done nothing but actions to reduce our share. A lot of team members received tokens by us actively reducing our share. They wouldn’t even know it. (Some do)

All I’m saying is that IIPs should be used for things they can affect.

[short lichen]

I’m not trying to control anything regarding what people say OR what they do with their tokens (da fk?) The proposal is for such a thing to incite a discussion and the benefits/negatives of such a decision by upper management.

And yes, this is an open forum. Does not change the fact that people can have a value-add based discussion compared to direct attacks. Heck, by that logic, why dont we talk about the current geopolitical landscape between Russia/Ukraine given the forum is “open” 🤦‍♂️

[steep creek]

Even if people could vote and pass an IIP to in theory pressure the management to sell tokens. It would optically look awful. Absolutely zero requirement for this, raise is under way and let's all be honest and Frank if the project was under any financial doomsday that needed the management team to aid with selling personal tokens I'm sure they will. Not plausible thinking they wouldn't and let the project die.

It's absolutely nonsensical to think otherwise

[crude hinge]

Exactly. They are the most motivated for this all too work.

[short lichen]

Again it was raised in the discussion but: selling is one thing, fuelling treasury with them from this point on is another (forgetting about historical in the second scenario)

[crude hinge]

We can not compel ANY member of the dao to sell/donate their tokens once they are theirs. IIP or otherwise.

Conversation over.

Try again otherwise you show that you are operating in bad faith and wasting everyone’s time.

It’s is what happens every time.

1. Shit idea presented
2. Someone points out that it’s shit.
3. You rub it all over everyone claiming it’s not shit.
4. Everyone is covered in shit and no one wants to talk to you ever again.

End scene

[latent tundra]

I guess the thing that would look worst to me is it would mean both the community and council wouldn’t know what an IIP is for. I know the council do, but still seeing the community make an IIP for something the dao doesn’t control would look bad.

Imagine someone making an IIP saying “luggis can’t unlock”. Or “I want a pony”. It just looks amateur.

“Remove Aaron from the DAO” is a valid IIP. It’s just about understanding what is available.

[latent tundra]

As an IIP, it doesn’t make sense. But they can talk about it in general. There’s no harm in that.

[short lichen]

Dude you completely ignored my previous comment so I’m not going to bother with you especially when you keep putting words into my mouth.

• not once did I indicate DAO members to sell
• not once did I say management would be forced to do anything (as Aaron indicated IIPs are for Dao-controlled decisions)
• if you believe I am wasting your time, simply ignore me as you did to my previous comment after not having a single response after typing and attempting to formulate an answer.

When you want to talk about russia v ukraine in this open forum, hmu 🤦‍♂️

[split spear]

Aaron, I don't want to say there is bad intentions but locking up for 3 years and many other actions don't mean much if you guys are the ones controlling the scope of the game, therefore timelines and all the other side tracks. Of course you guys couldn't sell before game launch as that would give a really bad signal to the market and new liquidity. This is not an accusations, just wanted to share that angle. The proposal is basically getting the management to re invest in the project, by for example allocating tokens as a loan and keep treasury healthy. I personally really like that idea.

[short lichen]

Frankly it isnt uncommon in traditional businesses to do exactly that. For alot of fresh startups, if $$ is required and you, as a stakeholder, are unable to assist in raising the amount required as part of your share of the company, you undergo dilution against the rest of the stakeholders.

[oak ginkgo]

At no point has any runway issue been about a lack of tokens with which we could raise. I'd just like to identify that.

[short lichen]

Correct. But a 10-25% reduction in treasury will have a heavy effect on future revdis potentials.

[oak ginkgo]

It would impact the amount of revdis the Treasury receives, yes. I'm just pointing out that a loan from co-founders at this point wouldn't change anything about our current situation.

[latent tundra]

You don’t want to say there are bad intentions for voluntarily locking up tokens for triple as long? How charitable of you.

I guess there really is some bad blood out there if people are prefacing things by saying “I don’t want to say your good action is bad BUT…”

In any case I’ve explained my point. This isn’t an enforceable IIP. As for general discussion on the topic, of course that is totally fine.

I have to get back to helping deliver the project. Thanks for hearing me out.

[prime thistle]

A more succinct and actionable IIP

All remuneration over $150k USD per annum needs to be reviewed and signed off by council.
All such salaries must have remuneration contingent KPIs attached to them

[split spear]

I understand this is not fun to hear and feels like an accusation, especially when you guys put so much work into this all day which we dont see. For once I'm not trolling, its a genuine suggestion and view for you all to consider. You'll all be fine in the end.

[short lichen]

I see it as circular. If a raise is required to keep the project/company afloat, treasury will be sold. To keep treasury revdis at a sustainable level, management tokens would assist with that overall count.

[short lichen]

@low raft if people discussing ideas on a discord alters your work ethic/work scheduling, then that speaks volumes to the requirement for future kpi-based incentives on deliverables rather than time-based ones.

[keen vessel]

@outer thorn I am not saying the idea is bad, it makes sense if things get dire and I have already internally said I would do this if it came to it. and I'm sure the other founders would too if it ever came to it. The execution of it is what is idiotic and obnoxious. To first dump them on the market (meaning you guys the community and investors) without any lockup and then signal it via a "proposal" would mean almost certain front running. It shows a lack of understanding and makes me think this is an emotional response to something and wasn't thought through. Sorry if that hurts the feelings of the 16 people who upvoted it.

The "Excel file" clearly notes that this is a forward looking projection for the next 12 months.

Maybe we don't need this raise, and the games will come out and all will be fine. This is a mitigation strategy that I have been discussing for months now. The terms of this deal are very favourable and there wouldn't be any unlock pressure for years. Again, something I have been trying to stress - the tokens inside the treasury are not finite, we earn them back as we make revenue. So even if we do this deal and then find out later that it wasn't needed, the treasury will still earn back the tokens over time (If the games are super successful, it will earn them back rapidly), and those tokens we sold will be locked up for years.

The treasury balance fluctuates due to Market Making, listings, team token distribution, and other things but you also have and have had access to this for ever - It's on-chain data.

I don't care if you dox, do whatever you want. But if you come up with insane proposals like this (which can't even be made into proposals) I am going to check you, make no mistake about that. Now that might get you the engagement that you so crave, but I would have thought personally that you would want to back up some of these "proposals" with some actual credible sources of why you think your ideas or your forecasts are accurate and sound. If you don't, then whatever too, you are entitled to do whatever you want. You may think I am immature by fiercely defending our position, but when I have a number of core contributors upset about your comments to the point of literal demotivation, I am going to do what I always do and try to protect the DAO.

Now once again, I am NOT saying the idea of founders selling tokens to help the DAO is a bad idea. I am saying the way in which you have proposed it would be counter-intuitive to what you are trying to achieve which is seemingly the health of the DAO. Although sometimes that is even debatable and it's like you want to play god and punish people for being bad, evil people.

There are no ill intentions from the founders nor the team. We are working ourselves silly to get this thing out. I urge you to think about the affect these types of comments can have on other team members.

[true flame]

I might not be a fan of the way community members characters are defamed at times, but I cant disagree with a single word in regard to your comments on this actual proposal👍

[half forge]

Okay guys he literally said he would do it if completely necessary theres no more talking to do. Everyone is happy now, no?

[keen vessel]

And again, fair enough, but it's hard to "defame" someone who sits behind an anonymous pseudonym.
We are a real team that are almost all doxxed. Our credentials are out there to be scrutinised. It is hardly fair to flame us in the way a few set community members do and expect us to "take care" of someones image when they are an anon. That may be harsh but thats my take.

[slow canopy]

yeah im happy now🫡 thank Kieran

[split spear]

Its hard to see this proposal as anything other than an attempt to capitalize on some of the frustrations within the community right now and agitate the situation for attention.

There might be a nugget or two of decent intent hidden within the wall of bullshit that makes up this chat but if there was any expectation for actual action this was not the way to present this.

[keen vessel]

I'm not saying I agree with Nick, but I understand where he is coming from. He takes things personally because the guy works his ass off to make this project work. It may seem like belittling but all I am trying to do is find credibility.

I'll leave you with this famous quote:
"I'll tell you what. You show me a pay stub for 72000 dollars on it, I quit my job right now and I work for you."

[true flame]

imo it is harsh, but I also can understand the perspective.

[fleet tapir]

Lehalel is not saying you sell token. He is saying you give them back to the DAO for free if target are not met

[keen vessel]

His edited post is now saying that it originally did not

A safety pool idea is good but once again, we are not even close to needing that right now. If it comes to it I will be the first person to nominate my tokens to that pool - I assure you that

[muted dirge]

I actually agree with this.
We know and empathize that it is not easy everyday to deal with all the FUD and that some people might actually have poor intentions, but despite that, Illuvium is a company and all of you guys are it's face, so i think you should always keep yourselves as calm and respectful towards other people (specially community members) as possible. Clean branding.

Obviously you guys are humans too and sometimes shit happens and we say stuff we didn't mean. But the problem is that these reactions from core contributors/founders push people into even more uncertainty concerning their right to speak or raise concerns within the DAO.

[keen vessel]

And none of the things he says are harsh? We're not punching bags. You can't continue to pepper us and not expect a response. And once again, he DOES want a response. This is EXACTLY what he/she/it wants.

Even the roadmap, I have said in how many forums now that we will be providing that this week.

[keen vessel]

We are NOT a company.

[keen vessel]

And fair enough, but I didn't call him idiotic I said his proposal was. I am sorry that hurt some peoples feelings

[fleet tapir]

Lehalel isn't doubting good faith. He is looking to get an incentive to getting stuff out to avoid increased scope and perfectionism

[keen vessel]

Anyway, I have said my piece. I have to get back to work now.
Quick summary
Bad proposal - good intentions, different execution and it works.
We're sorry for being emotional and reacting.
We are providing more transparency through a roadmap and financials.

[wispy epoch]

You were openly selling sILV and ILV in 2021 brother, or did you forget about that?

[muted dirge]

Thank you for doing your best, and please keep doing it. same for @low raft

[keen vessel]

These were tokens I bought using ETH I had made previously, not my team tokens

You can make the same argument about me selling 5 ETH worth of Illuvitars... And I wasn't hiding that, so no I didn't forget it. Oh btw, I used that 5 ETH to rebuy more Illuvitars xD

[half forge]

Do not stay away from the community ser please. ;-;

[wispy epoch]

It's kind of moot whether or not you bought the tokens off your own back. You could have bought any of the 10s of thousands of other tokens on the market but you chose to buy ILV.
The end result is a founder selling their projects tokens.
Though for some reason, NOW it is an issue to do so

[fleet tapir]

As a department head be above that man. At the end of the day it is as Kieran said. Lehalel intentions are good. 14 months of runway isn't a lot and it is fair to be scared for the project.

[keen vessel]

Wait, so if I buy tokens off the market using ETH which increases the price of all of the rest of the tokens, I can never sell them? Sheesh. That's a little harsh.

Also, the issue is the execution. Not me selling tokens to save the project. I would do that in a heartbeat.

[fleet tapir]

He could have done it with a wallet you don't know. Small side trades for fun.

[wispy epoch]

Once again moot point, you would have caused a decrease in price when you sold those tokens...
The point I'm trying to make is all of a sudden you now think it's a bad idea for a founder to sell their own tokens.

Ive been around the project long enough to know you'll do whatever you want anyway / groom the community.

As much as I have a disdain for you in some regards, I respect you in others.

I do believe you want this project to succeed so whatever happens, for better or worse I hope you make the right choices 🤙

[keen vessel]

Once again - I don't think it is a bad idea. I've literally said it in multiple admin meetings that if it came to it I WOULD SELL TOKENS. It's the way in which the tokens were to be sold which I questioned. Stop creating a straw man argument. I appreciate your candidness around your disdain for me and I can only hope I can change that in future 🙂

[short lichen]

Actually yes, that is correct. That’s the entire premise of insider trading given your position in ILV and why traditional companies/projects/investments (from both financial and legal standpoints) prohibit it.

Generally, and if you are seeking full transparency, it would be recommended to take a traditional route of announcing a sell off of personal ILV tokens if it came to it so it doesnt come across as front-running due to xyz.

[cerulean breach]

You guys talk as if the team hasnt released 3 games while others in the space have close to ZERO product at all. Looks like you really have nothing better to do with your time to come up with proposals like this one. Best to just ignore this thread folks.

[alpine canopy]

Agree😁 we have 3 games and I’m loving zero so much

[short lichen]

Is that meant to be a selling point? Good on ILV for pushing out 3 minigames, no doubt about that. However, that just shows resources being pushed away from their main product. Whereas the other products are focusing on their one big thing. Different business models, different roadmaps and ideas, different outcomes.

[cerulean breach]

How is that pushing away resources from the main product? The “minigames” are the MVPs of the final products being developed.

[short lichen]

Huh? MVP of a future MVP? The overworld is the main product with pvp/ilv zero/illuvitar collections being the additionals.

[split spear]

Its comments like this that remind me most of the people who complain the loudest have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about.

[short lichen]

Happy to be explained why I’m wrong and learn from it. My view is that a main MVP should be pushed prior to additions. ILV sold itself to VC and initial capital through Overworld and is their primary product. I’d love to know how resources for Illuvidex creations assists in overworld development which is what I’m flagging here.

[latent tundra]

Illuvium Beyond was specifically built with the idea that it let us test forging and fusion. At the tech level bonding is just forging and fusion. It also let us test about a million other things to ensure our tech was solid. The tech that literally nobody else had ever built.

Survival Mode has all the same core features as PvP, except without requiring the server connection. That's why we built it first. As much as people can disparage our estimates, in most places the work we do has very good planning to be used as part of a larger whole. Plant combat will help us test Illuvial combat. Arena itself is leveraged in overworld battles before we could do combat in a good way. Even Arena itself was designed at its core to be transferred over to an ActionRPG and a MOBA.

"They should just build this" is sometimes misguided. These are just a few examples of things that we do as stepping stones. Everything is iterative for a reason. Remember that larger studios, with 40 years experience getting all their processes right, that aren't constrained by being remote sometimes take 6 years to make a single sequel that uses the same code base. Our point of difference is in having many games connect together. So we have to build multiple games. And we're 2 years in with far fewer people and we have 3 games scheduled for release this year. The scope has gone up a lot, and we take responsibility for that. The planning hasn't been perfect, and we take responsibility for that. The communication hasn't been perfect, and again we take responsibility.

But the idea that we're just doing random stuff, or cash grabs, is complete nonsense. I can't tell people how to interact but "Why did you do X?" leads to much better conversations than "You are stupid because you didn't do Y."

[cerulean breach]

Yeah I completely agree. The comments of some here are just laughable. No use wasting our time, stooping down to their level, and talking to people like that. Best to just ignore.

[short lichen]

And I do agree. As you said, planning misalignment led to confusion/different products being released with scope creep being an issue. That is prevalent but it has happened and you cant change that; can only look forwards and learn from that. When it comes to tech testing, that’s fair enough and first I’m hearing about accessories on PFPs being related to overworld matchplay/collection. As much as I dont see accessories still being a necessity and if testing an unnecessary (in my opinion) feature is the best course given existing delays + team minimisation, focusing on overworld based mechanic/game designs as compared to artists is my view. That being said, I can’t say I know the entirety of the ILV team distribution so I could be completely wrong with the structure in that regard.

The other huge thing that I see as commonplace for ILV is the concept of perfection. As you said, ILV doesnt have hundreds of staff and 40 years experience to leverage the best game ever seen before. I’m not saying to create a crappy game (if/when ILV releases, very much the opposite as beta was quite fun) but some intricacies that could probably be pushed back for after initial game release/blockchain connectivity testing etc and communication around that is extremely valuable for stakeholders and the community, especially given delays and lack of roadmap. On that, keen for roadmap release later this week that would resolve this gap!

[latent tundra]

There is still a lot wrong with your reply but I don't have time to justify every action we have taken. All I will say is that internally there's never been confusion about the products being released. The scope has increased but the plan has been pretty static for years. We adjust as necessary.

As for perfection, we definitely don't aim for perfection with the open beta. It's an open beta in the name. It will not have every feature and the features it has will improve. We're just trying to build something that is better than all the other stuff out there. It won't compete with a AAA game on release because, again, it's still a beta, but the core must be there to improve for later. And that takes time.

Back to work for me.

[short lichen]

Good to hear, and thanks for the response!

[crude hinge]

nice try jag

[upbeat flame]

finally a talk about accountability and all i see is the "team" telling us they know better lol

[raw iris]

My takeaway from this conversation is there's a real need for a space in this server for criticism. Without it tensions build and we end up with name calling and all sorts of other unhealthy and unhelpful behaviour spilling all across social media.

@vocal garnet what are your thoughts on having a #rant channel for those that wish to air their frustrations? Keeping these kinds of conversations confined to one channel is better than seeing them plastered all across twitter. It also means those that do not wish to be part in these conversations or are upset by them can simply avoid the channel.

Illuvium will always get criticism and be judge harshly. It shouldn't be ignored or discouraged. There should be a strategy in place to contain, manage and seek value from it.

[vocal garnet]

We discussed it before, but we went with #💖〕positive-vibes instead 😉 but we could revisit the idea. Not sure how I feel about it personally I get what your saying but inviting ppl to be negative in channels sounds odd. Nothing wrong with criticism just some people need to learn what constructive criticism is, and then even still if youre trying to fix ppl going on twitter and doing it, I don't think this accomplishes that because some are just seeking the attention. All that being said, I'll see what the others think

[raw iris]

Well if the solution isn’t a channel then some sort of strategy needs to be put in place. We can't carry on with fighting like this. Rn we're a small passionate web3 community. Just imagine the heat illuvium will get when the masses show up. Mainstream gamers take no prisoners and that's putting it nicely 😅

[keen aspen]

I think that critical thinking should not be witch hunted, but celebrated. Anyone asking the hard questions needs to be encouraged. Or we'll end in an echo chamber.

When critical questions are answered respectfully we can build confidence in the DAO. Dismising questions with name-calling is a red flag.

[outer thorn]

So.

As we l did for the community safety fund. Shall move forward with the top management fund, stashing the ILV distributed (as ILV) in the next 730 days or until we know the games generate enough revenues to sustains the expenses ?

Contrôles by the council. Can be used to replenish the treasury if needed, revdis can be used to replenish the treasury, can be send back to the top management if not needed.

Or just scrap that ? Everyone is happy, everything is fine with runway and finances and incoming roadmap ?

[craggy ocean]

https://tenor.com/view/teletubbies-big-hug-hugs-hugging-group-hug-gif-24237876

[elfin halo]

Regarding this particular idea, some of the sentiment behind it makes sense. Wanting top management to be fully invested in the project and even willing to personally provide tokens if needed is reasonable. This has been answered here by Kieran and Aaron being willing to directly fund the project if needed and voluntarily not taking staking.

Writing an IIP to retroactively take tokens directly from an individual’s wallet to mandatorily fund the organization is both unenforceable and well outside the scope of the IIP process. Based on my Web2 roles, I am very familiar with the concept of executive clawbacks and applying the idea in the way it is proposed here does not make sense in Web2 or in Web3.

If your employer asks you to take a pay cut moving forward for future sustainability of the org, you would consider it. If they tell you they are implementing a mandatory reverse direct deposit and pulling money from your bank account to pay the company, you are resigning immediately and telling them what to do with their request. Additionally, any worthwhile leaders you would find to take the role would refuse knowing that any of their compensation could be recalled at the whim of the DAO.

The treasury tokens exist for exactly this purpose of raising funding for the project. Nothing more is needed. They can and will be leveraged via revdis, sold as needed per the council, or any other necessary solutions to ensure the success of the DAO. We have prioritized long-term financial sustainability from Day 1 this epoch as the first and most often priority covered. We had a successful extension via Illuvitars and remain in discussions for the capital raise and other mechanics as needed.

The part of this idea that resonates with me is the frustration around deadlines. It’s a topic that we’ve discussed within the council and more transparency is being provided by the team with respect to the roadmap release upcoming. We are actively in dialogue regarding how to steer incentives. For those unaware the balance between keeping to timelines and delivering the appropriate quality in a game is THE most common mistake in the gaming industry over the past 3 decades and is getting worse. Most Web2 projects release an unfinished product to hit a target date mandated by top management or vocal investors with tragic results. Our responsibility as a DAO is to balance runway needs and ensure that a game is not released until it is ready.

I will make myself available for a council office hours session at <t:1680829200:F> to gladly and publicly discuss any concerns. Anyone in the community is open to DM me questions or concerns at any point regarding any aspect of Illuvium. I have had great dialogues with dozens of individuals throughout this epoch and look forward to more in the future.

[mighty shuttle]

[zinc bison]

There seems to be a confusion as to what DAO can or cant do. As Aaron, Dozer, Ani and others have mentioned theres a limitation or a purpose for which IIPs can be enforced. Generally speaking, its whats guided by whats in the whitepaper.

Now, an IIP can actually change the whitepaper which has already happened when it was voted that revdis be diverted to the safety fund for Illuvitars. So in essence we can introduce IIPs that can reshape DAO directions but it should not infringe on certain individual rights, contrary to law or public policy, and even contractual obligations.

That being said, lets use this opportunity to think of ways DAO can impose accountability to upper management and/or extend treasury/runway as the idea's title suggests:

1. (Extreme) - Termination with cause: (*caveat: we dont know the contractual agreements of founders so this is mere assumptions) Founders who gets terminated keeps the tokens thats already unlocked and whatever proportionate tokens for length of stay. Balance of their tokens goes to the DAO and increases treasury or can be sold to extend runway
2. (Mild) - Impose KPIs/Performance Metrics which can lead to termination or demotion (subject any applicable laws on labor and security of tenure of Australia Im assuming)
3. (Semi-extreme) - Demotion. This is just a nicer way of terminating their current post but relegating them to a different position to allow better candidates to hold the helm of the protocol or relevant department
4. (Mild) - Cut pay. Again, this is dependent on whatever contractual agreement they have signed but this can be an option for poor performance.
5. (Semi-extreme) - Place unlocks on hold. Im not quite so sure if this is even possible without the consent of the founders but it would be a good look to agree to put their unlocks on hold until a set date (say launch of open beta) to incentivize and be held accountable.

Caveat: Theres a lot of unknown pieces here and these are just based on assumptions.

Lastly, I want to stress the fact that IIPs or any proposals for that manner cannot be imposed or enforced against individual or vested rights. In this case, tokens already awarded cant be subject of a DAO proposal.

As for treasury, I honestly believe we need to take a look at the salaries and positions (again) to lower the burn. If we will ask the team to take a pay cut the founders needs to take the lead here with a clear timeline that its temporary until launch+X months or better yet pay them back in ILV from treasury at the value at the time of the payback period. So depending if ILV is at 1000 then it would be a lower payout (of ILV but worth the same in monetary value) as an example. Retrenchment or redundancy is always an option but considering were not in any jurisdiction an outright termination without cause may be viable

[sullen ibex]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but asking a team that has and is working ridiculous hours, (many of whom had to be forced to take time off to look after themselves) to work for less is a fantastic way to lose half the team and have no games at all

[zinc bison]

That is true but then youre faced with retrenchment and redundancy where DAO/Team has to cut headcounts to extend runways. Weve seen that happen everywhere from top 100 companies. 10-30% headcounts were cut. So I just gave an example where the Team can decide amongst themselves to voluntarily help and it would have to start with the founders.

Also, would like to point out that number of hours worked by the team, their dedication, or their value was never put into question. I understand morale is a bit low on the team side and might take any mention of team/value/pay as an attack but I assure you this is not. 🙂

[crude hinge]

jfc - this is outrageous. We are really distracting the team with this nonsense.

[zinc bison]

That maybe your opinion but I was trying to provide context on what DAO proposals can be used for.

The topic of this idea was management accountability. I only stated (albeit with assumptions) things the DAO can actually propose given the limitations of what it can do that wont infringe on individual or vested rights.

Because this is definitely something we cannot force the founders or anyone for that matter to do via an IIP.

If a selling of treasury token is done to extends runway, I propose to have the top management to "forfeit" or "lend" their unlocked token to replenish the treasury. At any point of time later when the project is a succes, the treasury will receiving revdis. Once the treasury healthy, and IIP could be launched to give the ILV back the top management.

[deft fossil]

I think discussions like this are a good thing in general. Community members voicing their concerns, team members explaining their side of the story - everybody is getting more input on their views.
But it would be good if discussions like this were held more on a factual and informative basis instead of bringing too much emotion and personal biases into it.

[sullen ibex]

I understand where you're coming from, and it's obviously a different story if someone's position is no longer required, or a team needs to be downsized. That has already happened. I'm speaking just pragmatically about reducing pay as an option. Just because many of the team are absolutely in love with this project and would be willing to sacrifice for it, doesn't mean everyone is, nor are any of us obligated to be/do so. If you cut pay, and people can get paid more elsewhere, people will leave. It's that simple. Generally not a huge issue, thats the way the world works, but... It's already difficult to recruit people into projects like this because of all the external stigmas around the greater crypto and web3 spaces (it's one of the factors that has previously held up development in certain areas), and if potential pay is reduced it will only make recruiting even more difficult, let alone trying to replace the team members who leave. Emotion completely removed I just don't think it's a viable solution.
I appreciate you weren't actually calling for this though, and I didn't think you were actually criticising anything anyone has done, I'm just thinking outloud as this seems to have become a bit of a free for all thread 🙂

[lusty fulcrum]

Just FYI, dozens of occasions (that I'm aware of) the senior team has provided tokens from their own allocation to aid in aid hiring talent, rewarding CC's, bonuses and promotions ect. These emotional negative arguments, particularly when they're being made from a place of ignorance are an active hinderance. Shocked to see people targeting specific CC's, Nick puts a ridiculous amount of work and passion in. One of the hardest working people I've ever met, and genuinely so many of our best releases owe a significant amount to him.

Constructive criticism is good, can we move back to that!

[crude hinge]

The fact that there have been ZERO mention or consideration of stopping staking rewards just shows me how much this is coming from a place of selfishness.

If something like this passes with out equal sacrifice from the community Id actively campaign against any council member that supports it.

I think accountability and transparency are good. If that is your aim great. If you are a serious actor and still pushing along this line without a reset and going back to the drawing board. I really think your are missing the plot.

The proposed ideas are emotionless dictorial garbage that would only demotivate the BEST FUCKING TEAM the web3 gaming. please god show me another. I’d love to back them too.

Show some god damn respect - these are real people not economic units for you to squeeze.

I propose a counter IIP TO REWARD THE TEAM (staff) ON A SUCCESSFUL HIGH QUALITY OB LAUNCH THIS YEAR.

Details up to collaboration from the community and team.

I’ll suggest diverting all or some of the staking rewards or better cash reward pending the details of the raise.

The Kings are here for the long game.

[mild pier]

I won't be adding to this specific topic but I will second that @low raft is by far one of the hardest working people I know and is an incredible person.

Just want to make the clear and head back out of this discussion.

[raw iris]

I support this thread because I like the idea of more accountability generally. I understand the push back from the idea presented but I see it as a starting point to a question that's worth exploring.

[uncut mortar]

What about turning Illuvitar sales over to the treasury until the game starts?
The Illuvitar sales this time were more than $2.5m in ETH, and if the price of ETH goes up, it could be more.

I'm staking quite a lot of money, but I don't have a problem if Revdis don't get it for a while, it's better than the game dying.

The problem here is that every time there is a roadmap, it is not implemented at all. I know it is a necessity to make a good game, but I am concerned that if the development speed is too slow, other games will take over the position.

If you put out a roadmap and people don't believe it, they will leave, and that will affect the price of ILV.

What about if we put out the next roadmap and if that date is not met, we Barn Kieran's ILV by 1% each month? hahaha🤣
If they are serious about their roadmap, more people will be interested in illuvium and the price of ILV might go up.
And it could also be the last hope for those who have been waiting for a long time.

It doesn't make much sense to turn the ILV they have into the treasury Just to last a few months longer, those projects are almost as good as dead.

[prime girder]

I am going to come a little bit sidetracked here. I have a firm belief for everything I do in my life that once I make plans I stick to them. It is very important to me and spontaneity makes me quite uncomfortable. I only say this because I take contracts even more seriously. When it comes to this sort of decision I don't mind healthy discussion around it and it as a possibility but if someone has made a contract with clear terms, its inappropriate to expect them to change those terms. You can ask if you'd really like although you'd be insinuating things by default. But expecting that any human owes you something when the terms were clearly defined isn't how I view these situations.

That's my top level view and personal opinion.

[short lichen]

Plans constantly change especially in a startup environment, let alone a web 3 gaming project which is even more intense in variability. As much as you can attempt to plan for anything and everything, there will be impositions that cause those plans to change and you simply have no control over it -> whole premise of working agile.

I also dont think anybody is debating the legality of contractual agreements here… if a contract is signed for X years, that contract is valid for X years. However, it is very different to act on contractual obligations as compared to (for example) permanent roles.

[true flame]

Overall just based on the support this idea received, I think it's pretty clear that the community feel that the team should be more accountable to the DAO in some way

I personally do not feel that this proposal is that way...

But I do believe it is worth starting a conversation around what are ways to actually have some level of accountability, because as it stands team can set a deadline and it could not be met and there is no direct consequences

-The community themselves proposed to sacrifice their own revdis of illuvitars to help the project
-The council themselves proposed to reduce their own pay
-I think it would be best if the team themselves suggest ways which would better hold themselves accountable to the DAO

that way its not something the community is just imposing on them and there's no hard feelings, its an accountability mechanism of some kind to keep themselves accountable to goals or deadlines or whatever way is suggested

thoughts? @keen vessel @latent tundra and any Team Leadership

(also when Team is mentioned here, I mean the Teams Leadership, Leadership to be held accountable through this, CCs are accountable to the leadership anywho)

[latent tundra]

There is ultimate accountability here already. If people think that the game is being made too slow, or forecasts are too optimistic, then just put through an IIP to remove me. I would be happy to onboard the next person as best I can and support them in any way. I wouldn't like it, but the whole point of this being a DAO is that this is on the cards.

I've certainly made mistakes so I can't complain. I think I work hard, but effective is really what matters. So if you think the game sucks or anything like that, that would be the consequences.

I'd fight it as best I can, because I love working with this team, on this project. But at the end of the day 5 people get to make the call.

[fringe reef]

Yeh sorry I vote NO! On this idea.

[true flame]

I personally do not want to remove you ser

but considering there is no mechanism in place for accountability (beyond proposing to remove you from your position) and there is a reasonable sentiment calling for some kind of accountability, is there no mechanism you guys can up with that is decent middle ground, not saying it should even be loss of tokens or anything, just think you guys might be able to come up with a better idea as you know best how the workings of illuvium work

[latent tundra]

I'm not saying you want to remove me either. I am just saying that is clearly what is available. As for what other accountability there can be? Asking someone to write their own punishment really only works for kids bedtimes. Someone can propose something, and then there is really only two things: a) Is it within the realms of what an IIP can do? b) Does it have the votes.

I'd rather get back to work than think up IIPs for this. You already know my stance that I don't want the project to do badly. I've already done everything in my power to make it successful. If you want some hard coded rules on top of that for assurance, then by all means that is fine and reasonable.

[true flame]

fair play, I had to ask

[fringe reef]

My two cents worth in terms of project accountability. We all as community, Dao, council, and team have to take ownership of our parts to play in the decisions that have been made. We all made the decisions together to delay zero to upgrade the entire game, and we all decided together to make illuvitars a much bigger product than originally proposed. I know it’s way more complicated than this but pointing fingers and having this level of dissent is unhelpful. It’s fair to want more transparency. But I personally do not question any of the founders commitment or loyalty to us and illuvium. The team is working incredibly hard and morale must be low. This is the time to band together and be strong and encourage eachother.

[lost nimbus]

Fully agree with you. This discussion is just insane when you look at all this team has delivered so far and is leaking every week. Let‘s work together and support each other instead of spreading doubt, fear and mistrust. If you have ever worked in a team on a large project you know that deadlines will be missed as matter of fact and all that matters in the end - is a good product.

[short lichen]

Deadlines being missed is fine given that the timelines are set to begin with and there is reason for the delays as long as they arent OTT

[low raft]

That was why my initial reaction was so bad @true flame , the suggestion that the CCs have been so terribly bad to the DAO that they deserve reprimanding or team token claw backs made me really disappointed. It's far easier to put your heart and soul into something when you think you're doing it for the people around you.

Have we not committed to being more transparent, have we not committed to giving more accurate deadlines? This coupled with the fact we have worked incredibly hard to get the Production Team & Documentation to a place that ensures there are less unknowns in Development means we're in a far better position to give estimates.

We're aware the initial timelines given were terribly wrong, it's been discussed to infinim has it not? How much more fault for those initial timelines do we need to admit before it's heard and we move on?

We can give you best estimates based on the facts that are at hand at the time they're provided. Do you agree everyone here lives and breathes Illuvium and wants to deliver something beautiful? I certainly do.

But you're adamant you want a pound of flesh from us if they're not hit?

[uncut mortar]

Is it possible to quantify the development status so that it can be monitored in real time?

OW Development status ○○% next Ver release in ○○months
ZERO Development status ○○% next Ver release in ○○months
ARENA Development status ○○% next Ver release in ○○months
PVP Development status ○○% next Ver release in ○○months

If we can quantify it in this way and know in real time, we don't have to worry about delays in development.
（○○are always changing.）

We all know the team is working hard.
I understand it takes time to make something good.

[lost nimbus]

The best indicator for progress is watching Grant in the live stream right now.

[uncut mortar]

I know that they have youtube.
I want to know how long until the next Ver released.

[lost nimbus]

And what do you with this knowledge? This is a serious question and not meant to offend you.

[uncut mortar]

I have invested a considerable amount of money in illuvium, naturally the price of ILV is the most important issue for me
Timing of releases and development status are very important to me.

[lost nimbus]

So now you know that OW is 60% done and released in 3 month. How do you convert this into the future price of ILV? 0,6 * ILV price / 3 ?

[outer thorn]

Ok I don’t like where the conversation is headed.

I’ve updated the first post. (Like 5h ago or so but anyway)

I do not want kpi and perf measurement. I never said, that the CC are not doing a good job. And never said half of the shit I read from comments or some. Some shortcut taken are really stupid to read. The tangent taken are sometimes so idiot, but anyway, let’s move on.

My point is and always been to set and extend the possible safety of the project using an untaped source of token that is easy and without impact to tap in. This would allow to help the treasury WHEN needed, IF EVER needed. Founder token are sitting for most of them untouched. 1m token left that can help fasten the replenishment of the treasury.

Anyway I’ve updated.

I’m sorry if I went too far talking about selling the token to de-risk immensely (we all saw with Luna and all the shit what can happens to project using their token as collateral) and even if I entirely disagree with Kieran on the perception of selling some token to protect the treasury. I though understand the push back. That why 10 minutes after my initial message I saw in ned’s message the possibility of using a safety fund.

Again, in all my messages here I ended asking the question : what do you think, how do you feel, is it a good idea, a bad one, let’s debate, let’s build the proposition. And most of the comment are not to build up debate, but either to trash me, either to trash the idea. There is so few constructives comments in all there that it is disappointing and not at the DAO level we should expect from a community for so ambitious project.

[lost nimbus]

As DAO members we need to think like business owners. They ask questions and look at work in progress to get a feeling for the progress and if they can still trust their team and managers. Even a schedule is just a detail best left to project managers. And financials are best left in the hands of the financial department. Business owners suggest some improvements or point the team in a certain direction, but they don't involve themselves in the details. If that's what you want Lelahel, then I am all for it.

[outer thorn]

I disagree. If you’re a business owner and don’t follow your financials, if you’re a business owner and don’t follow the status of your project, then what are you there for ? How a DAO can take educated decision with partial information ? Do you believe that my PM do not discuss with my head of finance because they have different scope, damn I hope they do or I’ll be in a big shit.

But anyway. Again. This is not the point of this thread. Move back to the topic or move on.

PS : sorry to sound a bit harsh to you

[lost nimbus]

I am not saying we shouldn't follow the financials or the status of the project.

I am just saying that there are different levels of detail to get involved.

As DAO members we can expect insight into some financial data and high level progress on the project and then make suggestions on how to improve, but we can not give every DAO member insight into every little detail of the schedule or the financials.

With Gov2 we can actually create a hierarchy of control and maybe you become a member of the financial group and get more insight. We as normal DAO members would then trust you to draw the right conclusions and work with the financial team and would occasional check if you are doing a good job.

My comment was made to actually support you in the effort of providing constructive feedback to the team until we have Gov2.

In regards to moving on:

I believe your feedback to the team in regards to "Top Management Accountability - Finance the treasury" has been delivered and we should now let them do their work and check back in a few weeks or months on how they are doing.

This is what I mean with trust and periodic checks to keep them accountable. But they probably feel accountable anyway, because they are not just hired workers, they are invested like all of us.

[outer thorn]

Oh then my bad, sorry.

Detailed financials at the $ is utopia that make no sense. Current financial document provided, isn’t at the right level in term of scope and quality, but enough in term of detail.

My idea still remain about safety fund let me rename, the title certainly hurt sensibilities

Fully agreed with your below message @lost nimbus - Done boss 🫡

[lost nimbus]

You are right, change the title to "Finance the treasury" and things don't become so emotional.

[outer thorn]

Top Management token as additional treasury safety

[steep creek]

Just start a whole new idea thread, this ones a bit tainted.

[vocal garnet]

Please no

[short lichen]

On your "high level progress" comment, just curious: When was the last time a deliverables timeline/scope was outlined for ILV (and yes, I know a roadmap is incoming)? I do agree and nobody is really asking for granular levels of detail. Heck, if you care about it its on public ledgers that can be summarised (as lelahel has done in the past). But besides that, what you said is 100% true.

[lost nimbus]

What do you mean by timeline for ILV? You mean the token price?

[short lichen]

project timeline.

• dates
• upcoming deliverables
• current scope/expected scope creep etc.

[low raft]

Weren't we asked to not give dates? and now that the decision has been reversed we're preparing dates for all of our projects as I write this?

[lost nimbus]

Not as a document at least, except maybe for Aaron's dev report. But Kieran promised such a document and I think it will be good to have it. Not in the sense that we need to freak out if something doesn't go as planned or has to be changed.

But it could actually have the positive effect that we can all see how big the scope really is and we appreciate more how much they really achieve and work on.

The risk obviously being that this will lead to to an influx of comments that need to be answered by Kieran and the team and takes time away from productive work.

We have to avoid now erroring on the other side with too much information and discussion.

A big part of management is to shield the team from too much outside distraction, which is a lot easier in traditional companies compared to a DAO.

Gov2 will come to our rescue just at the right time.

[short lichen]

Youre going to have questions in a DAO no matter what but, yes, having an idea of due dates at least gives something for members to look forward to along with setting SMART targets for the team.

@low raft I'm not debating the fact that no dates were given. I disagreed with that mentality from the very start but it's what was decided; so be it. I was just questioning illuvithor on his progress comment as, given the decisions made, I wanted to see what he deemed as progress updates.

[low raft]

I'm all for giving dates

fyi

[ocean crane]

I just wanted to chime in here and say let the team continue doing an incredible job with their current incentives.

The team are in this for the long haul. We have gone from a collection based auto-battler to a game studio that will bolt on multiple titles.

The scope has expanded with the vision, and continues to as they plan out each next move.

The work can be estimated at one point though easily change as new ideas come up or hidden problems are revealed. It’s all apart of software development. You can’t put that on the team, you don’t have all the information.

[keen vessel]

As a founder of this project, I recognise the importance of ensuring the health and longevity of our DAO. To demonstrate my personal commitment to this goal, I propose to create a safety pool of 300,000 of my tokens, which can be used by the DAO in case of emergency funding needs.

These tokens will come from my unvested ILV and can be unlocked through an approved IIP. However, I want to make it clear that this is a voluntary action and not enforceable on any other team member via proposal or other means and that my proposal is subject to taking personal tax and legal advice.

The loan should be arms' length. All other relevant commercial terms to be negotiated in good faith by Council,
At the time of writing, this loan is valued at $18m in ILV, which according to our latest projections, will give us an additional 17 months of runway, totalling 31 months.

While the treasury tokens are in place to ensure our runway, I believe it's crucial to demonstrate my commitment and sacrifice to the community, investors, and team. This will also help alleviate pressure from core contributors who are crucial to the project's success.

[steep creek]

I think you choosing to do this voluntary should show everyone, you put your money where your mouth is. I still dont think you needed to this however as its insanity to think you would hold your tokens back if the project required financial aid past the point of the treasury. I hope this squashes all the BS tbh. Only makes me personally more bullish on the project long term, you lads are as we say in the UK in for a penny in for a pound. 👏

[muted dirge]

https://tenor.com/view/bravo-applause-round-of-standing-gif-20790999

[keen vessel]

First and foremost, I want to emphasise that none of the comments made in this thread have influenced my position on the matter at hand. As I have stated repeatedly over the past two days, I made this decision even before launching the DAO. Why? Because it is essential for my tokens to have value. While making my decision public might appease some individuals who doubt my commitment to ensuring the longevity of our DAO, it was not the reason for my initial decision. That being said, we are where we are, and I will be seeking advice over the next few days to finalise my proposal.

I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that no matter what, we are in this for the long haul. Penalising team members is not the way to create a healthy culture, and I will not allow the actions of a few individuals to undermine the fantastic team we have assembled. If you have any concerns that may potentially demotivate the team, I urge you to DM me. My lines of communication are always open. However, if your behaviour persists, it will be apparent that you are seeking attention rather than a solution.

[steep creek]

🫡

[tender valve]

Respect.

[slow canopy]

bullish

you r the man

[mild pier]

Nothing but respect my dude. As a core contributor, it was never in question that you'd do anything less if it absolutely came to it.

It is an absolute pleasure committing my time and efforts into building this with you.

[keen aspen]

This should get pinned.

[peak lintel]

My respect.

[queen dawn]

respect to you sir as always

[cerulean breach]

If this still doesn’t shut those people who made this thread up, then they’re obviously just here for attention and have no place to be in this community. Huge respect to the founders and the whole team as always.

[outer thorn]

Nice. Thanks Kieran.

See people: I’ve good ideas and good influence on the project after all.

[clear sundial]

What a way to shut up all the Fudders!

[digital shard]

RESPECT

[keen vessel]

Once again, my DMs are open. You had zero influence on what would have happened if we reached the dire state you were worried about. What you did do is cause a massive amount of unrest within our team. That has cost this project precious time. But I'll give you one thing, you sure know how to create engagement. The question now is - do you care about engagement or do you care about your image? I urge you, if you care about this project like you say you do - speak to me directly and I'll gladly explain my intentions without having to disturb the team that are tirelessly working to achieve the communities goals. The choice is yours now.

[outer thorn]

My image ? What image ? I’m nobody here and I’ve 10 people replying me on twitter 🤣

To be candid, I think, be the AAA studio that you advertise, please. Be a AAA studio, as much as you want the game to be AAA, and I think the project will have a bright future. (By AAA studio I mean communication, marketing, finances, and all the rest that isn’t leaks and graphics, I know it cost money and isn’t easy with limited staff.)

But again, thanks for subscribing to my idea and making it happen. It’s good to see.

[true flame]

say what you will but thanks to @outer thorn you were pushed to make it 100% irrefutable that runway is not running low and that all FUD has no ground to stand on

Project thanks to this push feels a lot more solid, far less at risk, thanks to this team members wont need to be worried about runway etc.

Thanks Lelahel for not caring about your image or standing in this community, thanks for speaking your minds and doubts regardless of what people call you and thank you for pushing the project into a newfound level of FUD-Resistance, Anti-Fragility and Stability

sure @keen vessel just saying any drama with the community can rest now, The community confidence is now stronger than ever, this is a net positive,

[keen vessel]

I assure you, not a single team member thought I wouldn't step in and do something like this to save the DAO. So please, just give it a rest.

[muted dirge]

Guys... please quit it... concerns were adressed. it's over.

[worn finch]

https://tenor.com/view/1inch-1inch-exchange-1inch-dex-defi-crypto-gif-24930033

[outer thorn]

I only care that @worn finch like me

Everyone else I don’t really care 🤷🏻‍♂️

[prime hamlet]

This announcement isn't really a surprise. Kieran has always been about doing everything in his power to make Illuvium succeed. Even my husband, who only hears stuff about Illuvium from me, when I told him how much runway was left, said that he wasn't worried because Kieran would either find an investor or put his own money in.

Just because it aligns with your dedication to Illuvium doesn't mean it isn't appreciated though. I'm still very thankful for you @keen vessel .

[steep creek]

https://tenor.com/view/tv-show-in-betweeners-ooh-friend-thumbs-up-approve-gif-5470843

[worn finch]

You trying to get me fired?

[outer thorn]

Nah. I just don’t want to get banned 🤷🏻‍♂️

[keen vessel]

No one is going to ban you dude. But if you really care about the DAO please before starting something that can potentially hurt team morale, send me a DM. We need accountability, the people who blindly follow the founders saying they can do no wrong is harmful too, but this was not it. I hope you can see it from my side now. If you recognised that regardless of your own thoughts this would be net positive to the overall sentiment in the DAO, then I applaud you, thats a very strategic move which will help your investment.

[glad tangle]

Such a trouble maker. Someone ought to put up a proposal and ban this guy

[fringe reef]

Censorship creates distrust. Open honest discussion is always healthy.

[deft fossil]

aslong as it comes from good faith*

[fringe reef]

And heart in the right place yes

[deft fossil]

This is amazing to see. I think all the people in the community who took the time and effort to get to know the team and the founders have realized that you would gladly give up anything to help the project survive. Kudos for actually going out of your way and proving it to all the critics. It's hard to be the bigger person, and I applaud that.

[deft fossil]

https://tenor.com/view/1inch-1inch-exchange-1inch-dex-defi-crypto-gif-24853025

[burnt maple]

GM, thanks so much for this offer, you are a legend! I know it's early on, and nothing is final , but in your mind, would you sell the ILV tokens on the open market (DCA as needed), or to a private buyer (at a discount with locking ?) How much % of your ILV would 300k represent? If your ILV is sold, will you be repaid in the $'s realised (not ILV tokens)? Hopefully any future tokens could be sold when price is higher, but its probably not a good idea to calculate additional runway at full market price due to liquidity of selling a large amount? Thanks again 🙏

[latent tundra]

I want to be really clear. Your idea was idiotic. Your IIP might as well have been “I want a unicorn. Let’s make the founders catch a unicorn”.

Kieran (and Grant) have both talked about this since the beginning of the project. You didn’t influence anything except pissing me off.

We can and will do everything for the project. But on principle alone I’m not making any IIPs about this. I’ve put forward a number of things to take from us and give to the community. And every single time the response of some is “but you didn’t give us more!” And those people proved to be the paperest of hands when times got tough. Straight lettuce gloves in goal.

You don’t motivate anyone in a positive way with this nonsense. You just put fear in core contributors heads when you suggest an IIP that is effectively “let’s steal from them”. Luckily you can’t. And the ones who messaged me understand that.

If you don’t know our character yet. Then too bad. Ping me and see how fast I respond. Then do the same thing for someone at Blizzard and see how it goes. We are open and transparent and you see us for who we are, mistakes and all. I don’t sugar coat so you get to see my actual opinion, not Marketing speak. Same for everyone on the team.

If that isn’t enough (like your suggestion we pledge literally more tokens than we own) just put forward the IIP to remove me. That’s the power the council has. Not this nonsense.

[crude hinge]

https://tenor.com/view/burying-dying-dead-grave-gif-17189345

[prime girder]

For those of you outside of Australia I just wanted to point out that the bulk of these discussions is happening between 1 am and 6 am. For both founders that live in aus timezone. In terms of dedication and passion that speaks volumes imo

[crude hinge]

A lot of hate coming from someone that voted to distribute the land sale funds.

You got the only meaningful decision wrong while you were on the council. idk mate maybe chill

[true flame]

what hate?
Just saying, say what you will about lelahel, but what he pushed has inadvertently lead to good things happening and greater community confidence...
like I didn't even personally agree or support his proposal, but I am glad of the outcome...

[oak ginkgo]

This vitriol doesn't help anyone or move anything forward.

If any team members have the misfortune of still reading the comments and negativity in this thread, I just want to express that I remain focused on the long game and acknowledge all the hard work that's been done.

There are valid conversations to have about accountability, but those conversations do not (for me) involve coming after individual CC's or trying to propose or mandate impossible clawbacks.

Shoutout to @keen vessel for voluntarily putting his personal tokens on the line for the health of the project. This is just another example of the founders putting their money where their mouth is.

I'd like to suggest that we, as a DAO, stop fighting and distracting the team from what really matters. The personal attacks need to stop, on all sides. I'll be disregarding emotional arguments and staying focused on the things that matter, namely ensuring we're enabling the team to develop Illuvium. I'd encourage others to take the same approach - We're either having a realistic conversation about how to improve and move forward productively, or we're throwing poop. Let's not throw poop.

[crude hinge]

Ask not what the team can do for you, ask what you can do for the team. They be doin all the work

[vocal garnet]

Time to lock this thread?

@outer thorn its your Idea and seems to have been solved with Kierans pledge. Sound good to close?

[lime hill]

quite naive to think like this.
haters gonna hate no matter what

[flint relic]

No more attention to the FUDers and just PRAISE @keen vessel for this its a lock 🙂

[steep creek]

https://tenor.com/view/shut-it-down-stephen-stotch-richard-tweak-south-park-s22e9-gif-20599886

[vocal garnet]

Don't want the Idea OP to feel censored so will make sure hes good with it

[split spear]

I wish it wasnt how it worked but this really is what happend.

It doesnt seem like a coincidence that the community has been asking for a roadmap and financial reports for over a year, and it just so happens to be pushed out by the team in the week following a massive community outrage.

Bottom line was that we have been asking nicely for a long time but getting angry was the thing that finally made it happen.

[true flame]

this is exactly what I mean

[fringe reef]

Censorship is the death of democracy. Once concerns have been aired and answered to then it’s time to just stop feeding the negative posts by not engaging further. It’s time to let it all go and move on. ❤️

[muted dirge]

https://tenor.com/view/this-deathmonkeyxl-deathmonkey-this-post-this-message-gif-24125642

[crude hinge]

Oh - I must have missed the idea that asked for clear financial reporting. I did ask all the counselors to consider building a dashboard (outlining financials and tokens) during the last election fyi so would have 10/10 supported it. The roadmap is updated monthly by Aaron.

also you were on the council why did you not push for any of this?

[true flame]

I have pushed both financial reporting (was told no) and a roadmap to be updated whilst on the council.
No one has any idea how many community ideas council members actually put forward...
The council still didnt make it happen, an uproar in the community increased its priority...

[outer thorn]

Sure can close, I actually left the thread already long ago 🫡

[vocal garnet]

Thanks

https://tenor.com/view/peace-out-gif-22295199