Leaderboard Catch-Up Rewards: Top 200 Participants Eligible for Missed Weekly Rewards

[hidden night]

Simple Summary
Due to issues with the Illuvium: Beyond leaderboard, rewards have been delayed. The community has requested a simple compensation for the missed rewards. This is a proposal for a compensation system for the top 100 participants and those who were competing for those spots but dropped out during the time period when the leaderboard was not functioning. These participants should be rewarded in some way to acknowledge the financial contribution they made.

Abstract
Approximately 112 ILV was to be distributed each week to the top 100 participants on the Illuvium: Beyond leaderboard. This proposal suggests redistributing those rewards to the top 200 participants equally, with each participant receiving 0.5 ILV. The distribution would continue for the same number of weeks that were missed after April 7th, when reward distributions were initially supposed to start. After all missed weeks are made up the rewards would return to normal reward table.

Example
Catch-up week would look like:
Rank 1 - 12.5 ILV
Rank 2 - 6.5 ILV
Rank 3 - 3.5 ILV
Rank 4-10 - 2.5 ILV
Rank 11-50 - 1.5 ILV
Rank 51-100 - 1 ILV
Rank 101-200 - .5 ILV

Rationale
Simply rewarding the top players on Beyond with catch-up rewards may not be optimal, as they are likely to remain at the top and receive the most rewards. This proposal aims to provide an opportunity for more participants to compete by expanding the rewards to the top 200 spots. For a limited time, more people would be spending money and time on Illuvium:Beyond, making the competition more exciting and inclusive and best for the DAO.

Note
I'm primed to benefit more from this compared to other solutions offered by the community. If it goes though I'll un-sleeve to not get rewards.

[pliant ridge]

I wonder how difficult adding 100 more spots to the leaderboard would be

[hidden night]

I wonder the same. I would guess not loads of work at least for the web part. Just backend folk would adjust the api to top 200 and I would assume the frontend would just update accordingly. But if this gets traction I would love to hear from the team before this goes any further and I would not be in favor of this if it's loads of work.

[upper tartan]

I cannot really put forward opinions either way until we learn more about the technical limitations

[spring inlet]

The beyonders nagging is real. A few weeks delay and its nonstop complaining. Meanwhile landowners, having spent x10 more than ur pfps, being promised ilvz release with BPs few times with delays are patiently waiting for a year now. Yeah u were promised something and it got delayed, welcome to the club.

[hidden night]

Catch-up rewards are happening from my understanding. I'm just trying to have a discussion about best way to do it.

The approach in this proposal is bringing more people on board and possible more engagement. I also would imagine most "beyonders" are also land owners. My thoughts are the big spenders probably are at least 75% spent already with the leaderboard reward promises. If we 2x their rewards now for the catch-up (as some ideas have been floated) would that be the best for the DAO. Perhaps we can bring some more people on if we spread out the rewards to more people.

How would you handle catch-up rewards if they are going to happen anyway?

[tight steeple]

What is the plan with the top 101-200 after compensation, no more rewards?
Is there a reason for +100, why not +50/+200?
Is it fair to compensate the ones at the top with just .5 ILV?
I'm asking to get your view, not saying I don't like it or that I am not in favor

[sonic prism]

Just because Kieran mentioned something off hand in the beyond chat doesn’t mean it’s gonna happen.

Seems they are working on options.

I’m all for you all working on the idea though in the case it does happen.

But it still needs to be proposed and there needs to be more formal community discussions.

[hidden night]

1. yes no more rewards after the "catch-up weeks" for this proposal. I do think a larger pool for the leaderboard would be a good thing though, perhaps d1sks. Your thoughts?
2. simplicity and to ensure anyone that was knocked off (perhaps they were not following closely and spent money just trying to get to top 100 when it was easy and very bugged) gets something.
3. I feel it is possibly unfair to compensate the top 3 with double for example if there is no way to know who those would have ultimately been when the leaderboard was bugged. (4th - 100th are all getting a big percentage increase)

That's my view, love to hear yours.

[cunning kraken]

I think what's important to discuss in this kind of ideas, isn't to know if it's cool or not to reward more people, but it's actual benefits.

What are the benefits we are expecting? Do we think more people will buy D1sks if we make a bigger leaderboard?

Otherwise some people in the DAO will just feel like we're trying to take money out of their pocket.

[small escarp]

How come the leaderboard itself wasn't an iip?

[cunning kraken]

The team doesn't need to ask for an IIP for every expense. In this case doing a Leaderboard was beneficial and drastically improved Illuvitars' sales, so what is your question?

[swift ice]

This is a hard one. I started writing another idea and realized half way throughy explanation that it wouldn't work well. We are going to end in a position where people aren't happy know matter what we do. Your suggestion is one of the better ways to handle it I think.

[hidden night]

I can tell you from my experience. It's anecdotal AF but... I was on the early leader board top 50. I was very excited. There is an emotional component to all of this. I knew logically that it didn't make sense. But it was a lot of fun just begin up there.

So once the leaderboard slowly got fixed I was interested in staying up as long as I could, even if I knew I would fall off eventually. I got very lucky and got some good pulls early that I flipped and put into more D1sks to stay on the board. (if we didn't have the leaderboard I would have most likely just sold those for a profit. ) But it got me more and more into the game and I really liked the strategy about how to get the most energy with the least amount of money.

I'm sure I'm not indicative of everyone. But I think it would get some people more excited and hopefully spending more money, or even just spending more time in beyond (which creates more of a fan and more). Would making a higher pool for the top 100 be better and draw more money perhaps, but I doubt it would get more people playing longer just the same people that are currently on the board spending more.

I think some other questions to ask:
What is the point of illuvitars (outside of raising funds)?
What goals can this leaderboard issue address ?
Who is illuvitars made for?
Will having large pools that shrink after a few weeks be good or bad?

[cunning kraken]

MY view of illuvitars' point: please the cryptobros that like having PfPs with speculative value.
top100 leaderboard announcement: multiplied the illuvitars sales

So once we've set this the question becomes how would a top200 Leaderboard influence sales? If we can find examples of similar experiences in games or NFT projects where an INCREASE of the people rewarded (like from top100 to top200 in this case) translates into more sales in the following month(s), i'm down for this, but otherwise i personnally just don't see the point.

[hidden night]

Hard to find specifics but...
In a research paper:
"How leaderboard positions shape our motivation: the impact of competence satisfaction and competence frustration on motivation in a gamified crowdsourcing task"

They found that lower ranked leaderboard participants tried harder and put in more effort. While higher ranked became complacent.

That would be my assumption here. The 100-200 would see themselves on the leaderboard and push to get higher. Removing some of the "complacent" people and pushing them to try harder(spend more money). A positive result for the DAO as more people are increasing their engagement with Beyond.