Free Market Fuel with Autonomous Supply Balancing

[rotund onyx]

Simple Summary
This document will serve as context for the Fuel economy discussion. An ICCP to Aaron’s order book proposal should be expected at a future date.

Abstract
I propose a predictable and decentralized approach for adjusting Fuel production based on demand, significantly reducing price volatility and therefore the need for rails. Also ensuring content updates are less impactful to the price.
By adopting this refined mechanism, we can foster a more stable Fuel market while allowing market forces to naturally govern price fluctuations. This approach is particularly beneficial for web3 gaming, where community satisfaction is paramount.

TL;DR:
-Build off Aaron’s free market and order book system.
-Each fuel type will function independently
-Production of each fuel type is adjusted in direct correlation with the change in demand on a monthly basis.
-If the demand changed X% for that month, fuel production adjusts to (X/2)% for the following month.
-End user will see less volatile fuel prices.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-kQo31u5ueFB760Ln110Pn6Wa_5vJUKjhtTCn_q5VM/edit

[finite fossil]

This proposal feels

• Complicated
• Crypto focused
• I can't see how to justify for a gamer population

I honestly don't think gamers would like to see fluctuating prices. I can't see how it help adoption to come with complicated mechanics...

Shouldn't we make things easier for PLAYERS adoption and retention ? And by players I mean real people, disconnected from crypto mindset, spending real cash to enjoy a fun game....

I know Illuvium for now is targetting crypto people, but isn't the real target the real players ?

PS: not sure I understand the "order book system"

[storm elk]

Didn't axie try this already? They had free market for SLP. Then they tried manually to increase/decrease supply/issuance. If I remember correctly they were working on an oracle to determine prices, similar to what you're suggesting.

It just didn't work.

[lone valley]

Agree with this. We need to keep things as simple as possible for onboarding new players into our ecosystem. Give them something familiar.

[waxen oasis]

While i do like this proposal and i would like fuel to move freely in value (I haven't read the full description) i do have a major concern - what about fuel storage? will people who don't own land have the ability to play the market? if so how much are they able to store? (as land owners are capped to the storage on their plots)
Long term I think land itself would be of a greater value if only landowners can handle/trade etc fuel

[rotund onyx]

Once Aaron posts his idea this will make more sense.
The order book style is just like a CEX. (I want to sell X Crypton for X price or X crypton for market value).

As for the fluctuating prices that’s where my auto balancing comes into play. It’s keeps the prices much less volatile. In a free market if demand goes up 200% so does the price. In my model 200% demand is close to a 50% price increase.

[rotund onyx]

I do remember Axie talking about implementing something like this. I’m not sure it ever happened.
The big problem with Axie was that they kept manually adjusting prices and the players hated it. They knew having an automatic adjustment that was predictable made more sense.
No one likes to hear an announcement of a price change, that always affects the price in a centralized way.

[finite fossil]

Order book or not, it actually don't matter much to me tbh.

Frankly, don't take it bad, I hope you'll take it as achallenge to improve the proposal, but I'm going to tell you what I would say in a C-level meeting:

This proposal have no "why" this exists, and no objectives you're trying to reach. And make this straighforward, give me a SWOT to explain and justify this whole thing

Because as of now... I only see negatives, and can't understand what's positive...

[rotund onyx]

I feel like mine is the middle ground between what Aaron had and what Vet has.
More stable prices, but still determined by the free market.
Ultimately we are not a web2 game. The web3 concept is still new, I don’t think we’ve had a chance to see if something like this will work or not yet.

[lone valley]

We are not a Web2 game but thats what we are competing with and those are the players we are focused on getting.

[rotund onyx]

I appreciate that.
So the main concern is the fluctuations in price for OW players?
You’d want to understand why this is better than a pegged price?

[faint stag]

couldn't agree more

[rotund onyx]

As a land owner you’d have the option to sell to the free market or send to a wallet.
Once in the wallet it cannot be sold back to the exchange, but it is an erc20 token so system can be built in order to send or trade on a secondary market. Similar to sILV2.
At the start that would likely mean making an LP on layer 1, but this may not even be worth it for most due to gas fees.

[rotund onyx]

Are you familiar with Axie attempting this?

[waxen oasis]

I understand but my main concern is still here - i see fuel as a perk only available to land owners (this is what gives it value imo). If anyone could buy and hold X amounts (and i am capped because of storage which is a downside) then for me the land owners become players that can 'passively' produce some extra tokens per day and that is it.

[rotund onyx]

Land owners are the only people who can produce the fuel. And they can send it directly to their wallet if they would like.

In a scenario where OW player have to use everything they buy ingame then there will be much less demand for the token. They’ll just buy what they need and use it.

[faint stag]

I remember axie changing how much SLP and AXS different in-game actions cost to complete because they had to manually adjust the system

we will have to do the same (which is not free market) and it will lead to the same, Hype, followed by a bubble, followed by a crash... it doesnt have to

[rotund onyx]

Okay so that’s not what he was talking about.
And my model actually works to prevent the need of this.

[faint stag]

your model is constant centralised interference with supply of fuel...

sure its predictable, but its still centralised and still also means that both the secondary market for assets and the market for Fuel are not actually "Free Market"

[rotund onyx]

Is the Bitcoin halving centralized?

No, it’s built into the code. People know it’s coming and act accordingly. Same thing here.

[turbid willow]

While I feel this proposal is ‘better’ than its counterpart, therein lies my main concern with Illuvium these days.

(Sub)councils were either introduced 6 months- 1 year too late or 6 months- 1 year too soon. This whole system is based on the same 20-30 people voting on stuff they literally can’t know anything about (yet). That’s way too many people to be efficient, and way too few to be a revolutionary gamified democracy.

like most things in life, things can’t be bad or good before they are. Team probably simply does know better and we should just let them have the first (and even second) try, so to speak?

To not be a complete hypocrite, I’ll refrain from further voting on any proposals (at least until OB).

[rotund onyx]

Completely understandable.
My proposal is more for context.
Aaron’s updated whitepaper and proposal should be out soon.
Once his is posted you’ll see mine is very similar with a (in my option) better balancing system.

[sharp sundial]

This sounds good in theory but too slow. Demand will come in much bigger and faster waves than this system could keep up with. Even if you dampen the effect, it would still be such a change in pricing, followed by an inevitable crush that we would be giving the skeptics the biggest weapon they can use - "look, this is a pump and dump game, like all others before it". Your model uses 22% as the biggest change from month to month, what about 300%? It would still mean 150% change which would have a horrible effect

[rotund onyx]

If their is too much volatility this model can move to adjust weekly instead of monthly.
This doesn’t scale 1 to 1. Or 1 to 1/2. If the demand goes up 300% the price in my model would be closer to 70% up in price

[rotund onyx]

Go to my proposal and click the link for the full proposal. There are more charts showing bigger changes in demand and how they scale

My model in (2) and Aaron’s is (1)

[sharp sundial]

Your model is certainly an improvement over a completely free market (which would just straight up destroy the game) but I feel the swings would still be too big. Every crypto game that was played by a lot of players (still smaller numbers than what we hope for) had an explosion like period of growth, driving prices to stupid heights which is inevitably followed by a crash. This would have many players see their game investment lose so much value that they would lose a lot of money and we end up in the same situation where the reputation of the game would go down the drain

[rotund onyx]

I see where you’re coming from. My idea behind this was to build off a free market model that Aaron had, but have a mechanism to keep volatility to a minimum. I do agree that markets will drive prices too high than crash down. I’m trying to counteract that problem with a free market model

[reef orchid]

Both models without rails right?

[untold spade]

The critical goal of automatic balancing needs to be mitigating severe price fluctuation 99% of the time. I think a shorter balancing time frame could do that. Alternatively, I think rails to handle short term fluctuation, and production balancing based on demand to handle long term trends in consumption is a very solid way to handle fuel.

We've often discussed upwards and downwards rails ( +/- 25% for example).

What if we just implemented an upper rail to ensure the price doesn't rise above a threshold. This limits our risk of having unreasonable prices during periods of extreme activity, such as game launches and marketing campaigns. An upper rail can be established by having the DAO mint fuel in excess of the 19:1 ratio, and any imbalance in revenue can be distributed to landowners directly.

A lower rail doesn't need to exist. During periods of low activity, fuel prices can decrease and the slack can be picked up by automatic production balancing over a longer time period.

Thoughts @rotund onyx ? I believe we discussed a solution like this quite a few months ago.

[rotund onyx]

Both will have rails, but I would propose those rails are set very high. Even Aaron says they should be higher and in a best case scenario they never get hit. It was take an exponential amount of demand to hit rails in my model vs his

[reef orchid]

yes so your table shows massive changes, while those will be undercut by the potential rails system that was said to be at 25%+-

So an 892% increase in fuel prices is rather unlikely no? Or will the rails change every month 😄

[rotund onyx]

I agree here for the most part. I propose monthly adjustments, but we could decide of more frequent adjustments (maybe weekly)
As for the 25% rails I think even if you talk to Aaron he would suggest much much higher than thats.
I do think rails could be used as a backstop, but set high. And my model vs Aarons requires a lot more demand to hit rails set at the same level.

As for a lower rails, to me its not that they don’t need to exist, they just can’t exist. Can’t make money out of this air and we don’t want to take from the DAO

[rotund onyx]

Aaron hasn’t gave details on his idea of rails. How I would do it would firstly be setting the rails much higher. Maybe 200%, but also have it reset each month. So its not 200% from the open beta launch price, its 200% from the start of that month. …. Or maybe 200% from a rolling 30 day average

As demand goes up the rails would creep up as well, but they would be there to prevent very short term price movements

[untold spade]

Agree that lower rails probably shouldn't exist - there is no practical reason to insulate land owners from downward changes in revenue. It'll feel the same as it will for ILV holders, both demographics get a portion of revenue, and when that goes down, people get less (as reflected by fuel prices decreasing)

I guess my main point is that automatic production balancing is a retroactive adjustment - any damage done is unmitigated until the balancing period concludes. This is the strength of rails, particularly since an upper rail is pretty straightforward to implement conceptually. It's active mitigation against extreme scenarios, not retroactive. To be clear, an upper rail should still be paired with automatic production balancing over a longer time frame (whether that is 1 week, 2 weeks, monthly etc)

[rotund onyx]

Agreed.
And yes I do realize my model would make changes retroactively, but I wanted to still give freedom to the free market to determine the price. I also knew Aaron would be fighting for a free market and thought this would a better option than implementing “content updates”

[untold spade]

I do think a 200% rail doesn't even matter, a tripling in price over a short time period is (IMO) an unmitigated disaster.

What is the argument in favor of very high rails from a consumer standpoint?

[rotund onyx]

I think rails should be a last resort and ideally never get hit. I’d rather make the adjustments in my model more frequently to keep volatility down.

I see rails as a black swan event type thing. Have them there, but make a model that should rarely if ever touch it

Or I guess White swan

There were I believe 2 months July and August 2021 where Axie saw exponential growth with demand far exceeded 200% so I do thing 200% could be touched in the heat of a bull market.

[untold spade]

Agreed, a perfect balancing model doesn't require rails, but if we underestimate demand or our balancing lags behind reality, it's important to consider the affected demographics.

We will likely only see extreme upward price movement when Illuvium is on-boarding many players, whether this be for patches, launches, tournaments or events. In other words, at precisely the times we want to have our products making the best impression possible.

This is why I think a low-ish rail is critical as a backstop for automatic balancing. I appreciate the conversation around this!

[rotund onyx]

Of course.
And I don’t disagree. The good thing is that rails don’t have to be determined right now.
We could expand rails over time as prices stabilize.
Start at 25% and work out way up until they’re not needed anymore.

[copper ember]

The images in the google docs don’t load well for me (maybe it’s a mobile problem). I appreciate the image you shared in here.

[rotund onyx]

Oh no. yeah maybe a mobile thing. Theres one other chart I could through in here too

[copper ember]

If you Do it and Ping me. I’ll pin it.

[rotund onyx]

So this is a chart showing a more realistic model fluctuating up and down through a year. First column Aaron, middle is mine, third column is fixed prices (similar to Vet’s)

@copper ember Thanks!

[copper ember]

I’ve got a bias against less/wider/removed rails. So I’ve got to read more and check myself before comments.

[rotund onyx]

Let me know if you have any questions. I know I struggle sometimes to explain what’s going on in my head haha

[copper ember]

Will do. I’m on vacation and have a bit to read through for sure. Could take some days. Hopefully not too late.

[fathom juniper]

I think this builds more on were I'm leaning towards to and i'm glad you came around and saw that the rails might not be as bad because they don't have to be rigid as you first thought. A lot of central banks base their exchange rate monetary policy with rails, they are not Absolut and rigid but is more like a goal that you steer towards to with the tools you have, that is the control of the supply of money (in this case fuel). give it a thumbs down because I still find Aaron's one a better but I can get behind this with more research on my part and more in depth analysis. Good job 👍

[rotund onyx]

I appreciate the comment. Too be fair I want to avoid hitting rails entirely, but in a free market model I’m not against having them set as a last resort.

[vague bridge]

I have a few points for clarification and I hope you can shed more light on this:

-Supply Adjustments: Production of each Fuel type is adjusted in direct correlation with the change in demand from the previous month. If the demand changed X% for that month, fuel production adjusts to (X/2)% for the following month.

What is the rationale behind halving the percentage increase from previous month for purposes of increasing or decreasing the supply/production?

From the looks of things, you are not addressing the issue that demand outweighed supply which only leads to artificial tweaking but maintains that scarcity leading to higher pricing still.

Community-Friendly Approach: Decentralized and market-driven method vs content updates

Content updates are important levers to pull for player retention over longer periods of time. You want players to have more reasons to keep on playing. In addition, I dont believe this mechanism is community-friendly nor decentralized. Your mechanism force resets the market driven price rather than promotes it. Lastly, it opens up to abuse from land owners. Will go in detail below

• Predictable Nature: Land owners can proactively plan for monthly adjustments as they are front selling these changes, further contributing to price stability.

Predictable means this is solvable and can be abused. Land owners can predict the average price within X days of the month and can dictate prices the rest of the month to try to keep prices within an acceptable range landowners want for next month's prices. Not what fuel users/market wants. This also means that landowners can perpetually push up the price even if demands goes down eventually pricing out a lot of the gamer market.

Its way easier for the prices to keep going up with this system than it is to actually lower the prices. This system seems to give too much agency to landowners. It also does not account for the eventually of next land sales as the mechanism increases or decreases supply based on demand that month.

At this juncture, selling lands to address lack of supply makes more sense and having rails is more reflective of a decentralized and market driven economy than a mechanism that keeps pushing prices up.

[rotund onyx]

1. If the supply adjustments were 1 to 1 with demand on average they would cancel each other out and lead to a price stay very stable and close to the price of the original month. Talking half is in the middle of a fixed price (Vet's model) and a fixed supply (Aaron's model - content updates). I wanted the land owners to still have an influence over the price in a free market, but keep it less volatile. This is a number that could be changed, to make it more stable we adjust production closer to 1 to 1, to make it less stable we adjust closer to 0.
   I understand the demand can still outweigh supply and that is intentional. I want the free market to determine the price, this solution just reduces that volatility.

2. Content updates can still occur, including additional land sales. This model scales with that.
   But this model is designed to make content updates that influence supply less impactful.
   The reason I call this community friendly is that is it changes to supply on a regular basis and its very predictable. When these changes are determined by the DAO and announced to the public, it always leads to problems and complaining. A content update that increased fuel production is going to piss off the people who have been holding, a content update that decreases production or increases demand is going to piss off the people who recently sold. Make these changes in a predictable way and its on the player to make their own decision unaffected by centralized forces.

[rotund onyx]

3. Predictable means that if I see demand going up I know the supply will increase next month. Vs I see the demand going up and wondering if I'm going to see an announcement in the discord that a "content update" will increase supply.

I completely disagree that this is an easier way for prices to keep going up. I assume you're comparing this to a Aaron's fixed production free market model. If demand goes up in Aaron's model the price goes up 1 to 1. If demand goes up in my model, fuel production also goes up. Increasing the supply with the same demand means lower prices vs Aaron's.

Again this does accont for future land sales because its scalable. New land sale happen and those new lands start producing more fuel which increases the supply and lowers the price. This means in the following month all land decreases in efficiency lowering supply. Lower the supply across the board to absorb the new land supply, this keeps prices more stable.

I don't blame you for not understanding my proposal (assuming you read it), it's on me for not explaining it well enough. But it is clear you don't fully understand how this model works.
It's simple supply and demand and I know you know this. Increase supply when demand increases leads to more stables prices. Decrease supply when demand decreases leads to more stable prices.

[vague bridge]

I don't appreciate the condescending comment while I do appreciate your attempt to justify your proposal. The whole point of posting proposals is to get things clarified.

You predicate your argument that just by increasing the fuel supply you are decreasing volatility but you failed to take into account that your increase in supply comes from where? The dao? If so how are land holders getting the 5% of those increased supply. From the production level of the land? Then you're making arbitrary tweaks. And end of the day these same landowners dictate the price. They can keep pushing it to a range they want after solving the predictable model of yours.

[rotund onyx]

I don't see this as condescending. I acknowledged that you are smart and it was my fault for not explaining it well enough in my proposal.

I didn't fail to take that into consideration. The additional supply comes from the production on the land. Land owners will always get their 5% because when they sell the DAO mints 19 to 1.
I wouldn't consider this arbitrary tweaks as I took the exact middle of a fixed pricing model and a fixed supply model. Although I will say this number can be adjusted based on how much volatility we want to allow in the market and the DAO or an ICCP can adjust that. What's most important is that the players know this so they know how their production will be adjusted going into the next month.

This proposal is to reduce volatility vs a fixed supply model. I recognize land owners can push to a range they want, but they can more easily and quickly push to that range in a fixed supply model.
If they want to push from 5$ to 10$ in my model they will have to fight the increase in supply each month. If a fixed supply model its much easier.

[vague bridge]

Understood. Are you looking to introduce rails in your proposal if ever? I know you addressed this in other threads but not sure what your specific answer was.

[rotund onyx]

Yes, but I do believe they should be set high so that they're only there as a backstop in very rare situations. I would also set the rails as a % change vs a rolling 30 day average. I did not include this in my proposal, but Aaron has convinced me that rails can be set to a point as a backstop and in most cases never be hit.

[copper ember]

I’m not gonna be taking the time to make a fully informed decision here. Not yet. Not yet, because I think it’s too soon to be able to do so. I believe the fuel markets will need to perform with training wheels before we can automate them. I suspect there really is a valuable idea here. But I feel like it’s too soon to decide whether or not to implement it.

[rotund onyx]

The automated adjustments are training wheels tho. And I think they're better training wheels that rails.
But I respect your decision.
Still plenty of time though. Aaron's needs to get passed and then this will be cleaned up and presented again as an ICCP

[mint fiber]

Hi @rotund onyx

I posted this a while back, but I think it is still relevant in this context:

If in the real world oil production facilities see an increase in demand and price, they would start investing in better and new facilities to extract and sell more oil (as long as there is no monopoly).

We could give land owners the same ability e.g. they could buy monthly booster packs from the DAO with ETH or buy new resources for their land. By how much the DAO charges for the booster packs it can influence the amount of fuel produced by land owners and therefore the price for fuel on the market.

Higher fuel prices mean less players, but with higher earnings per player and vice versa. I guess the DAO will need such or a similar mechanism in order to control the "heat" of the economy without micro managing it.

Because in the beginning we probably don't want too many players, who bring in only small amounts of money, but cause lots of support overhead. We also don't want 100 million players in the first month, just because there is easy money on the table. Axie Infinity experienced such an overheated economy, which will inevitably fall down hard quickly and leave a bad taste.

I would rather err on the high side - like in a reverse auction - and wait and see how many players find the price attractive. It is easier to lower prices than to raise them.

Ideally we could increase the player base in a controlled fashion by lowering fuel cost slowly. Lower prices down the road might also make sense, just because the chance of finding Illuvials also decreases with time.

PS: I also think we should separate Web3 fluctuating prices from Web2 friendly fixed prices and have both at the same time. Please see here: #1138461435995901995 message

[faint stag]

imo this proposal is not necessary at all

the main argument stated for this proposal is reduction of volatility

with aarons order book proposal volatility will not be a massive concern anyway

so why build a bloated extension that provides limited value and adds different issues (such as potentially increasing volatility in the short term lol)

How your system could increase volatility?

Lets say over the last month the price of Fuel has increased by 100% (totally possible within ur system especially early on during price discovery)

your system will then increase the rate of production by 50%, supply will increase by 50% almost immediately therefore....

there is limited storage before u become a forced seller and the increased production floods supply

then supply will increase by 50% within however long storage lasts at most (best case scenario)

also as its an increase in production that means price has been increasing the previous month and IZ players have been expecting the increase in production which will devalue their fuel so they have not been storing any fuel but selling at the higher prices that exist before the adjustment...

Then the moment you adjust production by 50% you have a volatile market change caused by your systems existence...

👆 this is just one example of how your proposal leads to increased volatility in price when its only supposed positive is reducing volatility (which is anyways not a real issue)

[rotund onyx]

False.

Let's take your example of 100% increase in demand month over month, this could mean price went from 1$ to 2$. At the start of the next month production would increase by 50% (Not supply). Each day there will be a little more fuel hitting the market and through the month the cost of 2$ will trend back towards 1.50$ (assuming demand is unchanged).

Without my model that next month would stay at 2$, with my model it would trend back to 1.50$. For someone who wants accessible prices its mind boggling that you say my model is bad.

It's also important to understand that over time prices will settle in and become more stable and these demand and price swings may only be 5 or 10%.

The fact that the supply adjustments are predictable does mean players can front run the changes, but this leads to even more price stability. In the case where fuel goes from 1 to 2$ players will sell more towards the end of the month to bring the price from 2$ back down.

My model decreases volatility. You're analysis is flawed.

[faint stag]

if demand stays the same and supply increases by 50% at the same time, then price would move very fast and not just trend towards your intended target

thats not how economics works

if your change was gradual sure, but its instant

I understand that you are making a distinction between supply and rate of production, but I also made that distinction and I explained why a 50% increase in rate of production would lead to an immediate 50% increase in supply (which you totally ignored and just responded with "no it would be gradual" without any reason why it would be gradual)

this system is okay and works if there isn't much volatility in the first place, but then do we really need it if there isn't much volatility?

and even if things settle down, volatility will always come if this game is alive, during a new set we would see volatility, during an event, new marketing, etc.

also this whole predictable thing is a complete sham, sure its predictable for anyone thats been playing for a while, but anyone new comes in will be confused and now needs to learn how a self balancing economic system works, why are we adding additional friction and confusion to our already complex economy for a system that barely provides any value at all? its just not worth it whatsoever, I dont see how u justify it

[faint stag]

• You call my analysis flawed,
• Say that the change would create gradual results and not volatiles ones,
• You give zero explanation why it would be gradual even though I have provided a full explanation of why it would be volatile

and then you're confused why I dont agree with your proposal when you cant even explain how it decreases volatility when logically it would increase it (as I actually explained in depth)

[rotund onyx]

Increase in rate of production does not equal supply.
Storage would scale as well. 50% increase in production would mean 50% increase in storage capacity.

In that same scenario going from 1$ to 2$ and then increasing the production by 50%. Yes it would put downward pressure on the price. Which is what it is there for. My model wants to keep prices more stable over longer periods.

The other alternative is to have a content update to increase production which will result in an announcement on discord and not be predictable. This would be much more volatile.

If a new month starts at 2$ and land owners are producing more fuel do you think they’ll list their fuel at 1$ or closer to 1.99$? Anyone who lists there fuel way under market value will be losing money. It will trend down. 1.99 1.98 …

I will provide a chart of what it might look like. First column is without production adjustments, second column is with the adjustments.

You want more stable and accessible prices right?

[faint stag]

not if "content updates" are only made because we're hitting the top of a rail for a while

it wouldn't be an issue for the players of the game at all especially with seatins bonus idea (which cannot be implemented without a rail)

and if we have rails, we could still have your system as well, but why? there wouldnt be a problem for your system to solve

and your system without rails is objectively less user friendly and engaging than a rail with seatins bonus UI interface for buying fuel

you also keep saying "you want more stable and accessible prices" but I already have that with seatins UI + a rail and it also comes with being user friendly and reducing of friction, so why do I need your bloatware system that takes an extra month or more to build if it just makes the game worse? the answer is I dont need your system, the game doesnt need it, its just a bad idea (even if it does what you claim it would accomplish)

[rotund onyx]

The problem my system solves is the need for rails.

Rails are fundamentally bad and oppose the idea of a free market.
Rails means that the council gets to decide how much your fuel is worth with no respect to demand.

As I keep saying my model is a solution to keep prices more stable without the need for rails.

Decentralized > Centralized

[faint stag]

Rails are fundamentally great and guarantee that our game remains permanently accessible (which we need if we want to be able to absorb unlimited demand, if prices become innaccessible with too much demand then we are turning players away at the door and they will not come back later for lower prices because they are gamers and not traders)

neither rails or your idea is truly free market since both will have occasional periodic adjustments in supply of fuel, so stop it with that fake argument

rails dont mean that the council or team decide how much IZ owners earn (as you want people to believe) it just means that more fuel will be produced if were hitting the rails to keep up with increased demand and IZ owners will earn more with more demand...

land owners will always get the full 5% of fuel revenue, even though you got elected because you made a video scaring land owners that if they dont vote for you then rails will be implemented which will steal from IZ owners 5% which is a complete LIE, thats not how rails work...

I do not want the possibility to exist that someone enters our ecosystem and cannot play just because we didnt put in any rails to guarantee accessibility

I want to guarantee accessibility for new players, decrease friction for them and make their onboarding as smooth as possible whilst working to retain them

you want to guarantee crypto people a so called "Free Market" with no consideration to how it affects player experience

[rotund onyx]

So you’re saying we hit the rails and then increase production. I’m saying we proactively increase production so we don’t need to rely on rails.

Rails do mean the council picks a price. If you set a rail at 2$ then land owner essentially become forces sellers. Even if the demand comminuted to rise there’s no reason to hold your fuel when it’s already at max value (decided by the council)
Then you start to run out of fuel and have to increase the production.

Why limit what land owner can earn and be reactive with increasing production when you can be proactive about it and let land owners sell at whatever prices they choose.

[faint stag]

your system doesnt guarantee that prices always remain accessible

your system isnt user friendly (and without rails prevents Seatins genius bonus pricing UI idea from happening)

your system is confusing and convoluted

your system requires extra work

your system is just objectively worse than a system with a rail and with seatins idea implemented which does guarantee accessible prices, which is user friendly, which isnt confusing or convoluted, which doesnt require any extra work

and for the last time, RAILS DO NOT LIMIT WHAT LAND OWNERS CAN EARN, STOP LYING!

Land Owners can still sell at whatever prices they want, prices will rarely hit the rail (which is the only time their choices are limited) and supply will then be adjusted which resumes their freedom to choose at what prices to sell (and they will make more money if the system is user friendly and accessible as well...)

Stop misrepresenting rails to make your idea more appealing and realise that your idea does nothing to make this game or its ecosystem more fun, enjoyable and engaging for players... and what were building here ser is a Game first and foremost,

if you want to go and over-financialise some other Web3 game that wants to remain niche, high in friction and enjoys over financialization mechanics for no reason, then go right ahead...

Illuvium is the future of Gaming and will bring the experience of in-game asset ownership to the masses!
(and it cant do that without being accessible, easy to enter, easy to understand and low in friction)

https://tenor.com/view/mic-drop-zinger-zing-gif-21126731

[rotund onyx]

It's not that confusion. It's actually quite simple. Despite the fact it confuses you I don't think most will have a problem with it.

Don't accuse me of being a liar. If you set a rail at 2$ and we have buyers willing to pay 2.10$, but your rail only allows me to sell at 2$, then yes I lose the difference. It's a simple concept.
*5% of 2.10$ is more than 5% of 2$

I do believe Illuvium is the future of gaming and being innovative will what sets us apart.

This is a web3 game, you should embrace it instead of constantly trying to make it web2

[faint stag]

we both know im not trying to make it web2, I'm trying to make it a good game.

if you actually played video games that didnt make you money you might know what that is

[sharp thistle]

Man, this is the best given that put this automatically adjusted predicatable system there. I can't find a second better one than yours. Salute! Really talented proposal! I don't want to jump into the BS conflict, as a trader, supporter of WEB3, a long-term investor (ILV holders, landowner), I would appreciated it for your great contribution! This proposal is very important as to make illuvium successful or totally failed. Wish Aaron can get some update or some incoporation of your design/proposal.