Safety Pool ICCP - Lowering of Threshold & Future Revenues

[vast dock]

In view of the recent successful capital raise, it has become imperative for us to reevaluate the parameters of our Safety Pool. This includes reexamining the threshold and considering the inclusion of forthcoming revenue streams. I am pleased to inform you that this proposal has been carefully reviewed and endorsed by both the Strategy Council and the Admin Team.

Summary

This ICCP intends to recalibrate the safety pool in light of the recent capital raise of 10 Million USD and the total sales generated from the completion of Illuvium: Beyond Wave 1. The ICCP proposes to lower the threshold from Fifteen Million ($15 Million) to Five Million ($5 Million) USD or its equivalent. With the addition that all current & future revenue shall be diverted to the Safety Pool, in accordance with ICCP-3 (#1066107679879213187 message), until the Safety Pool is filled or Illuvium enters Open Beta whichever comes first. All revenue exceeding the Safety Pool threshold or generated after Open Beta will be directly allocated to Revenue Distribution. By making these adjustments, the Illuvium DAO (“DAO”) aims to ensure adequate financial resources are readily available for the runway until the DAO’s revenue streams are profitable.

Objective

The objective of this proposal is to take into consideration the impact of the $10 Million USD capital raise in relation to the initial threshold of $15 Million USD and including current & future revenue streams to complete the funding of the Safety Pool or until Illuvium enters Open Beta whichever occurs first. By lowering the threshold and including current & future revenue streams, we seek to create a more robust financial buffer that can be utilized for various purposes, such as mitigating risks, seizing opportunities, and investing in strategic growth initiatives.

Rationale

By reducing down the threshold to $5 Million, we are aligning the capital raised, which directly contributes to the treasury for runway purposes, and ensuring a sufficient financial buffer. Additionally, Admins have shared that adding an extra $5 million to our current runway will provide us with a total of 21 months of operational runway. However, they assured us that they are comfrotable with just 18 months of runway. This adjustment aims to reflect the consideration of the recent $10 million raise, aligns with the current risk appetite of the DAO, and maintains the primary objective of the safety pool.

Additionally, the inclusion of all current & future revenues is necessary to fill the balance of the Safety Pool. Sales from Illuvium: Beyond wave 1 were not sufficient to meet the intended funding level for the Safety Pool even with the lowered threshold. According to the most recent burn report, our Safety Pool currently holds 3.2 million USD. Considering the reduction of the safety pool threshold to 5 million USD, we now require less than 2 million USD to replenish the pool and resume Revenue Distribution. By including current & future revenue channels, we aim to bridge this gap and ensure that the safety pool is adequately filled. It is worth noting that once the threshold is filled or Illuvium enters Open Beta, the revenues from the identified channels will be allocated to Revenue Distribution.

This adjustment and inclusion of revenue streams to the Safety Pool aligns with our commitment to ensure the protocol has enough runway to not only finish the development of the Interoperable Blockchain Games but also ensure the DAO is well-prepared to face any unforeseen challenges and seize opportunities for growth if need be.

Test Cases

ICCP 6

[orchid pawn]

I dont like this at all. Might aswell hire an army of developers for 10m and populate the OW as fast as possible, which will benefit everyone. Otherwise whats the point of the raise and selling 300k treasury tokens if we could gradually do it as a community anyway.

[vast dock]

10m from capital raise is still going towards the runway. That didn't change. Without this change were at 3.2m out of 15m. So we need to fill up 12.8m in the next 6 months.

[orchid pawn]

Okay so spend it somewhere else on the project then. I dont see how a few hundred bucks of revdis is gonna help anyone more than 10m will the project

[vast dock]

IIP on safety pool is supposed to be optional in case our runway is insufficient. It was never intended to form part of runway right off the bat. At the same time, we would need another ICCP on what to do with the funds in the pool in the future. Lastly, Admins are confident with the 18 month runway.

It would be a poor signal if we're to say that the 10m capital raise wasn't enough to deliver the product that we needed 10m more imo.

[vast badge]

if 15m runway is still needed after raising 10m isn't that saying that the team actually needed 25m in the first place instead of 15m to be able to speed production? If 15 mil was needed and we now have 10m I think this is a good proposal. Actually we have 10m + whatever was made in illuvitars and fees

[orchid pawn]

It doesnt have to be used on runway now that we have the raise. It can be voted what to be used on, I suppose many areas can use a boost. I just fail to see why we sold 300k treasury tokens if runway is not a problem seeing how the pool does get filled at a sufficient pace. Now with merch it will be even better.

Again, wouldnt it be better if we vote for these funds to be dumped further into development rather than splitting it into pocket change?

[silver magnet]

The pool is filling up way too slow, and merch isn't going to bring in much.
The team is already working on the development, you can't just make them work double shifts.

[orchid pawn]

How about hire additional ppl?

[vast badge]

I think it's important to return to the main use of the ILV token and that is revdis. IF the 15 mil the team asked for is satisfied then I think that should be sufficient. If we keep adding to how much the team needs and take from revdis when does it end. Do we keep just adding more and more to the safety pool and just never have revdis? ILV is a revdis token. Team asked for 15 mil and rec'd it. I say the council fulfilled their request now it's time to have the token provide it's sole benefit and that's revdis

[vapid osprey]

↑100% agree with this statement

[orchid pawn]

Where does it say the raise is for runway? It can be used for something else and the pool remains for a runway boost. I don't see how it takes anything away from the ILV token or its functions. Revdis is gonna be a joke until open beta, wether we fill and use the safety pool or return to revdis after 5m will make little to no difference for us nor do I think it will do any damage to the sentiment around ILV. Until we have a working open beta with stable income I dont see how we are out of the woods.

[vast badge]

they asked for 15m and rec'd it, if they wanted 25m why didn't they ask for that in the original runway proposal? ILV is solely meant for revdis, yeah sure some say governance but that literally only matters for revdis. If you want to give 10m more to the runway instead of the people who invested into the project that's a lot of money. That's $1 per token if 100% was staked, not including claimed sILV. That's a good chunk. I think it's important to leave things like revdis pauses as an absolute last resort and not a just in case. If we keep on pausing revdis then how will outsiders gain confidence in ILV. If we just keep revdis paused until the game launches then there's 0 reason to hold ILV until the game launches. Don't get me wrong I believe in the product but I also believe in sticking to what the token was built for and what we are all invested in.

another thing, if they needed 25m a free way to gain good will of the community would have been to ask for 25m, do the raise they couldn't talk about at the time then say hey we raised 10m so let's cut the runway to 15m instead. That way they got what they wanted and look good doing it

[orchid pawn]

I'm not saying they are asking for anything, its a community vote. Whats the purpose of selling 30% of your future studio revenue if we were gonna fill the safety pool anyway? Doesn't that make it the dumbest decision ever? I also fail to see the point of us discussing it here. This should be brought to the team.

Do they have use for these extra 10m? Can it make a significant change to the end game product before release? If so drop an IIP and lets vote on it, otherwise return back to revdis after 5m.

[vast badge]

the team can see this chat? how scrubadubdad brought up this issue is exactly how it should be brought up in a council setting so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

I say we keep revdis pausing to extreme emergencies like it was prior to the 10m raise and we show outside and inside investors that the team doesn't take revdis pausing lightly, regardless of the reason

[robust mirage]

I think we get a lot more mileage by continuing the development of the safety pool and using it for a big marketing push leading up to game launch.

Running the DAO with narrow margins is going to be a risk up until we have enough revenue to cover expenses. Let’s make sure we are safer than we need to be in case we end up with another year of delays or some other kind emergency.

[orchid pawn]

You keep saying the team is asking for these 10m which is not the case, do u see them pushing for it? Nobody is asking for anything, its just a discussion.

[vast badge]

you're right wording can be different, I meant it in way that if we do not count the 10m towards the safety pool, as in we want 25m towards the pool sorry about that.

[silver magnet]

Scrubba clearly said they discussed this with the team and they approve this ICCP

[vast badge]

sweet there it is then. Figured the team would want to keep revdis pausing to extreme emergencies like it was in the original IIP

[orchid pawn]

If thats the case and the team deemed it not necessary then my bad for misreading too. Let it rip

[vast badge]

I also figured this would be automatic and not need an IIP

[silver magnet]

The 10m fund raise never was and never will be part of the safety pool

[orchid pawn]

Yeah it makes 0 sense to me why it should

[vast badge]

isn't that semantics though? Isn't safety pool just another 15m towards development so having 10m in the dev wallet and 5 in safety is the same as the team holding 15m or is safety pool restricted from doing certain things?

[silver magnet]

It's not really the team holding it. It's the DAO holding it in case the team needs it.

[vast badge]

well...lol okay yeah same thing but I get it.

[vast dock]

Theres a minor difference which plays a huge role. 10m capital is oart of runway and can be used by the Team. Safety pool needs an ICCP to be disbursed after teams recommendation.

[graceful karma]

I think whether is 5 or 15 mil when the game launches and the safety pool is no longer needed it will be put into the revdis basket anyway. If that's the case there is no need to do any adjustments. In fact by leaving it at 15 mil, you're incentivizing people to hold ILV for the event of the safety pool distribution.

[vast badge]

Ah got it makes sense.

[sterile perch]

No no, I want cash reserves as much as possible for hard times. Capital raise is a huge variable with zero guarantees that we can raise in the future again, it's not a given and you never know what will happen. Tomorrow some lawsuit could happen or whatever and suddenly we're short on capital and investors want to stay away because Illuvium is suddenly too risky.

We need to be prepared for the unknown!

[vast badge]

You’re saying the chance of a revdis for unneeded funds is more of a reason to hold ilv than lowering the safety pool like the team is already okay with and receiving the revdis sooner..?

[graceful karma]

My thoughts are that knowing 15 mil is going to drop on you in the future will make you want to hold on to your ILV.

Because it's essentially "yours", but by delegating it to the safety pool in order to get it back, you have to not sell out your position.

[silver magnet]

Don't think that $1 of future revdis is going to stop anyone from selling. What you do you want to do is get some buying pressure on this token and get the price up. If they need to do a future fund raise, they can do it at a higher valuation while earning the trust of your holders by doing what you promissed at the start

[orchid pawn]

Yes thats why the 2 should be kept separate. The safety pool remains for runway as promised and the 10m raise are used for something productive instead. Otherwise u sold 300k token for nothing

[silver magnet]

The 10m raise is for runway. How is that not something productive? They are bulding a game

[orchid pawn]

I meant more productive than dispersing it to chump change. No promises are broken too

[vast dock]

I understand youre confused between the capital raise and the safety pool.

Capital raise is separate and distinct from the safety pool. It will be used for runaway to pay overgead costs including salaries for 18 months. Safety pool is not part of the runway but can be used to fuel runway if the DAO believes we need it.

Again, to clarify, the capital raise will not be distributed as RevDis.

[fathom solstice]

What he is saying is to reassign the 10M raise away from previously assigned funds to runway pre-raise.

[orchid pawn]

Lol how u came to that conclusion is beyond me. Where did I confuse both?

[fathom solstice]

You yourself just answered your own question. Why would you even reduce a safety pool amount that has already been funded through token sales in bear rather than alternating the use of funds to allow for actual development roadmaps to be met (and not have a repeat of a 1 yr delay as we’ve seen with ILV zero)

[vast dock]

Otherwise u sold 300k token for nothing

You imply that the 10m raised wont be used for runway

[vast dock]

Because the safety pool was not funded by capital raise. Only illuvitars sale plus secondary sales for land and wave 1 was included. Capital raise did not go to safety pool.

I would like to know where this line of thinking was derived so we can clarify this once and for all.

[fathom solstice]

Outside of the claim of “realignment to recent capital raise” you havnt indicated any benefit in reducing the safety pool in the get go. You talk about mitigating risk but reducing the safety pool will just increase the inherent risk during project development. Along with that, the capital raise allows for development at current rate which is slow (and you cant deny that). Increasing expenditure (hiring staff, developers etc and not more managers) would appease and be a much more beneficial use of raise while still keeping the 15M safety as buffer if required.

[orchid pawn]

Yes I meant the safety pool was already voted in, was generating income, open beta is in 6 months as per their roadmap. So why sell 300k tokens just for runway when the safety pool was already doing its job, although a bit slower than expected. That 10m can be used on additional developers, marketing, outsourcing part of the workload etc.

Obviously if team said they have sufficient capital and have no use for these 10m, its pointless to keep discussing, I wont pretend to know better.

[vast badge]

Original post says the team approves this so sounds like we agree it’s pointless to keep discussing. Sweet.

[fathom solstice]

There is absolutely no reason to reduce contingency when already settled 🤦‍♂️ what will the 10M being removed from safety pool be used for…

[orchid pawn]

Yep we pretty much sold 30% of future studio revenue for nothing, genius.

[vast badge]

They raised money. You’re saying their decision to sell tokens was bad. That’s not what this iip is discussing.

[orchid pawn]

Yes and I voice my opinion on the topic discussed, I think its a terrible idea.

[fathom solstice]

I wouldnt say the raise was a bad thing. It was needed. But where the funds are being used (and why the fk the contingency is being touched) is just plain stupid rn.

[silver magnet]

Can we stay a bit respectful please?

[vast dock]

It was mentioned that with the capital raise and the safety pool of 5m would give 21 months of runway at the same time assuring us that theyre comfortable with 18months. This means were giving more buffer.

The team aligned with us with the amount. They took into consideration what they need to accomplish what they have to.

I had this iccp drafted less than a day from the news of the capital raise. We took longer to release this for the sole purpose of aligning with the team and what they need.

[fathom solstice]

Who am I disrespecting?

[fathom solstice]

You still havnt answered any queries:

• why would you reduce a contingency?
• where would this reduction go?
• why would you not repurpose raised funds to allow for additional development?

In the end, it is terrible PM to touch a contingency that has been settled, primarily because for a contingency value to be set in the first place it indicates that the contingency funds are not required for other aspects. You talk about mitigating risk but that is exactly what a 15M buffer does.

[vast dock]

Please note that the capital raise was ongoing even before the safety pool iip was passed.

Its also pointless to bring up if we shouldve sold the tokens or not. We cant do anything about it anymore.

[silver magnet]

The safety pool are not team funds. This are revdis for the DAO. We offered to not hand them out to the stakers and keep them as an emergency back-up plan.
The team now says they are sure they don't need this emergency back-up plan anymore and we are still offering to have 5 million as a back-up instead of 15 million.

[fathom solstice]

The team also said they are sure ILV Zero will be released soon after land sale and here we are. It is very bad practice to reduce project contingencies and generally should never be considered UNLESS contingencies are being repurposed for completion of project. The fact there is a 15M safety pool is due to ppl agreeing for it in the first place and, until project completion where the contingency is not used, the money exists to assist the project IF required later on.

[orchid pawn]

Agreed we cant change the past, the point is how to proceed further. And I feel this proposition makes the raise obsolete.

[vast dock]

I did.

Because the team is comfortable with 18 months. Were giving them 21. Team doesnt need more runway and this sends out a strong signal if we go back to RevDis.

Reduction doesnt go anywhere. Safety pool currently has 3.2m out 15m. We reduced ur to 5m. Were still out 1.8m to fill it up.

Theres no repurposing cause capital raise goes to development.

[vast dock]

How so? 10m still goes to development (runway)

[orchid pawn]

Cause if open beta is in 6 months as per the roadmap and the safety pool operational that should be more than enough. So you sell 300k token for what? At least use it on marketing or something

[silver magnet]

360k tokens didn't sell in the balancer sale. It was planned from day 1 to sell these tokens

[vast dock]

Raise happened. We cant keep on discussing in what ifs.

In the next few months we have 3 sources of revenue before open beta as per the roadmap. Merch, promo disk and wave 2 illuvitars. Youre telling me that in this 6 months we can raise 11.8m to fill the 15m safety pool?

Also if your concern is to use it on marketing and what not, the budget needed will most likely come from team projections. Then you or anyone in the DAO can propose it. But this is not the proposal to discuss what to do with the safety pool nor do I believe its the right time to think about using it while we have the 10m capital plus the rest of our runway.

[silver magnet]

The team already said they will be postponing wave 2 until after open beta. With merch alone I don't even think you'll raise the last 2 million needed to fill up to 5.

[vast dock]

Dont want to preempt anything but this is still up for council vote/sentiment. Not on whether we delay or not but how long we have to delay.

[fathom solstice]

You cannot say that for certain. Those forecasts are at current rates where, to meet current deadlines, will already be difficult as is. All it takes is one issue (which is exactly what a contingency is for in the first place) and that forecast becomes null.

A limit was set to 15M and there’s a reason for that. Reducing a contingency limit will:

• increase project risk given any delays
• void any additional benefits from increased runway due to raise
• eliminate any potential for developer upsizing since the mentality would be “we are on track with current runway”.

I will also add here, @vast dock, as the ICCP proponent, I would generally think that you should be providing clarity on questions (which you’ve been doing with me so thanks) rather than talking about why the ICCP is good; ofc it will be good in your eyes given its your “baby” so to speak. Just my 2c.

[spark furnace]

Hopefully I can shed some additional light on this.

$15M was the sizing chosen for the original Safety Pool, and that sizing was based on a variety of factors. The most prominent was the advice of the team on how much extra capital was felt necessary to be able to get Open Beta launched, and have a small buffer.

This epoch, that sizing has been re-evaluated, to ensure we haven't missed any changing conditions that may have required more or less capital to get to Open Beta.

With the mindset that the primary goal of the Safety Pool is to get us to Open Beta with a small buffer, raising $10M (which is not in the Safety Pool, but is a part of the overall strategy to get us to Open Beta) means the Safety Pool doesn't still need to be $15M.

To be clear, the raise was necessary, but as Matt has pointed out, we didn't require $25M to get to Open Beta, $15M is still felt to be sufficient, and accounting for the $10M raise, the Safety Pool now only need to be $5M.

$15M required - $10M raised = $5M.

Additionally, there is the ~3M currently in the Safety Pool from Illuvitars and royalties. However, we DO want that $3M to be part of the Safety Pool, as it makes up a portion of the total $15M.

[vast dock]

True we cant say for certain but were relying on what the team has shared with us. And if we were to decide based on information we would go with what the team shared.

@spark furnace can give additional inputs on the reasoning why 15m was the amount. He was part of the council that set it.

Im not sure what you mean by the last statement. I havent been trying to convince you all that its good. Im trying to clarify all the misconceptions so you all can decide by yourselves based on correct information

[orchid pawn]

Can you please explain the reasoning behind "the raise was necessary". The road map says 6 months till open beta, the current runway + the safety pool had us covered well beyond that. Is the expected revdis in the beginning that insignificant? Or are more delays ahead of us? Something doesnt add up

[fathom solstice]

This goes back to the point of the 15M being a contingency limit rather than “available funds”. There is no benefit in reducing the limit in my eyes. If we exceed the 5M threshold and dont use the contingency (as should be the case with most projects) great! Contingency can then be redispersed as revdis once BC Open beta is released. But until then, to mitigate risk as a safety pool should do, theres more detriment than benefit in reducing the theoretical limit.

Also thanks for explaining how the 15M was derived @spark furnace but I still stand by the fact that there is no benefit (besides some revdis money for token holders) in reducing the limit independent of whether or not we raise the pool to that value.

[spark furnace]

The $10M raise is currently "available funds".

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Safety Pool is a contingency, but it's also intended that any funds within the Safety Pool can be distributed to ILV stakers if they are not required.

The $10M raised by the sale of tokens to Framework is NOT intended to be distributed, it's explicitly intended to support development. There is no circumstance in which I would have supported selling Treasury tokens to directly fund distribution to Stakers prior to Open Beta.

[orchid pawn]

I dont know where this -raise is gonna be distributed to stakers- is coming from, no one is suggesting that

[fathom solstice]

I get that. What I’m saying is, say the funds in the safety pool goes to $10M and the project doesnt need it (yay!) then you redistribute on project completion rather than reducing the limit now and increasing the risk on any future risk of funds (especially to avoid the necessity of any additional capital raises)

[spark furnace]

If we included in the raise directly in the Safety Pool, we'd be at $13.2M in the Safety Pool, and by defintion, the Safety Pool can be distributed to Stakers.

I believe we're on the same side here, it's more of an accounting issue than anything.

The Safety Pool can (and should) reflect changes to runway, and that's all this proposal is doing.

It's saying "Hey, the $10M raise happened, it's not in the Safety Pool, but it is funding that exists that will go towards development. The Safety Pool therefore no longer needs to be $15M, it can instead be $5M, which is still the same as the original amount determined necessary to get us to Open Beta".

I need to reiterate that these amounts are not things the council pulls together randomly. This proposal (and the original Safety Pool sizing) have been done in consultation with the absolute most qualified people to make these recommendations.

[orchid pawn]

Yes but it was made clear several times that the 10m raise and the safety pool are different things? (as I think they should be).

Isn't it ideal to keep filling the safety pool up to its 15m limit and sit there until we have a stable monthly income?

[spark furnace]

For one, it's unlikely we'll make it to $15M + $10M prior to Open Beta.

We've also been advised that it's not necessary to have what would effectively be $25M raised or diverted. It would give us a larger buffer if it were filled to $15M, but that is unlikely to actually happen prior to Open Beta, and also would give us significantly more of a buffer than is felt necessary.

[fathom solstice]

@spark furnace (and for @vast dock I guess) simple question: what benefit is there in reducing the limit?

I am also coming from the view that, if the limit is reduced to 5M and the safety is filled, then any money raised after is revdis (and not added into runway). Please correct me if I’m wrong which, I guess, this would be the only benefit; boosting runway if not revdis.

[spark furnace]

To elaborate with an example, we could change the Safety Pool sizing to $100M, and $100M is more than $15M and would give us a WAY larger buffer if it were filled.

We simply don't need that big of a buffer, nor would we reasonably fill a Safety Pool that large given what we have happening prior to Open Beta.

[orchid pawn]

That doesnt make sense though. No one is suggesting to increase the cap of the safety pool. It was made clear that both the 10m raise and the safety pool are not related. It doesn't make the safety pool go to 25M as that would need to be voted.

[spark furnace]

The Safety Pool and the raise are absolutely related.

The raise, in a very direct way, reduces the recommended sizing of the Safety Pool, as the $10M are directly going towards development costs and serving as funds for one of the possible use cases for the Safety Pool (development).

The funds aren't stored in the same Pool, but one thing absolutely affects the other - The Safety Pool's sizing was based on burn rate and available capital for development.

[fathom solstice]

There is still no benefit in reducing the limit….. even given the capital raise

[orchid pawn]

Yes but the 15m in the safety pool are not guaranteed funds, unlike the raise, they are only there for emergency. So in the end we can end up using 10m from the raise + 7 mil from the pool and the rest is returned back to stakers. How do we know for certain how much of the pool we are really gonna need?

[spark furnace]

It sets an end-point for diversion to the Safety Pool. It ensures the Safety Pool is appropriately sized given current financial conditions, burn rate, and state of development. It also lets investors know that we're not trying to divert an additional $10M to the Safety Pool that isn't required for development.

[spark furnace]

It's true that we do not know the future, but if the council, Labs admins and CFO can't make a recommendation on how likely it is that we'll need a Safety Pool in excess of $5M, who can?

I guess what I'm asking is:

What is the benefit of setting the Safety Pool larger than we need, especially if we know we won't reach those amounts prior to Open Beta?

[fathom solstice]

You cannot say for certain that it is not/will not be required though. From the investor’s standpoint, any money not utilised from safety will get redistributed to token holders anyways. ILV has already had its fair share of delays and funding scares that overestimating the safety pool is better than not (and requiring additional token sale next year for example) especially if the bear continues as we would expect.

[spark furnace]

The current recommendation is still overestimating how much is felt to be needed.

If it's felt to not be conservative enough, fair enough, you're entitled to that opinion, but I need to be clear that it's equally conservative to the original iteration of the Safety Pool, which was already fairly conservative.

[orchid pawn]

The benefit would be a safety measure in the background, knowing there are funds ready to use if needed. Can make the team and the community feel safer. I don't see the benefit of reducing it to 5m if it was voted as 15m in the first place. Are people that concerned about 1$ per token?

[spark furnace]

Some people are, yes.

Again, I need to be extremely clear that the original $15M was based on available funds for development, and the buffer required to get us to Open Beta and beyond. When those funds increase by $10M, it's only logical that the required buffer changes.

[fathom solstice]

For a 2% ROI at current token prices, there is hardly any value in bringing it down besides for the big sharks like framework who can get 5-10% of their investment back instantly at those levels yet, even then, they wont see in time since (as you said) it wont hit 15M revenue anytime soon anyways.

[orchid pawn]

To me is more logical to use this 10m on extra development to add extra features, content and polish to the game before open beta. Wether its from hiring extra developers, outsourcing or any other means necessary. It needs to make an impact. Reducing the safety pool sounds like the least ideal option to me.

[spark furnace]

Fair feedback @orchid pawn @fathom solstice - I'll leave the floor open for any other feedback that might come in. Appreciate both of your perspectives on this.

[glad tendon]

Oh that's good news

[echo osprey]

FYI on this, it’s been said by Kieran a long time ago as an argument to justify a raise and token selling having no impact on initial plan.

Reminder: 1.5m token for treasury as whitepaper says

Reality, token have been used to incentivize team member. So much that the treasury had even less than the 1.5m token planned. Proof: are the anount of token in the financial document: 1.47m or something.

Now, with the raise and the 330k sold to framework. The treasury is at 1.1m or something.

That said, raise isn’t much the point of the iip here.

Though I agree with some comments. @vast dock what’s the SWOT behind this iip ? Or pros and cons if this sounds too corporate to do. In fact, I see a lot of what and how in the iip but nothing about the why, maybe that’s what’s missing and the community has been mislead so many time that it’s a good idea to share more about why doing things.

[vast dock]

Not sure what you mean, sir?

15m Safety pre-capital raise. 10m capital raise : 5m Safety post-capital raise. Its literally the same amount. By not lowering the threshold you are actually expanding the safety pool's parameters.

One of the bigger change is making all future revenue fill the safety pool. The logic behind this is 1) Illuvitars Wave 1 and secondary sales were not enough to fill it; 2) Instead of doing multiple ICCPs to add more revenue channels this is encompassing but limited to when Safety Pool is filled or when Open beta starts.

[echo osprey]

No issue mate. You are very facts oriented, what you do and how you do it. My question is why are you doing it ?

Example:

Why - as the team can deliver without more money we all want to prove our community that the tokenomics works.

Don’t know if there are any other why honestly but that’s my question.

A good enough reason and why to justify lowering the security of having the biggest buffer possible

[vast dock]

So its actually more directed to the others. Why would we want more buffer when council orginally intended for 15m. Because we didnt change the amounts. We just properly reflected it based on capital raise and the amount the Team has expressed to be acceptable amount to deliver.

[wispy prawn]

Agreed on this ICCP. Nothing to add.

[echo osprey]

So as I read it. There are no good reason to lower the safety fund target. But there are also no bad reason to keeping it that high. And the team give the feedback that they can get things according to their deadline.

I believe the dao would be fully trusting the roadmap and deadline. Are we sure it’s a good idea ? The game was planned to be release end of 2021. Then mid-2022 then end 2022. Now end 2023. IZ saw the same story. Merch was suppose to go by Christmas, and delayed 6 months. And so on.

I hope if this pass, you all know that the “trust me bro” mindset has been exploited by the team since the project inception, and you’ve no guarantee that it’ll be release by end of the year, because the team has never taken any accountability on any scope creep, scope increase, 72nd polishing, spendings, use of treasury token, spending 50% higher than announced soending, and so on and so on.

So again, here is not the place to challenge the team you can say, anyway the answers are always going to be the same “the project looks much better” or “the team is doing the max” and all that stuff.

But what I mean is by stopping the safety fund, you put all the trust in a team that do not deserve it.

What are the guarantees given that they can keep the release of q4 ? If you’ve, by all means let’s not fill the safety fund. If they just said they can make it, is increasing the risk worth it ?

Sorry if I’m stocking anyone with my comment, if anything did shock you, open your eyes on what happened, I won’t apologize.

PS: voting thumb up, I want revdis and the tokenomic to be back on track. And if everyone think the team can make, then so be it. Let’s see. Would be good to have accountability for once.

[silver magnet]

Thanks for your feedback Lelahel, appreciated

[echo osprey]

Oh ive no hope. I know most will be against anything I say because it’s me saying it.

But I told Scruba I’ll comment, so I did.

[fickle nova]

I think you can add the additional funding to the safety pool while keeping the cap and safety pool intact as originally passed.

The pools funds do not get used unless absolutely necessary as emergency funding and approval anyway so the reduction to 5m meaning it can be filled, at least in my opinion is optics only.

I absolutely agree with the proposal to funnel non game revenue into the safety pool.

I think overall the safety pool should remain intact untill a time the DAOs revenue generation covers monthly overheads. At which point it can be dissolved and redistributed as originally planned.

Just my 2 cents. 🥰

[echo osprey]

Btw reading a lot of comment, I think the team confused the community stashing the raise in the same wallet as the safety fund and not the treasury.

Treasury is treasury. It belongs to the team.
Raise is treasury. It belong to the team.
Safety funds is safety fund. It belong to the community/dao.

[fickle nova]

I would agree with this, keep them separate and confusion of commingled funds won't be an issue.

[silver magnet]

I agree, it was really confusing to me why they sent it to that wallet.
Kieran then said that's not a safety wallet but a second treasury where the safety pool funds are also held in.

[fickle nova]

Then a new wallet just for the safety pool needs making.

[echo osprey]

Nah, raise should go to the treasury wallet, and done.

Anyway let’s go back to scruba’s iip.

[orchid pawn]

The safety pool was always an emergency fund and not the main source of runway. Any impact on sentiment regarding revdis being redirected away from the stakers has already happened. Like everyone mentioned, until open beta its not expected to have large amounts of revdis.

I see no reason why it should be lowered at all until we have reached self-sustainability. That's its whole purpose from the start, as a safety measure.

[viscid ridge]

Is this a meme?
kek

This bro thinks the safety pool will be rolled into rev dis?

[orchid pawn]

It will be, once it's done its purpose.

[viscid ridge]

https://tenor.com/view/family-guy-peter-griffin-family-guy-peter-perhaps-peter-perhaps-gif-24813812

According to whom 😂

[orchid pawn]

according to the IIP it was voted on?

[viscid ridge]

be depleted?

[viscid ridge]

LOL
As if those are permanent

[orchid pawn]

😒 😒

[viscid ridge]

Didn't they have 50M before?

https://tenor.com/view/what-confused-cute-gif-13407069

OK
Now
*Flies away

[unreal lynx]

I thought this 10M is used to hire more people and develop the game faster and hit those roadmap goals. Afterall finnished product is what we need. Why would we share "profits" when there is no product out yet as intended. I don't think this is a good idea.

[vast dock]

Cheers, Lelahel! Thanks for sharing your side on this.

[viscid ridge]

Bruh what?

Pretty sure they're in "tread water" mode until the markets turn back bullish

Or at least I hope that's the hold-up

[vast dock]

It is. 10m is treasury (runway) not to be part of the safety pool which is subject to DAO discretion.

[unreal lynx]

Yes but the "pace" is faster and volume of work is bigger therefore absorbs more $$

[fathom solstice]

Ehhh not once was it talked that there would be an "increase in momentum of development". Rather, it's been "continuing as we are we will complete in xyz"

[unreal lynx]

IF I am right on the first point.

[unreal lynx]

👆

[vast dock]

Let me post this to quell any confusion on the 10m capital raise and its purpose

[unreal lynx]

Exactly so we still need 15m treasury.. The 10M is a "boost". When we deplete that we would in your case still have only 5M in treasury. No?

[vast dock]

Thats the Teams prerogative. They had to scale down to prolong the runway now that capital raise is completed its not outside the realm of possibility that they scale back up to meet their road map deadline.

I can't speak for the team obviously so I'll leave it for an admin to clarify that further as to what they'll do with the runway

[fathom solstice]

Which is ever more reason to keep the safety as is in case the scale up (if completed) is scaled up tooooo much and funds get murky again

[vast dock]

We would have the whole 15m they're just compartmentalized as 10m treasury 5m as safety.

Let me ask if we didn't do a capital raise. Would you or others here advocate to increase the treasury from 15m to 25m?

[viscid ridge]

Just tell me how many millions they have to make before rev dis exists again 😜

[orchid pawn]

Thats not the same, the 10m raise came after the safety pool was already running. Did people know of this raise? If so, maybe we should have waited a bit with this safety pool proposal?

My main point is, we sold 30% of the studios future profits. We should make it count by adding stuff we couldnt add before to the open beta launch. Replacing 10m from the safety pool with the 10m raise sounds like a huge waste of treasury tokens.

[unreal lynx]

I don't think you're taking into account the pace and volume output and cost. It's not the same as it was before. I would prioritize 15 Million safety before we are able to make consistent monthly revenue. We're in development still.

[fathom solstice]

No, they are completely different things. The 10M raised are funds that got given for tokens and WILL be used for development. The 15M safety, which would primarily come from Beyond/merch profits etc., will only be used IF needed.

If the capital raise was not completed and 15M safety was the preferred value by the team, then that is their forecast. I would generally increase the contingency to a value where revdis doesnt happen until a product is aired but that raises a whole seperate ethical dillema to what was promised from the tokenomics perspective. There are still so many uncertainties when it comes to mainstream adoption and if blockchain can handle a large influx of players that there is no negative to having a larger contingency to accommodate for that if the need arises.

[vast dock]

But that's the thing, sir. The team did. Not the current council.

[fair anchor]

@vast dock Basing my questions on this discussion, as I had forgotten a lot of context that has been refreshed in this thread:

Previously, the team supported a 15M emergency fund with 1.5M tokens to the side for Treasury revenue. Now with the raise, we have ~300K tokens less in the treasury, bringing us down very close to the bare bones amount which is 1M tokens. We have ~1.1M or 10% more than the minimum required in the treasury.
Paraphrased from that Ama kieran said something like:
"We have 1.5M tokens but in the worst case, the tokenomics according to Danny would even work with 1M tokens in the treasury."

We however are now in a bear market and Revdis that in the future will go to the development of the game dropped by 20-25% due to the raise. But the team still supports the 15M total? I suppose they must have taken the raise-sale into account before the emergency fund dollar-amount was decided upon.

I remember also that Kieran would loan his tokens to the treasury right? How does that come into play? Will his token-revenue be given to the Treasury until its balance is at 1.5M + Kieran's tokens?

If we drop the revenue to the treasury by 20% wouldnt it make sense to increase the promised runway fund by 20%? Or was this done through the 18month -> 21month consideration?

[vast dock]

We coordinated with previous council 4 of which are council members blickter scoriox animositas and Kieran. They agreed the 15m was the safety pool without taking consideration the 10m capital raise since it wasn't a sure thing back then. They didn't think that with the 10m raise we need an additional 15m. Please look at the dates when they passed safety pool and when capital raise was concluded.

[echo osprey]

Well Kieran was sure there is no need for raise.

He was sure the game would be release end of 2021.

He was sure of so many things but in the end we got all promises and nothing delivered on time.

Team was sure IZ season 1 was the 21st of February.

Sooooo are we sure we can trust the roadmap and delivery ?

Just asking…

[fathom solstice]

It. Is. A. Contingency.

Contingencies/Safety pools do not exist for "known events" but rather for issues/problems experienced during project delivery. Anyone in the team/council that believes that they know exactly the expenditure to project completion/any delays that will happen would indicate that in the forecasted operational budget which is completely seperate from the Safety Pool. Don't know how many times it needs to be said, but, the contingency exists for rainy days rather than balancing the books because we completed a "successful" raise.

[unreal lynx]

No that's exactly why we should combat that by raising 15M to safety pool.

[fathom solstice]

You still got a thumbs up for this lela, just saying xD

[echo osprey]

I say, let’s get the team accountable for once, let’s stop give them more money to blow it in redoing things that have been done already, let’s stop seeing them refactor code that has been refactored 48 times.

Let stop seeing them make asst movie ready when a movie in 10 years away and new tech will render what is done done obsolete.

You know, deliver first, improve later. What every it project manager faced every day.

[vast dock]

~~ I need to confirm this but the tokens we sold were from the balancer sale that wasn't sold during that time. Meaning we should still have the 1.5m tokens still. Maybe some OGs can confirm the amount that wasn't sold @silver magnet ~~

But putting that aside, we base the amount simply because the team said they have enough funds up to 18months. We gave additional 3 months maintaining the original 15m amount.

So the consideration was carried over from previous councils sentiments and risk appetite.

[silver magnet]

I'll let Danny reply on that one 😉

[echo osprey]

Scruba, it’s not true. We have 1.1m token left.

This balancer thing is a lie. Token have been given to the team. We have only 1.1m token left.

[vast dock]

Thanks, Lelahel. I retract my statement on that.

[echo osprey]

I detailed everything earlier answering fraggy.

Look at the last official document 1.47m token. Less 330k.

Those balancer token left over was blatant lie and people could sue for misleading.

A huge amount of token has been given without council/community knowledge to incentivize the team.

What’s done is done, the reality is, as of today, the raw fact is: the treasury will capture at best 20% of the profits.

[wispy prawn]

dnt forget the mega raise plan when the marker recovers.

[silver magnet]

Wow I didnt mean to tell "blatant liess". I remember not all tokens got sold during the balancer sale, I assumed the team still had them.

[silver magnet]

Yeah that's why I think it's a good idea, get some revdis and buy pressure on this token.
Need token price at higher valuation if we ever wanna do a mega raise

[echo osprey]

Don’t trust me.

Danny document show 1.47m token.

The raise is more than 333k token sold.

1.2m in reality vs 1.5+0.35?(balancer)-0.33?(raise)

Who snorted the 300k difference ?😳

[fathom solstice]

Why are we even worried about token price rn 🤦‍♂️ get a game out first as was promised years ago

[silver magnet]

If Kieran didn't record his economy insider video yet, maybe he can explain some of this stuff in it

[echo osprey]

But not really the matter of the iip isn’t it ?

[fathom solstice]

If you honestly think that revdis buyback pressure outweighs the benefit of a proper game finally being released by a gaming startup, then there’s no point in discussing. Imagine if startups started giving money to their investors prior to releasing their product; would be a shitfest…. But independent on Kieran’s economy expertise, that really isnt what were talking about here.

[silver magnet]

Game will be ready in 6 months, they have 18 months of runway without the safety pool. Not hard to do the math
Anyhow you shared your vision and I shared mine, let's keep this chat open for others to tell what they think about it.
No point to keep reading the same opinion of 5 people

[fathom solstice]

Wheres ILV zero?

[silver magnet]

I'm playing it right now, what's the question?

[fathom solstice]

And that does not change the fundamental point raised: revdis/dividend prior to product release is almost ludicrous.

[fathom solstice]

Fully block chain integratable? Utilising your purchased land? Going through an established fuel market economy?

[silver magnet]

It's not going to be on chain until Overworld and arena are ready.
Yes, utilising the land we purchased.
And now like I said, I'm gonna stop responding. This has no point.

[fathom solstice]

Anyways, were diverting away from the purpose of this conversation so that’ll be my last message regarding ILVZ

[echo osprey]

15 months with safety. I trust the blockchain, and it give me 1.5m$ spending according to last 6 months average.

Very far from the 1.06 or whatever the team is saying they spend.

But again, does that change any opinion of the safety fund if the spending is more or less than what the team say they spend ?

[white badger]

Regardless of raise, people should be viewing this as a DAO and investor safety pool.

Essentially you get highly increased safety on 15M backup versus 5M backup. At this point It's a decision do you reduce this safety pool in exchange for very minor rev dis coming out earlier?
My answer would be no thanks. Development cycles and world circumstance make that safety net more valuable than anything in the current market. It also shows new investors that no matter how bad the world economic situation is, that Illuvium is prepared better than most web3 studios to face any situation.

$10m raise is great. Let's keep rocking and pushing out top product releases.

However I'm personally not fond of the safety pool being lowered. Delayed rev dis is a very small price to pay for greater security and public confidence.

[echo osprey]

I would get the team to scope what matters to deliver a gaming experience and get revenues rather than letting them feel comfortable and blow money in polishing flowers shadows to make them movie ready.

So stop the safety funds and make them accountable.

They will be 2 years late on their initial timeline for a 1 year project. Even aaa web2 games rarely have a +200% extended timeline 🤣

[chilly lava]

Agree 100%. Obviously graphics are a major component of the game, but its clear that team needs to refocus. Grant is incredibly talented but its the common problem of art vs business. Having a deadline of this year to release is a great objective. We have the funds to get there. Adding more funds will honestly be net negative. We need to get the product out and focus on gameplay/monetization streams.

[wispy prawn]

generally in web2 AAA, graphic is the last component to finish. they usually focus on gameplay mechanic. as we can observe, there are still many things in the game that need go be ironed out.
bugs, balancing, integration, security. even the GS drop had its issue.
i dont believe releasing this year is a good idea. they need to take as much time as possible. i believe Q2 '24 is more reasonable.

[chilly lava]

All this argument is basically who has ilv staked and who doesnt.. but its hard to argue team shouldnt be held accountable for release date and safety pool size, regardless of how far you'd like token to drop

[fickle nova]

Agreed

[orchid pawn]

Not really, im 12 month staked (some are unlocked) in both pools and yet I dont think the pool cap should be lowered cause thats just common sense.

[glad tendon]

Yeah what's a few more months right. And when we get to Q2 2024 Q4 is only a few months away too. And on it goes 😆

The team has a proven issue with scope creep. This "take all the time you need" mentally plays into their perfectionist mindset. Startups don't have the luxury of living by such a virtue.

[echo osprey]

I agree.

Diablo 4 have a lot of graphics bugs, amazing gameplay. And they will spend months refining and improving the gameplay. They have patches coming in like every other day to counter player cheating and getting things right.

Graphics are important but secondary in the grand scheme of things.

But against your opinion, waiting until q2 to release, having no more runway… Or do we (the team) plan to correct gameplay mechanics to adapt to players and improve their experience ?

Or do we stupidly think the project will be spot on from the start ?

Diablo is a 20 year old IP and they are not perfect form the start.

Learn from web2, learn from mainstream, don’t underestimate decades of learning.

Runway, to get things right, is mandatory beyond release, way beyond.

Waiting for perfection to release is an utopia that will kill the project.

We have a team estimated (lol) release in q4. That’s it. Without knowing the strategy of the team, the exact release, what will be ready, not ready, how will the release happens and a shit load of other things … how can we expect taking a proper, safe and educated decision on safety fund ??????

[wispy prawn]

idk if it's true, but kargas said he found exploits in arena and IZ after 2 hours of playing. exploits in web3 games sound scary.

[glad tendon]

That's why the safety pool and all these ICCPs are a bit ridiculous imo. The council and community are in the dark about a lot of illuviums current and projected financials. Yet we're all voting to commit millions of dollars on a situation we know very little about.

Suppose it feels good though right. Who doesn't enjoy a good virtue signal every now and then.

[karmic zinc]

TLDR: I'm gonna put together a document looking at outgoing ILV.

The team/seed vesting contract has been successfully parsed by a community member and the data page is pinned in #💰〕token . The amount of tokens in that contract are known. Of course it could be possible that ILV tokens were simply transferred directly to team members. But the amount of ILV transferred out of project wallets is also easy to track. One of our hints that significant token listings on CEXs were incoming was token transfers. It's been awhile, but my memory is that at least some of the remaining launchpad tokens were used to secure some of those listings.

It's certainly interesting to follow where the ILV is going. I've got some spare time these days and think this might be an interesting use of my hobby time to learn some things.

I support this ICCP because I bought ILV in the balancer sale because of the idea of revdis.

[wispy prawn]

can we ask the team for the number?

[karmic zinc]

But some don’t trust the teams self reporting anyways. That's possibly a willful misrepresentation of other's sentiments. The comment below is a stronger argument not to ask the team.

What’s the point? The data is on chain. Maybe I’ll ask after I’ve got it divided into what I know and what I don’t know. But really, I would think that the DAO does not much benefit from paying the team to parse Blockchain data for itself. The team has a "deadline" to meet.

[whole mortar]

I’ve been celebrating Father’s Day so I haven’t been in this thread, but from what I can see the main argument against this proposal is to put the money towards developing the game faster and so that new investors feel comfortable knowing the runway is there.

We briefly discussed using some of the safety pool as a one use for marketing, but ultimately decided that the safety pool only be used as intended as a safety net and only used if necessary.

With this being said keeping the safety pool goal at 15m would not speed up development, it would only extend runway.

With open beta expected at the end of the year the team and council feel confident with the current runway. We deciding with the 5m in case of a black swan event.

It’s important to bring back rev dis as soon as possible to ensure community confidence in the utility of staked ILV.

[glad tendon]

The safety pool is absolutely not for marketing.

[whole mortar]

Agreed. And to be fair this wasn’t being pushed by anyone.

[glad tendon]

That's reassuring

[toxic delta]

In all respect, they would have been confortable with 18months 24 months ago...
That said all are complaining about money that isn't there. The safety pool has 2 of 15M , now it will have 2 of 5M. Same amount. Unlikely we make another 3M anytime soon when you see the Gamestop sale.

[silver magnet]

I believe it's at 3m without GS sale

[wispy prawn]

GS sale $500k - diskplate cogs - shipping - GS cut.
need to find other jpegs to sell

looks like beyond folks are tapped out

[glad tendon]

The pool ain't reaching 5M before OB. This ICCP should just cap the pool at 3M (if that's the amount rn).

[wispy prawn]

we can still sell more jpegs

[silver magnet]

T5 land

[orchid pawn]

If theres gonna be no revdis till OB then who cares where its redirected.

The better question is, wen OB? In 6 months? Possibly, we'll see

[vast dock]

We're at 3.2m (13.2m - the 10m capital raise). Theres 409k in IMX. Around 200kish from promo. If wave 2 happens before open beta we can probably hit the 5m including the secondary fees.

[glad tendon]

Oh ok, thanks

What's the latest on wave 2? Are there discussions going on about wave 2 dropping post OB launch now?

[worn verge]

There will be some delay, but we're tentatively targeting mid August.

We have a live product, a product we're working hard to improve on.

We have had a multitude of sessions late last week, over the weekend and today and have a plan in motion to improve Beyond while also making the value prop clear i.e. examples of the Soul bound Unlocks collectors can expect to receive for completing milestones and collections - this coupled with the fact we have partners as equal too or larger than GS... it's going to be an exciting back half of the year.

[glad tendon]

Oh sounds awesome! Thanks for the update Nick 🙂

[vast dock]

@silver magnet

[silver magnet]

I saw

Gonna wait for official announcements because it seems to be changing a lot atm

[fickle nova]

The safety pools funds will be rev dis again once the game goes live and revenue is being generated, the risk elements that were present and the reasoning for the pool being created are present and in fact worsening from a macro outlook. The teams raise is of great relief but we have no idea how a wider markets decline will impact Illuviums onboarding and revenue generation potential. The pool was approved for 15m, shortening down to 5m doesn't really do anything but potentially hamstring you in the future if it is needed. If we don't fill the 15m what the issue, if we have 3.2-5m in the pool what is the functional difference to the pool. Or is this an optics angle we are playing?

[worn verge]

SteerCo and Strategy Sub Council haven't made this suggestion lightly. We believe $15 million is excessive.

Revenue Distribution is a core part of our protocol - for many investors it's the secret sauce that sets us apart.

We are confident we can reach Open Beta with a year of runway on the sideline and enabling RevDis is a clear statement to the market and existing investors that we're on track with a working POC.

[wispy prawn]

kieran expect $20m/month revenue post launch

[fickle nova]

I get you absoutely, however we are directing funding into the pool. I would handle it slightly different and just close funding to the pool once 5m is hit, keep the 15m threshold in place in case something comes around unexpected/unforeseen. Turn off the tap don't reduce the bucket size.

[wispy prawn]

this sounds like enabling revdis again is a way to manage the token price

[worn verge]

Could be an option.

[vast dock]

We've hit the required up-votes for this idea to go up the chain. However, before it does, I'd like to address the biggest concerns raised here.

From what I've gathered people are uneasy with just a 5m buffer. No one has advocated to continue funding the pool after open beta.

Therefore, to clarify things at the same time address the major concern, would eliminating the arbitrary threshold and making it an open pool where we fill it up with all revenue up until open beta. So whatever amount we have filled sits at the safety pool until a future iccp will be passed deciding what to do with it.

Additionally, with an "open" pool, a future iccp can proposed to redirect revenues back into it should, and I quote Mr. @fickle nova "a black swan event happens".

[fathom solstice]

"making it an open pool where we fill it up with all revenue up until open beta" - This I can get behind xD

[fickle nova]

I actually would prefer if we could move the safety pool completely off chain and into fiat USD tbh. As a safety pool it would be completely resistant to market conditions and stablecoin issues, I am not sure if the team have a banking partner or legals involving moving the funds etc but IMO it would be ideal.

[wispy prawn]

how are you gonna explain it to the tax office?

on top of the AML

[fickle nova]

Maybe hold off until the DAO moves 🤣 ✅ I am unsure around Aussie tax/legal structure around a DAO and how they currently handle the funds. From a pure risk management perspective however if it is possible its another W for the DAO having a layer of protection against the unknown, with the correct banking partner of course.

[vast dock]

Danny and Vic would be the right people to answer this if ever hehehe. But in any case, maybe this can be done in future ICCPs. Lets not add more scope hahaha

[fickle nova]

Agreed mate.

[novel condor]

“Let’s not add more scope”

My man starting to sound like a team member hahaha

[vast dock]

I learned from the man himself. @worn verge

[chilly lava]

Bro

[fickle nova]

My opinion mate.

[whole mortar]

This original pool was approved for 15m. With the 10m raise and the pool dropping to a cap of 5m we still have that 15m.
We did not just randomly pick a new numbers. We also had input from the team that they feel very confident in the roadmap and runway.

[white badger]

I missed that you were suggesting a change to this mechanism and suggesting open beta as a cutoff point. Others may have missed this also.

Open beta is not stipulated in the original IIP as the limit for safety pool. That is an arbitrary time and product revenue may not necessarily be stable at that time, nor the pool adequately filled.

I much prefer the original IIP solution that allows future council to assess the situation and release the funds after confirming ecosystem stability rather than some arbitrary development milestone that may not line up economically.

100% of revenue from royalties of Illuvitars and Land will be held in the Safety Pool (IIP-29) up until the maximum quantity denoted in USD outlined in IIP-29, or until authorized for release or use (by future ICCP) by the council. Once the Safety Pool is filled, any future royalties of Illuvitar products and Land will be transferred to the Vault, to be treated as normal revenue and distributed to stakers (ICCP-3).

[vast dock]

Might be a disconnect but this portion is still in effect.

until authorized for release or use (by future ICCP) by the council.

This ICCP is still about just filling the pool. Theres no mention about once its filled, the pool will be emptied out or used right away. A separate ICCP will still need to be approved for any use or disbursement of funds from the Safety Pool.

If this was somehow how people read the ICCP, I apologize. Please point out the confusion and we can address this by introducing clearer language to avoid it.

[echo osprey]

I hope the council will not trust the team blindly. Remember the 3M players announced by mid-2023? Remember the launch in 2021, 2022? Remember IZ is a 4 month dev project?

Find c-level from the corporate world to advise, don't trust the founders.

If you don't want to. Just ask yourselves the question: is there a stable revenue, able to sustain the operations, yet ?

PS: still voting thumb up, the team seems supportive, and I want to get Kieran accountable for once.

[karmic zinc]

I looked through the nearly 200 transactions on the Illuvium treasury wallet involving ILV.

Most of the ILV spent was clearly related to token launch such as the sushi LP and getting listed on CEXs (well over 100,000 ILV). The sushi LP actually seems to have been removed with more ILV than was originally provided, thanks to the trading fees.
There is one wallet that received 15,000 from 2-3 transactions. I suspect that this wallet’s ILV was used over a year or two for a variety of partnerships. But I have not been able to confirm that.

I’ve got a simple google sheet with the transactions. It’s still a WIP and possibly hard to understand my color groupings. But the transactional data is there.

Bottom line is that there is between 2,500-17,500 (due to that 15,000 mentioned above) that could possibly have been spent on unknown things. Most of these are very small amounts of ILV.

While I have not looked through each of the over 3000 ILV transactions in the VESTING address it appears that all of the treasury ILV that was moved there is in fact still there, as noted in the annual burn report. The vesting contract is a bit complicated for me but someone worked it out. #💰〕token message

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aPMYBuotNSrBRWf9NP9b0ImQdHdb4Tp9wGkTnA93cUQ/edit

[vast dock]

Awesome work, Peli. Great use case of blockchain.

[wispy prawn]

wow great work peli. looking forward for more clarity on this. Thanks again

[sterile perch]

Exactly. Nobody knows what's going to happen. Nobody knows if there will be a huge spike in energy costs/inflation, or maybe a lawsuit. Or maybe ILV gets delisted in the US because it's declared a security and the price dumps and therefore the Treasury evaluation.

We could go down to 5 but what if we suddenly need 6? Nobody has a crystal ball 🔮 but I'd rather be on the safe side.

If you fail to prepare you prepare to fail.

[sharp carbon]

I have some questions. Excuse me if they have been asked before.

1. If the safety pool gets used up, will it be paid back in revDis in the future once the games are launched and the project is self-sufficient? Or is the revDis "lost" if the pool gets used?

2. Is the revdis going to be distributed to the current stakers when the open beta is here? Or are there some kind of monthly snapshots to then distribute them to the people who would originally have received them without the pool?

3. Will all revenue be used for the safety pool, including merch, for example?

[wispy prawn]

no.2 is a really good question, the snapshot need to be much more often than monthly

[silver magnet]

I only know #3 for sure, with this ICCP they want to include all future revenue until pool is filled

[fair anchor]

I quote the ICCP third line under Summary:

"With the addition that all current & future revenue shall be diverted to the Safety Pool, in accordance with ICCP-3 (⁠Unknown), until the Safety Pool is filled or Illuvium enters Open Beta whichever comes first. All revenue exceeding the Safety Pool threshold or generated after Open Beta will be directly allocated to Revenue Distribution."

So until 5M$ is reached, ór the Open beta is out. 👍

[sharp carbon]

alright! wasn't sure if merch falls under that, but all is all ^^

[spark furnace]

1. This is a bit of a strange way to think about it, but it would depend on how the Safety Pool was utilized. There are 2 basic options - The Safety Pool can be used to fund development, or it can be used for vault distributions (revdis).

In either case, it's not really getting paid back - It's the DAO's money, and we would have a hard time paying ourselves back. By way of analogy, if you were to put gas in your car to get to work, would you pay yourself back for that gas later? If the Safety Pool were used for development, it's the DAO investing a product that will generate revenue for the DAO, so the pay back would be the revenue from the product. If it were used for vault distributions, it's already being distributed.

2. Yes, once there's revenue, there will be revdis. This proposal specifies that Safety Pool funding ends with the launch of Open Beta, at which point revenue will be going to the vault. There are parameters in place for revdis mechanisms (see IIP-22: https://gov.illuvium.io/#/proposal/0xefc13db07b40b6376aaf89687d2259ed41d45b2b028ae1e191c46b204bb9b07d) - There are no plans to have Snapshots to send future revdis to current stakers. (i.e. Revdis isn't retroactive, the mechanism just goes off who is currently staked, not who was staked at X date 3 months ago)

3. Yes, this proposal utilizes all revenue until Open Beta launch to fund the Safety Pool, up until the $5M cap.

[sharp carbon]

makes sense.

so for point 2 an example: if someone stakes just before open beta launch and then the safety pool will be distributed as rev dis, he will be able to get his share of the full safety pool rev dis?

[silver magnet]

Sounds like it

[eternal sigil]

Don’t think safety pool will be auto released to revdis at open beta, just stop being filled.

[vast dock]

That is correct. It still needs an iccp in the future to decide if team can utilize it for runway (as a last resort maybe?) Or to be transferred to vault for revdis. This iccp does not decide on either option. It's just for filling the pool.

[sharp carbon]

Thanks for answering my question, lads! I'm for it, by the way. I understand why some people say, "The more, the better," but as highlighted by Blickter and Scrubba, 5 million is more than enough already, and there is no real reason to make it bigger at the moment.
I don't mind passing off my revdis either, but I can see big investors wanting it to go back to normal as soon as possible.
Opinions about this matter should be weighed based on how much ILV you actually have staked. It's easy for someone with "10 ILV staked" to say, "Give all revdis to the DAO." If you have 10,000 staked, that story changes.. giving up 50 cents or 500$ 😄

[fickle nova]

Nor should it, I think it should be discussed and funding returned once overheads are covered and the revenue issues a thing of the past. Pool structure should remain IMO.

[white badger]

The bit I dislike most about this proposal is that it limits pool filling to stop at open beta - in theory this could potentially put the DAO with LESS than the total of 15M (10M framework raise + 5M safety pool) which is the number supported by both Council and Team, which actually contradicts the existing safetypool IIP that was already passed.

[wispy prawn]

kieran expect $20m/month revenue

[karmic zinc]

I'd think that if public launch is not able to start moving towards lasting sustainability then a safety pool is not going to fix that and Illuvium will have bigger problems.