Simplified Fuel Proposal

[solar nebula]

Full Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mxmpqi8eYNWITpOwFpYv3LAnwts5-M0hmH08OBaYmJo/edit?usp=sharing

The aim of this proposal is to maximise the Long-Term Revenue of ILV Stakers and Zero Owners.
This is done by removing friction for OW players and making their experience less confusing and more engaging as OW players are the primary source of revenue for IZ Owners until additional games are added to our ecosystem.

This proposal is will take less time and resources to develop than any other.
It simultaniously simplifies how Fuel works and creates a lot of oppertunities for better ways to create monetisation loops (e.g. Battle Pass)

Please read the proposal before responding
I look forward to the discussions

We will also be discussing this proposal and the others in a Town Hall in 2 days

https://discord.com/events/760344898200666112/1136620072455110708

[rustic shadow]

The only web3 example you provide in the proposal is GU. They sell packs(think of runs in our case) for GODS tokens(think of fuel in this case). And players can earn GODS tokens by playing the game(think of playing land). The GODS token price varies. This seems contrary to your proposal and you present it as an example that supports it. It is misleading as people who are not familiar with the system can feel like this is a practice in web3.

[solar nebula]

agree, will remove that example, someone in council suggested I add it to have a web3 example and I added it without myself being familiar with GU, thanks for pointing that out Ned

[wise crescent]

Fully support this idea. Great work vet 👍

[pure trail]

I think this is the best way to move forward with Fuel in order to ease the experience for onboarding new players and keep systems that players are familiar with.

[fallen slate]

I think it's great to take example on what successfully worked in the gaming history to replicate it in our ecosystem. It seems like a reliable and solid way to move forward and will make the job of the marketing team easier.

[wise crescent]

Will @cedar belfry be joining us for this town hall?

[solar nebula]

Yes!
Aaron will explain his proposal, as will Nijafe, as will I
we will all discuss and open up for questions also

[wise crescent]

Awesome

[gray rune]

I don't like the idea of the 'Seasonal Pass'. Honestly it's just something every other game today has and i don't see it bringing too much value for Illuvium (making it a subscription based model) especially because land owners wouldn't be able to produce fuel but 'artificial fuel' instead which changes my concept of a land owner and the perks of being one (i might have to read this again) but the full proposal doesn't seem that simple to me (with the introduction of the Deposit Box and all)

[solar nebula]

Battle Pass is not part of this proposal, neither is the Promotional Offers (both are just written as possible options that can be considered in future, they are not actually core parts of this proposal, Fuel not fluctuating is the core)

[gray rune]

Yes okay but if this system leads to that then i can't support it as it's something i wouldn't want ILZ to become

[sudden zephyr]

The biggest problem I have here is that this model shuns land owners from the ecosystem.
Yes they make 5% of in-game purchases, but whether they hold, sell, or even not play the ecosystem is unaffected.
Land was designed to be the “backbone” of the Illuvium ecosystem. Why would we remove the core idea behind the land?

[gray rune]

I agree with this... As the proposal states if i don't play i don't earn.. okay i understand that if i don't play and produce fuel i don't have anything to earn extra but what about the 5% that should go to land owners. I don't want to see it as a job honestly. What if I am missing for 5 days? Or 15 days in a month ? would i get some revenue? how much

[slim veldt]

I tweeted an extreme idea the other day saying the team should just disconnect the "land owner investor" and the "land gamer". By just staking the land to get a % of the revdis. It's easy, work easier for land owner revenues.

Of course it then do not gamified the land ownership process. And do not go into gamified stacking mindset.

I was going that way to simplify the naratives and allow the team to not have anymore restriction for player related to investors.

This proposal is less extreme. And it explain well what it's trying to achieve. The whole beginning is making things clear, it's to bring player into a known environnment, to help them feel "confortable" withtout crazy new mechanics. And I think that's what the space miss today: people not trying to re-invent the wheel and build on proven mechanics. People building for mass-adoption will think differently than people building for crypto.

That said, and prices aside as you explain. To me, this proposal seems to achieve the objective of hepling adoption of players.

[sudden zephyr]

It takes out the meta-game which I believe most land owners appreciate.

And for those who don’t what’s stopping you from selling land and buying ILV to stake. You can make your passive income that way.

[slim veldt]

Honestly, as land owner, I don't want the gamified stuff. I bought land to get a share of the revenues.

Would I be happy to play a RTS, damn yeah. Would I be happy if IZ become an end-less city builder, yes.

But no, I don't feel the need of my land having to be a gamified-staking-experience.

Again, it's a whole personnal opinion, and you'll have a whole rainbow of opinions coming from land owners.

That said, land should be regarded a 1% of the decision impact. The game should be 99% of the decision impact. So my land owner opinion on a game mechanics shouldn't be seen as important.

[solar nebula]

this is no different than it is with fluctuating fuel

if you dont play you dont earn in exactly the same way in both scenarios

I am not removing the 5% ever, if you dont play to get a piece of the 5% then your piece goes to those that are playing, if you come back in 15 days then u can start receiving your piece again

it is no difference for land owners, the only difference is that land owners will not be able to choose the prices they sell at, nothing else changes in the land experience

as a Land Owner personally I prefer to earn more revenue rather than the ability to choose at what prices to sell but earning less revenue because OW players have a worse experience

[solar nebula]

There is still a Meta Game in my proposal

deciding when to put "artificial fuel" in the "deposit box" based on seasons, time of day etc. is still a meta game, the difference is that the Meta-Game now is IZ players vs other IZ players and affect players in other games

[sudden zephyr]

Land owners spent 72 million on Illuvium. You think they only deserve 1% of the consideration?

[slim veldt]

Yes I do, and I spent a shitload of money on lands, still own it, and have big expectation.

Lands shouldn't impact game decision and trajectory

[gray rune]

On the contrary i think it should value way more than that 1%. Land owners have been hit the hardest imo since the auction took place (price drop, delays, no utility etc etc). Now is the moment to really see the trust showed in the project by investing X amount of money and having it sit there for about 1.5 years doing nothing

[solar nebula]

it doesnt benefit Land Owners financially if they are able to affect the ecosystem.

Why would we want an Axie-like fluctuating token system to be at the backbone of our entire ecosystem over a safe, stable, easy to understand solution that puts us in the best position for mass adoption?

Maybe we just disagree, but I believe that Land Owners (incl. myself) prefer higher revenue over the ability to sell Fuel and affect different games than the ones they are playing on

[slim veldt]

Land won't bring money.

Game will.

You want money ? Take decision for the gamers, not the land owners.

[gray rune]

Well .. let's agree to disagree on this one

[solar nebula]

ILV holders also spent millions and also deserve no consideration as far as making the game as engaging as possible

Investors are not important, Engaging new players is important, doesnt matter how investors feel, what matters is us making as much money for our investors

ILV owners and Land Owners are both investors, Land also comes with being a game, but the ability to affect the other games is not a priority, making as much money for everyone is the priority

[solar nebula]

you prefer to make less money from land but have your land game be somewhat more enjoyable?

[wise crescent]

As a land owner I fully support simplifying fuel for OW players. Even at the expense of my own experience on IZ (though I don't see this proposal as a negative personally. Just different).

[slim veldt]

Let's park the land owner discussion, anyway it don't matter much as the share for land owner remain the same anyway whatever the decision: 5% .

I'd say making a fun game is the priority lol (got you on this one)

And fluctuating prices in the game isn't making anything fun to any player.

[bleak storm]

No the 5% was only ever in relation to fuel production. The value of the fuel was in the hand of the land owner when they sold it individually. With this proposal there is no strategy in that. In this system when you produce fuel, after upgrades, you will always sell it right away. The old idea left the door open to holding and waiting for higher priced fuel to make more money.

[thorny cypress]

Fluctuating fuel prices and timing that market was one of the things I am/was looking forward to the most. Brings me back to oldschool rs grand exchange action. This proposal (like most other game influencing proposals from council(s) so far tbch) does not sit very well with me. Again just my opinion ofc..

[gray rune]

Less.. or more.. depending on the market

Yes it might be a gamble but it's part of the game and i do like that

[pure trail]

Land owners make money from people playing the Overworld/Arena loop. You holding onto fuel and timing the market is an insignificant drop in the bucket in terms of your profit compared to making sure as many people as possible play the real game

[thorny cypress]

It's not all about the money though...

[slim veldt]

And without player playing and paying, land owner can just get nothing 🤣

[sudden zephyr]

None of these model change what land owners get a share of. It’s 5%

What is does mean is those who are better at the game have an opportunity to make more. Skill is a factor.

[slim veldt]

Well what it means is that with more people spending, your 5% will get you more as land owner.

So what matters, is to get more players. It’s all that matters. And I feel this proposal is expanding the reach of new players.

I prefer to have my simplified 0,1% share of 5% on 100 000 000 $ revenues

Rather than 0,2% of 5% on 10 000 000 $ revenues

[bleak storm]

Is there any data @solar nebula that shows an open market system vs your idea will have a devastating change in revenue?

[gray rune]

Why do you think this system will bring 10x more players/revenue vs the other?

[pliant spear]

I can see some pros in this proposal but i am overall against this change.

Separating ILZ from the rest of the ecosystem, at least to an extent is a big negative for me and goes against Illuvium interoperability model as a whole.

How i see it, and as a player i love the part about 'farming' my fuel and directly selling it and being the backbone of the huge ecosystem.

Web3 land buyers are certainly familiar with dynamic price and i believe that market aspect is important to them.

For our mainly web2 aimed audience of OW gamers im not convinced they are that scared of dynamic prize, honestly i think for a lot of them the fact that fuel fluctuate in price is a cool additional aspect of the game and it makes them connect to both the 2 other games.

[pure trail]

This in no way separates ILZ from the ecosystem and does not go against interoperability.

[sudden zephyr]

This assumes a fixed price will bring it more revenue. But we don’t know that.
Not saying your wrong, but we don’t know this to be fact.

[warm hornet]

I am definitely more in favor of a stable fuel price - when i get my paycheck i want to know if i put "x" aside for spending on illuvium i know how many runs i'll get. I don't think i'd enjoy waiting to play the game, logging on that day and going "oh damn the price of fuel is high today so i'm just not going to spend/play"

[solar nebula]

in this idea you can also hold and wait, that hasnt changed, maybe u think January will be a low month so you stock up as much as possible and only add to deposit box what you cant store and then February way more demand for fuel comes and you put everything you are storing into your deposit box and soak up loads more revenue...

The meta-game is still there, it just doesnt affect OW player experience, its still a skill end game for IZ, its just contained...

[sudden zephyr]

Did you change fuel storage capacity in this proposal? What happens when you max them out? Forced seller?

Does your deposit box have a limit?

[solar nebula]

There is solid data that suggests my proposal will work and will be successful with gamers. e.g. pretty much any successful game that sells in-game currency... I don't think anyone is even arguing that it wouldn't be...

There is no data to suggest that fluctuating fuel prices that are affected by IZ players would be successful, in part because this exact system has never been done before, there are some systems that are analagous in web3 which are generally negative examples, EVE online is an example of a successful web2 game that has fluctuating in-game currency prices and players can both buy and sell it, but imo this is not a direct comparison as in both Nijafe and Aarons proposals (although not explicitly stated) Fuel can only be sold by Land Owners and only the Fuel they Produce, anyone can Buy Fuel, but then they cannot sell it, this is to prevent Fuel from being traded and is why IZ has limited storage so that even land owners become forced sellers after a while, no one will be able to hoard fuel or dump it at once on the market...

Overall my proposal is less risky and more of a sure thing, not to mention easier to implement

Fluctuating Fuel is an inherent risk at the core of our ecosystem, we already are a risky enough project as is imo and would rather eliminate this added risk as I do not see the upside that it brings in echange for that additional risk

[solar nebula]

deposit box has no limit, but once u put something there it only lasts 30 days and u cant take it out

[solar nebula]

the storage in the game, the normal storage is no different than it would be anyway, so the gameplay is essentially the same either way

[sudden zephyr]

You mentioned storing up fuel on a down month to use on a good month.
I can’t imagine ingame storage allows for over a months worth on fuel production.

[bleak storm]

It has been done, in every item of every AH of any MMO with an open market system. Without an introduction of any extreme economy changing event, what happens is the price starts high then stabalizes over time with a few people who undercut to sell faster but overall price maintains.

[solar nebula]

probably not, but then you're almost always a forced seller in youyr system as well

in fact the meta-game strat is probably to have little to no storage, just maximise production and sell fuel at whatever price it is in either scenario... so long-term the so called "meta-game" that you're fighting for will just become a pointless solved game and I personally would prefer to not have to engage with it anyways

[strong shale]

Wanted to show my support for this, I think it's well thought out and caters to an essential need we must have for mass adoption Set & Stable Prices For Overworld Entry That We Can Adjust Accordingly To Market Data + Demand, if you go full free market fuel you have scenarios like Axie where the economy coils up to an unaffordable entry cost and then completely implodes leaving everyone giga rekt.

This proposal itself would be a colossal win for Land Holders, likely providing significantly more long term revenue while providing more price stability to actual players being able to reliably run Overworld and keeping the overall dynamic between the two healthy and sustainable.

There is still a HUGE level of meta-game and strategy to play that has and will always be played across the entire ecosystem. I want to highlight that for financial bro PVP we have:

• Illuvitars + Accessories
• Land Price Itself
• Blueprints
• Illuvial Skins
• Weapons + Armor
• High Tier Augments
• ILV Token Price
• An entire Emote Economy
• Battleboard Skins
• Ranger Skins & M0Zart Comsetics
• The Entire Illuvial Economy
• The Entire Holo Illuvial Economy
• The Entire Dark Holo Illuvial Economy

The amount of theory crafting & strategy when you see that your land is bringing in ATH Revenue from your split of the Fuel Distribution will be absolutely nuts across the entire ecosystem. The external endgame meta for financial speculators is absolutely nuts if that is your core focus. Overworld runs at all time high? Well next people are going to want an ingame PFP for PVP, a sick Battleboard and high tier Augments etc (Random example).

Illuvium economy has the potential to absolutely thrive like nothing we've ever seen before in the Web3 Space if we have 1) Accessbility For All 2) Infinite Depth For Whales - This proposal heavily supports 1 by having fixed price points that we can control and sharing all the upside directly with Land holders that continue to play and work their land while still preserving and injecting huge liquidity into the entire secondary ecosystem.

[solar nebula]

and that is exactly how our secondary market will work

in MMOs generally in-game coin cant be bought for real money (not legally anyways) so the example is different imo

[strong shale]

^ I want to amplify this by saying me & Vetemor often differ on our approach to things and I've disagreed with a lot of his proposals in the past, but I think this one is actually solid, I suggest anyone who rushed to dislike this take a day or two to think about the long term implications of this. There will be a boatload of strategy and speculation that still exists in the ecosystem around thousands more assets.

[solar nebula]

means a lot ser, well said

[sudden zephyr]

In my model each fuel type is an erc20 and can be sent you an wallet. No forced selling.

[vernal grove]

I would ask you and everyone else to wait for the proposal Aaron and the team have for this mechanic to consider the options. I'll have an ICCP as well following.

[gritty orbit]

I don't really know much about all the maths.
I am a little concerned this proposal is similar to the beyond pricing.
I would rather read or hear all proposals at once.
I'm also not entirely convinced the DAO should have a heavy hand in the backend of tokenomics.
I'd prefer core team members to offer different options. Or go through the motions of decisions on the best one before proposals hit.
For me it feels like a discussion and community sentiment gets contorted when not enough information is shared in tandem or information that's out too early.
For now I'm not giving an up or down until I hear from Aaron and njafe.

And it seems, many others.

[bleak storm]

Will that be sometime this week u think @vernal grove ?

[strong shale]

Certainly sir! Always got my options open, look forward to reading through everything.

[granite pollen]

As always the land owners will end up getting the short end of the stick when compared to the original idea.

[gritty orbit]

I'm actually a little disappointed this wasn't something debated and shared as one unified sub council.
Will there be one or many proposals on this?

[vernal grove]

Should be any time now

[vernal grove]

It's been very throughly debated. There are two core competing proposals. Aaron's that has a modification to the mechanism of the fuel sale process but still has the same core vision as was presented when ILV Land was designed and sold and in plans to integrate with Overworld. And Vetemor's that would dramatically change that mechanic. Nijafe and I both have an alternate proposal that addresses the key question of scaling up fuel production over time as player base grows.

[sudden zephyr]

Not if we oppose this idea. Aaron’s, mine and I believe Ani’s will all give land owners more agency within the economy.

[pure trail]

At the potential harm of the overall economy

[granite pollen]

Yes I understand that, but at what player retention price?

[sudden zephyr]

My model adds in a balancing mechanic to keep fuel price much less volatile.
I agree prices can be fluctuating 100s of %, but that the free market should decide the price.

[granite pollen]

Do we have set OW run prices set? or the forging prices that we can in real time test out to see if it will work?

[sudden zephyr]

The reality is we don’t know for sure which model will work better. There could be potential hard to the economy with either of these models

[sudden zephyr]

Overworld prices will be set in units of fuel.

In Vet’s model fuel is essentially a stable coin

[granite pollen]

yeah i know that but what is the exact cost from tier 1 to 3?

the models currently used in OW rn is just a place holder

[sudden zephyr]

Stages 1 through 3. Yes numbers in beta are place holders

But it doesn’t really matter for this proposal because at this point production and prices can still all change. It’s more about how it will all function.

[granite pollen]

without these facts we are just going to speculate into oblivion

[sudden zephyr]

In Vet’s model the council will make a decision on the best price. In all other models the market will

[granite pollen]

as a land owner and playing through it I understand how much fuel will be produced roughly, but anything else is just up in the air so I cannot calculate anything based on that

[granite pollen]

There are conflicts of interest in that scenario

[sudden zephyr]

Initially these proposals are to determine whether land owners selling fuel should have an impact on the price prices in the OW. Once that decision is made we move to the next steps of supply and pricing

[sudden zephyr]

Who do you believe can set prices better. The council or the free market?

[granite pollen]

? I thought this step was already drawn out, now im confused

[sudden zephyr]

Aaron will be posting an updated white paper and his proposal for an order book system. This will give more context.
But yes as it stand the market will determine the prices.
Vet is trying to make a proposal to change that

[granite pollen]

well we have to wait and see, I am just annoyed this is done so close to Open Beta with such drastic measures as opposed to the original idea.

[solar nebula]

only in my model is their an "exact cost"
in a fluctuating fuel version prices of travel in $ will constantly fluctuate

[solar nebula]

I mean the system for Fuel has not yet begun being built, we are doing this now before the devs begin building it

[granite pollen]

I can see from your perspective to onboard more players and keep the player retention at max...but what can be done to offset the imbalance from the land owners?

[granite pollen]

we should have been able to play test this "theory" in real time for the public, would mitigate a lot of the speculation js

[solar nebula]

what imbalance from land owners?

[gritty orbit]

Thanks for explaining. So that's the reason for different proposals?
The sub council was unable to come up with something unanimous. Or will be worked on later to be unanimous?
I would still like to look at all of them at once. Including Aaron's. These are complicated things to get my head around. I need to take time to formulate questions, ask people ext.

[granite pollen]

not being able to produce the fuel imbalance, land owners would just be playing a game in essence

[gritty orbit]

Maybe we just let the tokenomics happen as intended. Then see what needs tweaking.
As I understand there is no mass marker push to non web3 people yet.
So maybe it's a little early to be speaking of new adoption ideas, for overworld, when there are already some in place.
I look forward to Thursday.

[solar nebula]

my proposal has been tested and works, see any successful video games with an in-game currency for example...

[solar nebula]

playing a game and getting revenue, same as before

[gritty orbit]

Has it been tested in this situation?

[granite pollen]

tbh there are no games you can compare to Illuvium

[solar nebula]

wdym

The team has said that my proposal is not only doable but it is the easiest and fastest to implement...

if thats what u mean

[gritty orbit]

As in, something comparable. On the block chain.
The game you talk about already had a large pool to gather from.

[still ridge]

I agree.

And yes, Vet and me also often have differing opinions on crucial topics but on this we are aligned.

This is an efficient and well thought out solution.

To be clear, this is my personal opinion and not reflective of the Illuvium team.

[granite pollen]

There are different mechanics and factors at play compared from Web2 to Web3 games, not to mention a lot more Dev work

[solar nebula]

games are games whether on the blockchain or off

theres no need to reinvent decades of experience and knowledge in monetisation, it is proven and it works and it is not a risk

[gritty orbit]

I have no idea what's fastest. It's going to take me ages to go through everything.
I don't know which is what.
I'd rather all proposals at once so I can get a jist.

[solar nebula]

I mean fastest to build

[gritty orbit]

I get that the models work.
Just not sure about this.
That's great the team supports you.

[solar nebula]

yes @cedar belfry should be posting his soon so that all are on the table

[gritty orbit]

I'll wait until Thursday.

To ask questions.

[gritty orbit]

Cool thanks.

[solar nebula]

Yh the town hall will be a lot more indepth, cant wait for it

[granite pollen]

If land doesn't produce "fuel" then it doesn't justify its price and pretty much all land owners will be underwater

[sudden zephyr]

It would be similar to just staking ILV, but you’d actually have to work for it. Why not just stake ILV

[pure trail]

The value comes from the 5% of fuel revenue

[granite pollen]

exactly this

[sudden zephyr]

Why would someone choose to buy land vs more ILV to stake?

[pure trail]

Because they enjoy the city building aspect

[granite pollen]

if that is the case then why the sudden drop in price?

[pure trail]

If someone is purely interested in profit then staking ILV is better anyways

[zealous dome]

This proposal takes away part of the fun of ILZ, and also harms the rest of the ecosystem by removing the automatic price setting mechanism of the open market. Not a positive change imo.

[sudden zephyr]

Just my opinion, but I dont think people bought all that land, just because they enjoy city builder games.

[granite pollen]

do you play city builders?

[pure trail]

I agree they want the 5%

[pure trail]

Nope

[granite pollen]

so how do you know people enjoy the city building aspect?

[pure trail]

Well those games exist so I assume that people enjoy them

[granite pollen]

i've played and enjoyed many city builders, this isn't something that I would play everyday just for the "fun" of it

in city builders there is a means to diminishing returns, thats why they add more features throughout the life of the game

Sim City the longest running franchise city builder isn't stuck on version 1 throughout its entirety js

[sudden zephyr]

If I hypothetically really loved city builders and I really wanted to make a return in Illuvium I’d buy ILV and stake it and then find a city builder game that I enjoyed playing.
I am hopeful IZ becomes that game, but why would I risk it right now.

[solar nebula]

and more features and mechanics will be added to IZ through its lifetime...

[granite pollen]

yeah but this is Web 3 and to NOT be able to produce fuel is a big no for me, as I a land owner would like to own the fuel as well.

Only reason I bought the land tbh

So i could spend it in OW and continue the cycle

but with the added benefit i could sell to the market if i wanted

[solar nebula]

you still get the 5% of all revenue generated from fuel sales, you OWN that and you can use it to buy Fuel to use in game or do whatever else you want to do

this is web3 and I want a Free Market, if Fuel fluctuates then the supply of fuel will have to be adjusted and that is not a free market and the secondary market for assets would also be affected and also no longer a free market, this goes against everything web3 stands for

[granite pollen]

this is why it is so important to address how much FUEL will be needed to access each tier to get a better understanding

[solar nebula]

AND you can still do that...

take ur revdis and buy Fuel in game with it, its exactly the same, I am even proposing for there to be an option in game so you can just do so automatically if u prefer that

even in Aaron and Nijafe's proposals you cannot transfer fuel from land to the game, there is a transfer button but that will sell your fuel on the market for eth and then use that eth to buy fuel in OW, with my proposal there can be a button that does the same thing...

[solar nebula]

wdym

[sudden zephyr]

There will be a mechanic with both our models (mine and Aaron’s) to transfer fuel off you land to your wallet

With our model Fuel is an ERC20

[solar nebula]

that mechanic involves the fuel getting sold and then purchased again as I explained

and essentially the same mechanic can exist in my own proposal, and probably will because why wouldnt it

[gray rune]

I own land that i HAVE to play (it's not passive) and in which i will produce 'artificial fuel' only to get 5% revenue to buy the actual fuel to make some runs in the OW .. seems like running around the tail

[granite pollen]

without knowing the actual price we can spend all day with assumptions on how everything "should" work out but all you get is just a bunch of ideas

[granite pollen]

with your proposal you are taking away a "feature" from land owners

[gray rune]

Like @granite pollen said i bought land to produce X amount of fuel to do as i wish with it - and it's not a discussion for the greater good here because we have absolutely no idea if this (or any other) proposal will work better regardless of the comparison with other monetisation models that exist in other games. Illuvium is something different and it has never been tried before (reffering to the entire ecosystem once the 3 main games are out)

[sudden zephyr]

But the fuel on your land will not be directly tied to the fuel in the OW

[solar nebula]

you dont have to play it if you dont want revenue, its literally EXACTLY the same with fluctuating fuel, you still need to play to get fuel, and you still need to sell fuel for ETH to use to buy Fuel in game, its EXACTLY the same

there will be a "transfer" option but that option sells the fuel and then buys it again on the other side...
mine can also have a transfer option, meaning as far as the IZ player experience is concerned its the same

but the OW players experience is improved by stable pricing which will lead to more revenue for IZ players which means more fuel to play with in game

[solar nebula]

you will never produce a set amount of fuel in either system,

in my system if more people spend more money you get more money which means u get more fuel

in the fluctuating fuel price system there is limited supply of fuel meaning we cant supply unlimited demand, so if demand gets too high the DAO will increase the supply that land produces which will change the amount of fuel u produce

you will never in any system be able to reliable produce a precise amount of fuel always...

[rustic shadow]

What I like about this is the separation of concerns.

1. You get fixed fuel for gamers.
2. You get the speculation for investors.

If you don't see how 2 is valid, here's my attempt to explain it. In the proposal there is this deposit box. Based on how much you put into it you get x% of the revenue for the period.

You can hoard your fuel and put it into the box at a later date if you think there will be more gamers playing next month and there will be a bigger reward pool. This feels like holding the fuel and swapping it when the price is right. But it's hard to see at first glance.

[solar nebula]

You like the idea of your choices affecting others more than the idea of higher revenue?
happy to just agree to disagree ser

[gray rune]

Yes to some extent i do agree that for OW players (new players coming from web2) at first glance a fixed price/run is more appealing but in the end if the games are fun and people enjoy them they will play them regardless

[sudden zephyr]

You need to stop with that argument haha. We don’t know that your model will result in higher revenue

[vernal grove]

Aaron's post is up here for those that want to compare now

[solar nebula]

Ned gets it, there will still be a meta game, it just wont impact OW gamers

[granite pollen]

Funny thing is everyone was good with the current model up until now

[pliant spear]

Nijafe and aarons one is the current model, just with a little adjustment

[solar nebula]

The aim of my proposal is to increase revenue.
This is supported by evidence.

The aim of fluctuating fuel is "ooh wouldnt this be an interesting experiment" with no evidence to support that it might lead to more revenue to justify the added risk.

I think what no one is disagreeing on is that my proposal is at minimum the safest option. The fact that the safer option also has reasonable evidence to support that it might also lead to greater revenue for me makes it a no-brainer.

[sudden zephyr]

Mine takes the current model plus Aaron’s order book system and just adds a predictable autonomous balancing mechanic

[granite pollen]

Thank you all for letting me express my grievances and personal opinion with a debate! ❤️ All I know is we ALL want Illuvium to succeed 💯

[rustic shadow]

After reading all 3. I'm on the side of Vetemor. It'll be a nice discussion. I think the least amount of fuel fluctuation that players will be exposed to is Vetemors. And if you don't see how this will be more familiar with gamers (99% of which are web2) it's sad.

[sudden zephyr]

There’s an argument to be made that web2 gaming wasn’t broken in the first place. Web3 games were meant to make it better. Who says trying a newer model won’t be better?

[rustic shadow]

This to me sounds like 2.5 which seems like a good move in the right direction, while the mainstream audiences catch up.

[cedar belfry]

I'm sorry I won't be able to respond to everything in here. I'm a bit swamped at the moment. Just wanted to say that from my quick read of the comments that some of the criticisms of this system are overblown (as are some of the praises).

How all these variables impact the overall project are quite nuanced and unless you've been diving into them for a long time it can be really hard to see the actual impacts. Plus there are things that nobody can know for certain.

I'll be at the town hall on Thursday and that's the best place for anyone to ask me questions.
🍒

[solar nebula]

Well said ser, can't wait for the Town Hall to dive into all this in more depth and talk implications.

[rustic shadow]

Here's a comparison to IMX's staking system.

1. You stake some tokens.
2. For that period the protocol collects some fees.
3. At the end of the period you get rewards proportional to your stake.
4. Repeat.

Here we have the big difference. Your fuel is burned and you need to collect more for the next cycle. So keeping the fuel in between cycles actually changes its value as in 1 cycle it can bring you way more than in another. That's why there is a free market for the fuel even if it's not and ERC-20.

[slim veldt]

At current prices, land would be 8-18% less rewarding (t2 > t3 > t4 > t1)

IF … and it’s a huge IF … all land are all played at max productions…

Not factoring mega cities influence, and price appreciation difference.

If ilv *20 …. Can land *20 ? If land can’t follow ilv increase %, land will very quickly turn more advantageous.

ILV will get more than land in revdis. Remember that ILV would get more revenues streams.

BUT land owner get blueprints. And maybe more in the future, it’s easy to give more value for land owner. It’s not for ILV owners.

So I don’t see land being much less interesting than ILV. It’s not the same and may end up very close.

Optimization and fluctuating price would … what ? Make you … 10% more maybe ? 15% ?

It’s a huge risk to please 7000 land owners to give them a +15% POTENTIAL but give bad taste to any gamers that will come play and see they travel price doing a +50% today … why play ? Yesterday I paid 50% less! Maybe tomorrow I’ll pay the same price as yesterday … so I better wait …

Result is friction, frustration, less retention.

I genuinely do not see any advantage from a player point of view.

Less players, less revenues for land owner.

Why the hell are we taking about making the life of our gamers more complicated and frustrating ?

I encourage everyone a little bit interested by our future player base to go see raxxanterax last video about why improving the player experience is key of success and why slowing them down result in disinterest

[solar nebula]

also revenue distributions would still be happening on like a daily or even hourly basis, just that the fuel in the deposit box lasts 30 days (or could be 7 days or some other duration, 7 days might also increase the potential for skill expression as well)

[rustic shadow]

Some fail to see that fuel you make ingame will directly correlate to player spending. Which is the same as it would be if you were getting ERC-20 and selling it. It just hides it away and makes it look player friendly.

[vernal grove]

I would submit that anyone unopen to the fluctuation of prices of in-game assets won't be in our target audience anyway - this is especially true of Overworld. If they are going to play a game where the core mechanic is attempting to capture and then buy/sell/trade Illuvials and gear connected to real-world currency, the idea that they can't accept fluctuating prices of fuel seems silly to me.

[slim veldt]

95% of the players won’t care about that

Because 95% just care about playing, they don’t care about ownership, they don’t care about markets and prices

[solar nebula]

having to consider secondary market fluctuations is very common in gaming, gamers are used to it

having to consider a fluctuating base token as well as a secondary is very different and mentally a lot more confusing frankly

[vernal grove]

What's your basis for this statement?

I can assure you, the number was much higher than 5% in WOW. Which is a game much more expansive than Overworld.

[slim veldt]

I’m surprised you can’t understand why most of players are against crypto games. And it’s this kind of mechanics that won’t entice players to play.

Fluctuating price of what I’ve to pay to play ? No thanks I’ll stay free 2 play if I like the games.

I can tell you sell an item in a game and lower the price later, you’ll piss off your player base. Now have the price bounce up and down day after day, you’ll loose it

Just think about what would you do if you go to the cinema and everytime you go the price of the movie is different, maybe tomorrow it’ll be cheaper .. why go now ?

[gray rune]

Most players won't play crypto games because they think it's difficult - having to handle a wallet/gas fees/NFTs etc - not because fluctuating prices or anything.. on the contrary most players would love to have true ownership AND the chance of trading/selling etc without having to worry about getting banned

[slim veldt]

I think true ownership is a utopia view from crypto-bros it’s not the market sentiment

[rustic shadow]

I think most players stay away from crypto, because they think this is yet another way to monetize them. So messing up with prices is sure to drive them mad.

[gray rune]

At some point the fixed prices will have to be raised also - by the council/DAO whatever as other have said earlier. What will you say to those players then?

Let's just say because inflation ..you won't be able to keep 1$/run for 10years from now

[vernal grove]

It...is. This is the way the real world works. Prices change literally all the time - especially in periods of high inflation.

[pure trail]

We should probably worry about having a successful launch rather than the value of a dollar in a decade

[gray rune]

That's not the point... if you can't understand a statement better not comment upon it

[pure trail]

I think I understand whats going on more than most here

[gray rune]

Yeah i know .. like you re the king of the PVP and no one else understands the game - let's just stop here because it's not the point of the discussion

[vernal grove]

Agreed. Let's keep the discussion on point folks. Good airing of the ideas and opinions so far and we should ensure that continues.

[wise crescent]

I don't know man, I wouldn't underestimate the feeling of paying over the odds.

If I sit down for a night of illuvium and the price of fuel is high I'll either pvp or play something else. I'm not spending and that's a problem

[pure trail]

Our target audience is autochess players that currently are able to play the game for free. Do you think they would be more likely or less likely to play our game if they knew that pack prices for their ILV deck could increase greatly depending on the day of the week?

[vernal grove]

Arena players don't have any interaction with fuel except for through secondary market impacts. The Overworld players are the ones that matter here. Our target audiences for Arena and Overworld are vastly different player types. If we were discussing a mechanic where Arena players had to pay per match and the price was fluctuating I would agree with you that a free-market entry fee proposal doesn't make sense based on the genre.

[pure trail]

Arena players Open Packs (OW) to play the game

[solar nebula]

yup and I think it will be quite common that players that are just there for Arena would still get a bunch of their stuff themselves from OW and just supplement with secondary, especially if OW is cheaper than secondary which it should be generally speaking

So classing OW and Arena players together (for this subject at least) I dont think is a mistake as there will be a lot of overlap

[vernal grove]

There are players who will play Arena, players who will play Overworld, and players who will play both. I believe based on our experience and player data so far in the betas, that most Arena players will just buy their Illuvials on secondary market because most active Arena players aren't choosing to play Overworld. Some who like both genres, just want to feel more connected for having captured their own deck, or think there's a price arbitrage opportunity will go get their own in Overworld and then use them in Arena.

[rustic shadow]

Our attempt at an ecosystem is to have players play across multiple games to have to complete experience. If we wanted 3 separate games. It would be fine to look at them in a vacuum.

[pure trail]

You cant base anything off of the betas we've had

[vernal grove]

The purpose of the beta launches is to gather data. That's best data we have so far on how this will work.

[bleak storm]

Small data > assumption

[pure trail]

Then why hasnt the game been marketed to our target audience for the private betas?

[gray rune]

That is the only thing you can use as a test at the moment. The only palpable thing we have .. not just assumptions made out of thin air

[pure trail]

The people who are in this community now and who are in the PBs are in no way representative both in size and in player type of what our release user will look like

[solar nebula]

small sample size data = basically an assumption except u belive its based on "data" which can be worse actually

especially when the audience currently playing and the reasons for why their playing are wildly different to the audience we intend to market to

[slim veldt]

Small sample = biased assumption

It’s worst 🤣

[solar nebula]

yup

[gray rune]

Yes i do agree 100% with that but this is where we can get real data at the moment.
Everything else is just theory - doesn't matter imo that this model worked or is working in any X or Y game .. it doesn't mean it will work in Illuvium too

[bleak storm]

I will at least look at the small data vs. your blind assumptions

That's why i said it's better than blind assuming things

[strange hollow]

Ten thousand times no to this.

[vernal grove]

How many players are you all assuming you need in a sample size to begin to get meaningful data? Because we have literally tens of thousands of players across the titles that have played with us. By any typical confidence intervals, that sample size is a good baseline to scale for the number of players we are targeting to onboard in the first year.

[strange hollow]

The amount of assumptions built into this reads: We understand economics and pricing of the in game economy better than the players and market participates will.

I firmly believe that is not true.

[solar nebula]

how do other games price their games?

[pure trail]

It's more this

We are aiming to be a more attractive title for onboarding Web2 users into our game and trying to limit our downside risk

[strange hollow]

No one bought into the vision of building a web2 game.

Show me ANY evidence that the people who wrote is are highly sophisticated market participants that they ‘know’ how to price the time of in game economy we are trying to build?

Better than the market participates who are actually going to be using this and pricing things in real time.

I’m fine with guard rails but this is dictorial and completely against what this game is trying to be.

[civic willow]

So If I understand correctly : we got a data from 10'000 that have played the closed beta. and the result is 50 that continue to play it daily.
Overworld actual state is pretty the same that we are going to have, less the RPG side, leveling up and co. I can feel it coming that it's not the overworld that is going to keep the people playing. otherway we would have 10k player playing overworld atm. The players base to focus is the arena player. So why are we trying to define a pricing for "overworld" player, and imagine that the arena players are only going to buy on secondary market.
The pricing have to onboard arena player and give them the fun to play overworld to build their team for arena..

[mortal crystal]

I really like this proposal and having consistent pricing for fuel @solar nebula. The bear has shown how few real gamers we have in web3 and the game does not succeed only being a web3 game. It needs to be a successful game overall. Secondary prices fluctuating is fine, that already exists with TCGs. Having fuel prices constantly changing is not a good experience for players.

[mortal crystal]

We don't have a lot of data to work with but NFL Rivals is out there and is a collecting game of sorts. Approx 10-15% of players engage in secondary trading. Most just play the game.

[vernal grove]

Agreed. The comparison in Illuvium for NFL Rivals are the Arena players though, not the Overworld players

[slim veldt]

@solar nebula for me the only valid argument of fluctuating prices is an answer to insecurity

Insecurity of fixing a prices without really knowing what our player base would like to pay to play the damn game.

So it’s very difficult and I know prices are not what you are trying to gun for with the proposal to avoid more stupid debate where people will fighting. But I’m curious how you would answer to this difficult questions.

I don’t value the other proposal because I think it’s extreme and unnecessary gamification for a population that is not ready for it. I prefer to go for mechanisms that are have been proven for decade, at least to launch the game.

But yeah, curious your take on this and how you would reply to « fixed prices proposal, so what could be the prices and the logic behind ?

[scenic kestrel]

I think it’s a HUGE mistake to imply the data from the betas is gospel. I have played more overworld than the auto battler but I will never in a million years be an OW player over Arena. I HATE the way the system is set up right now where I have to play over an hour for a run. I love auto battlers tho and especially an 8-12 minute game that’s actually PVP sounds great and I can see the POTENTIAL of arena in its current state.

The arena game is COMPLETELY different in its current form from what PVP will end up being. It’s just not a fair comparison and short sighted imo.

[solar nebula]

well said

[strange hollow]

Did I miss something? is the dao not going to sell, up to infinite coins, if the price of fuel goes too high?

I remember there being a 15% or so ceiling that ow and land players would exist in before the dao steps in.

People can manage gas prices, on chain and irl. I think they can handle prices going up and down a little bit.

[solar nebula]

thats up for debate but Aaron among others argue for there to be no rails and completely free to fluctuate

[versed stratus]

my take on this topic:

tldr. takes away innovative features that make Illuvium different and in many ways, better than currently existing games; only copying what others are doing rather obviously doesn't work, as we can see that usually the same few big IPs and Companies stay the same in Gaming.
To get players to change a game or try out something new, you have to offer something very different/better; same thing or slightly better doesn't cut it vs sunken cost of money/time in players' current games.
e.g. recent big hits:
Fornite-different Battle Royal, new mechanics like building etc.
Genshin Impact-Mix of high-quality JRPG Game+Gacha Game, targeted entire world, phone/pc/console same account
TFT-strategy game version of Battle Royal (+big IP behind it)

1. Issues with Gameplay:

-The Idea is anti Innovative IBG concept

-Overworld and Zero are economy and trading-focused games, adjusting prices in a free market system is a positive and wanted feature.

The assumption "web2-gamers" won't understand or like this is rather baseless; many economy-based games in web2 with changing prices are big hits, e.g. WoW, Runescape, PoE, Steam-Marketplace etc.
People playing video games more often than not played some TCG in their life as well or are familiar with the concept of collecting irl-items that have changing prices on eBay or more specific trading platforms.

Taking free market Elements out seems anti gameplay and will make it harder for Overworld/Zero as standalone games and force them more towards "only a pack opening."

-free market economy on fuel makes playing the marketplace itself more enjoyable, which to many is the game they want to play (playing auction house in WoW/Runescape/etc.) and buying/selling assets based on small changes in fuel prices could have been their gameplay

2. Issues with the Ownership advantage of web3:

-hindsight change on how land fundamentally works after people used $72mil to buy those based on a Thesis with weak arguments/more Thesis as arguments
->potentially alienate currently invested people and people who were fans of Illuvium due to innovative economy-model

-you won't start at the perfect price, and adjusting later causes problems as then people pay more or less for the same assets
-> This leads to "min and max prices" for illuvials, potentially making the entry barrier for Arena/future games too high or too low

-more potential botting problems, as fixed prices make botting almost guaranteed to be profitable, giving 2nd-market prices are high enough, compared to having to worry about fuel prices declining before you could sell, which would then reduce the asset prices as well

-free market likely would allow for people to convert time->$ a lot easier (playing the marketplace, reading charts, analyzing, etc.), which is still a baseline idea in ownership-based games aka transferring $ from whale with lots of $ and little time to someone with lots of time but few $

[strange hollow]

The goal should be to get there though. Do you at least agree with that?

[solar nebula]

Great Question, my personal opinion is that pricing should be similarly accessible to TCGs, especially TCGs when they launch not their pricing years later when some end up super pricey to play

as accessible as possible whilst maintaining depth for whales to whale,

I have discussed this in greater depth with Gaming Sub Council and once Fuel is resolved, pricing will be addressed next...

most generally are in agreement that the game should be somewhat accessible to get into which imo is positive

Exact system for how things will end up priced will however not be shared publicly as the rarity of illuvials will not be public info and if pricing guidelines are publicised they could be used to make it easier for people to figure out drop rates which the team doesnt want (to maintain the integrity of the game)

[mortal crystal]

In this whole thread, I think this is honestly the best take. There's so much opportunity for metagame players in Illuvium and IZ still has some metagame opportunities, just not as much control as they would have with an order book/liquidity pool fuel sale system.

Stable prices for fuel is the most familiar thing for gamers as we try and bring them into this web3 world. With stable prices, the web3 elements are more "opt-in". There will be MANY players who just treat this like a TCG/auto-battler where they can just go play Overworld (buy card packs for a consistent price, like they're already used to), collect their Illuvials and then use them in the Arena.

[solar nebula]

give me one example of an "economy based game" where not just the secondary market, but where the base currency fluctuates? and where you can buy that base currency with real money, but you cannot sell it, only those who own a special NFT that produces it can sell it?

As you said: "To get players to change a game or try out something new, you have to offer something very different/better"
How does fluctuating Fuel prices add ANY value to OW players experience of our game?

[bleak storm]

Let's not act like in the current system OW players aren't smart enough to play the metagame either. If you only wanna play when fuel gets cheap you can. If you are a whale and don't care but just wanna spam stage 3 runs you can. People will adapt to the system.

[vernal grove]

I believe as we established earlier, it's a question of player and market driven fluctuation vs. a council/team driven fluctuation. The prices will fluctuate either way and OW players will experience those fluctuations based on someone making the decisions.

[strange hollow]

fortnite lmao they are raising prices rn. but eve online is prob the real answer. But it's a ridiculous question bc no one has built one with real liquidity. Which is what we are trying to do

[scenic kestrel]

I would like to request people not to use RuneScape for their argument against this as I’ve seen it 3 or 4 times as RuneScape is not a free market system. It does have a lower rail (high alchemy price).

Not an attack on anyone I just want this debate to be as fair as possible 👍

[strange hollow]

We are also not trying to build a web2 game

[mortal crystal]

NFL Rivals has in-game purchases and people buy via the app most of the time despite it being more expensive (30% app store tax). Why? Convenience and a lot of gamers just want the simplicity of buy this now and not have to mess with secondary markets. Most gamers want convenience. Most play the game and enjoy it and don't care about the secondary market.

Web3 is already a challenge in the minds of gamers who think we are all just crypto bros. Variable pricing for a pretty standard in-game purchase seems like a great way to alienate them further.

It's not about being "smart enough". It's about friction and optics.

[pure trail]

We are obviously a Web3 game but our target audience is Web2 players

[bleak storm]

Idk if you are with me or against me, because the paying more for something argument leans more towards current system because people won't care about price and just wanna buy it now. Then 2nd part you say web3 is challenging and don't want variable pricing but the app tax is an increased price.....

[mortal crystal]

My point was people want consistency. App store is consistent price and easy to use. It's a small % of players who want to play the metagame.

And its not the majority who will go the extra mile to play a metagame for more efficient gameplay

[bleak storm]

I hate to be the negative person here but if we honestly wanna convince ourselves that it will be Web2 at the start we are delusional. It is obviously gonna be Web3 people at the start and if it moons then word of mouth is going to push it to Web2 audience.

[strange hollow]

eve online

www.playerauctions.com/market-price-tracker/eve/#:~:text=The EVE Online Economy&text=Currently%2C there are 600 trillion,to around 18 million USD.

[mortal crystal]

The game will not be a success if it's just web3 players. There's maybe a few thousand actual gamers. That's not enough for a sustainable game studio. We are delusional if we think this game can be sustained by web3 revenue alone.

[pure trail]

Well if that's your plan you should know that Web3 does not have a lot of gamers

[bleak storm]

No I don't but it will be people pulling in decent money that will branch it out off social media.

[wise crescent]

True but there's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Not everything in web3 needs web3ifying.

[solar nebula]

when anything "moons" in web3 its immediately no longer accessible for web2 and actually a turn off

whereas if fuel is stable and the game explodes in popularity it will still be accessible to web2 and we can absorb that volume

[scenic kestrel]

I would like to say I know of a lot of gamers who are open to web3 that play exclusively web2 games. Anecdotal I know but there are a larger amount of “on the fence web2 gamers” or web2 gamers that simply don’t care than people realize.

[strange hollow]

yes, that was like a few loud boomer gamers. I have not met a single gamer that is actually 'against' web3

[scenic kestrel]

It is still mostly web2 gamers that hate web3 tho I’m not debating that

[zealous dome]

With a market price the cost of fuel will go down if there are few people wanting to play and increase when a lot of people want to play.

No artificial setting of prices by the team will be as good.

[mortal crystal]

For sure. Still need to bring them in though and whatever is more akin to regular gaming is what's more likely to bring them in. There's already a massive amount of ways to play the web3 metagame in Illuvium's ecosystem.

[scenic kestrel]

I would argue it’s still a large majority but even with a “large majority” that’s not all

[solar nebula]

We're also trying to build a Game.
Web3 = Asset Ownership
The base currency to play the game doesnt have to fluctuate for players to experience ownership

[vernal grove]

We're trying to build an interconnected suite of games. Not one game.

[pure trail]

This proposal doesn't go against that

[solar nebula]

so if prices fluctuate and loads of people want to play our game then the harder it gets to play our game...

Artificial Scarcity is one thing I hate about Web3 and it has nothing to do with the positives of Web3 like ownership, when illuvials are unlimited in supply (whilst the set is still live) then why would there be a limit to the supply of fuel?

[strange hollow]

I know prob 20 gamers irl none are agaist something good in web3, most of the games just have not been interesting yet. Which we are here to solve.

[scenic kestrel]

That’s anecdotal and can be influenced by the people you see fit to be friends among other things that could skew your perception of what the majority thinks

[strange hollow]

maybe

[zealous dome]

If it got to the point where the game was in such high demand that fuel prices had gone through the roof, supply of fuel would be increased by selling more lands.

That would be a very good problem to have.

And even more important, if the game is not popular, fuel prices will automatically decrease, attracting more players.

[solar nebula]

there is a limit there though, at maximum 5x more plots, that might not be enough supply for a large player base...

especially when fuel isnt just used in OW but in EVERY future game we make

[scenic kestrel]

You could in all reality be completely right it’s just we don’t have numbers to back either claim from this type of argument

[pure trail]

If the game is not popular then lower prices due to 0 demand are not going to bring people in. The game will just die

[zealous dome]

Seriously… if selling 5x more plots isn’t good enough, we really won’t care because we will be too busy sailing our mega yachts.

Let’s stick to reasonable possibilities. 🙂

[solar nebula]

yup

[strange hollow]

a floating currently isn't not what is going to stop adoption. A good complete game will make that work. I'll bet anything you want on that.

If the timing is completly wrong we are fucked anyway so not important really. We have to assume ppl with get over it if they have some small quams, like ppl have had for all new tech.

[zealous dome]

Talking in strawman extremes never leads to a productive discussion.

There is no chance that 0 people want to play the game.

[solar nebula]

this system affects our entire ecosystem forever, it needs to be entirely future proof and able to absorb infinite demand in the case that Illuvium explodes...

considering the implications in all kinds of scenarios is important

[pure trail]

Sorry "low demand"

[zealous dome]

If the growth was so extreme that selling 5x more lands wasn’t good enough, the team can easily increase the fuel output of each land.

There is no chance that fuel output cannot be increased by the team.

[solar nebula]

well said btw

[solar nebula]

it can be, but then theres no free market, free market means that no centralised entity can alter things

and if supply is altered then the secondary market is also indirectly affected meaning neither the fuel or secondary market are actually free market

my proposal ensures stable fuel pricing and that we can meet infinite demand if needed and the ensures that our secondary market is always a true free market

[zealous dome]

Since you want to talk in extremes, what does your stable price do when there are 0 players and when there are infinite players?

[solar nebula]

btw ani I dont think this is a fair statement. market can fluctuate at any time of day and all day, occasional changes in price would never be done regularly to maintain a degree of consistency...

[solar nebula]

when there are infinite players it is fine, when there are no players it is also fine (but our game is dead lol)

[zealous dome]

So the answer is, it doesn’t do anything to help at all.

When the market price would be reducing in response to low demand, the stable price would continue overcharging.
When the market price would be increasing in response to extreme demand, the stable price would continue undercharging.

Really not a better solution.

In your scenario, nobody can play in extreme demand because the servers can’t cope.

[strange hollow]

Honestly fax

@solar nebula what about eve online?

[solar nebula]

fluctuating prices increase the price when infinite demand comes until people no longer want to get in...

that means there are people who would have come in and played and were telling them NO because we have a limited amount of resources available to play our game even though its a digital product that can be infinite

[zealous dome]

But talking about such extremes is silly. It would be more useful to discuss realistic possibilities.

[bleak storm]

We can all agree on this....lol

[solar nebula]

EVE online you can buy in-game currency, it fluctuates, it is successful, but you can also sell in-game currency and hoarde it if u want

you cant do that here, only land owners can sell and they have a limit to how much they can hold, OW players buying fuel cannot sell it (unless someone makes a L1 liquidity pool much like sILV2, but thats not officially supported by us so it doesnt count as existing in our ecosystem)

so imo the situations are different

not to mention its a subscription service etc etc and its all quite different in a lot of ways

[strange hollow]

if land owners are forced to sell that will help keep prices low, so that works against your point

Sounds like our design is more realistic and market based. Markets have proven to be pretty effective. Why do you think you can price things better?

[solar nebula]

if land owners are anyways forced sellers and can barely hold and therefore maybe their best strategy is minimise storage and maximise fuel production and just sell at whatever the price is then there is basically no meta fuel selling game so it actually makes no difference to land holders whether its my proposal or aarons...

[solar nebula]

Why do you think that video games dont price their in-game currencies like this all of the time? because its less effective...

[strange hollow]

okay so no offence but let's go with market pricing not vet pricing.

[solar nebula]

because consumers enjoy stability and simplicity

[strange hollow]

because they didn't have a BLOCKCHAIN. jfc

[solar nebula]

it doesnt require a blockchain to pull off

[strange hollow]

you have got to be joking

[solar nebula]

im okay to agree to disagree

this is pointless

[strange hollow]

I will be actively campaigning agaist your election next election.

You seem to be completely unaware of the value proposition of crypto and the ethos of Ethereum and Illuvium.

[solar nebula]

and that ser is your prerogative.
🤣

I've made a proposal trying to get asset ownership to be accessible and with minimal friction for as many web2 users as possible, I'm simply awful...

[strange hollow]

you are simply uneducated and inexperienced in crypto.

We have a global coordination and pricing engine, but no lets let vetemor price our economy. Not just you any econ phd you can find.

[solar nebula]

My proposal makes it quite clear that it is not a proposal to price our economy and clearly states that experts should actually price it...

[strange hollow]

That is what a market allows

[solar nebula]

Video Games have been setting prices to play their game for decades

Consumers have built up consumer habits

this completely goes against those habits and introduces a far more complicated system for something that is super simple

if we were making a game exclusively for crypto and stock trader types, then sure, maybe ur right, but were actually building a game for gamers for the most part...

fluctuating fuel isnt even something most players can participate in, its something that will affect all players but only Those producing Fuel can actually sell it

[versed stratus]

The games you refer to don’t have secondary markets.
They have fundamentally different economies and value propositions.

[solar nebula]

all games, even those with fundamentally different economies, all of them still price in this way for the most part

consumers are used to that

we are introducing consumers to so many new things, why add an additional thing for them to wrap their head around if it doesnt actually bring any benefit to those same players? is it worth the risk and added friction?

some thing yes, some think no...

[pine canyon]

can @cedar belfry 's idea even work? According to Kyle Samani, central limit order books can't run on L2 due to single threading of the evm. You can potentially have a CLOB for one market, like ETH - Fuel A, but if you have multiple markets with multiple fuel types, and it has to run serially, you can't have an effective serial CLOB. This why EVM based projects assume a CLOB is impossible and use an AMM liquidity pool design

[slim elk]

let's keep reinventing the powder so that it's fun instead of reusing formulas that work and that people are used to

[solar nebula]

you believe it is fun for prices in a game to change and become absurdly high if too many people want to play at the same time?

[slim elk]

was ironic, i'm on your side

[strange hollow]

like go build that somewhere else, I'm sure that 'could' work, but that is not at all what I and think many other invested in

This is a crypto first operation, hence when you buy a token you own a piece and are in the dao. We didn't have a centralized company to start for a reason.

[versed stratus]

Secondary market for things like gold in wow/RuneScape don’t price like you want to, they are free market.
The games you refer to are microtransaction based, no ownership, no trading.

[gray rune]

As i said on the other proposition if one model has succeeded for X or Y game it doesn't mean it will work for Illuvium also.

[solar nebula]

I mean 🤣 I would have thought ur statement was ironic but the amount of things I've read in this chat that are seriously saying absurd things has changed my perception lol

[solar nebula]

I bought into Illuvium because I thought it was a Web3 Game project that was actually putting the Game first and the Web3 second but came with the benefits of in-game ownership...

Nothing has sustainably worked thats fully Web3, I suspect throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the way and taking lessons from web2 and not just forgetting all web2 principles is the way to go

[strange hollow]

We need to make the crypto parts easier and lower fiction. Not disregard them

[solar nebula]

nobody seriously believes that my model "doesnt work"

it works and would work for illuvium, thats clear

the argument is from those who believe the fluctuating price model would work better, imo it actually could, its possible, but to me its far higher risk, my proposal isn't risky,

as a plus I actually believe on top of being low risk that my proposal will also lead to higher revenue for ILV stakers and Land Owners...

[versed stratus]

No I do believe your model wouldn’t work as I argued earlier, as you take away the reason for people to switch to this game.
You only create something comparable, not superior, but you need superior not copy paste, copy paste any big IP will beat you because big IP or big gaming studio behind.

[solar nebula]

the crypto parts are the ownership

its not very crypto to have a limited supply of something and a centralised entity adjusting that supply as demand changes over time, that reminds me a lot more of centralised governments issuing subsidies, I thought web3 was getting away from that nonsense

[scenic kestrel]

RuneScape gold prices are different because it is a heavily inflationary asset not meant to be traded. There are little to no gold sinks and the items are on a lower rail set by the high alchemy gold price per item. It is not really comparable to fuel unless you want continuous diminishing returns. For all of OSRS existence the price of gold has trended down the entire time. I prefer Vets idea and am okay with Aaron’s just want to make sure we’re on the same page about why that example doesn’t work.

[versed stratus]

Price changing is free market and still a lot closer than what vet refers to

[gray rune]

Yep in theory it could work better - but you re basing it on your personal beliefs and not any data/testing etc. Saying it works because you believe it so not because you have something to back it up.
But for the sake of argument as i asked earlier - your model is the chosen one and the cost of a T1 run is set to 3$ ... down the road this price will have to increase eventually because of inflation right? How will you explain to your players the decision to increase prices? Who makes this decision ? When? Based on what? How would this be decentralised?

[scenic kestrel]

It is not a free market due to the lower rails of high alchemy pricing where most of the low-mid tier items sit at that price and inflates the amount of gold in the game making the price of gp lower and lower

[solar nebula]

our USP isn't that playing our game might cost you $10 today and $15 tomorrow, I bet thats why gamers will come and play our game right?

our USP is that you can own and trade your in-game assets of the game you love... that does not change

[versed stratus]

That’s a strawman extreme that likely won’t happen, for 50% increase someone else needs to buy 49 etc and not extra people selling etc.

If that would be the case your idea would be charging too little btw

[solar nebula]

even if I wrote next week, next month or next year that is not a USP, its not what brings people to our game

[solar nebula]

I havent set any prices what are u talking about...

[scenic kestrel]

He’s speaking hypothetically

[versed stratus]

But like just answer the question, what if your price idea initially is wrong? What then? Change? How? How often? How will people feel who bought at less or more? How is that then different to changing based on supply/demand?

[scenic kestrel]

Which is a fair argument

[solar nebula]

if the initially set prices are wrong?

[versed stratus]

Vet you realize it is on you to pretty much have an answer for all of these concerns if you wanna push a change like this and you clearly don’t have that, you only claim this would work better without comparable examples or marketresearch to back it up.

[gray rune]

Maybe referring to what i asked and not ignoring it completely because you don't like the counter argument please... if you could come up with some solutions to this issue:
But for the sake of argument as i asked earlier - your model is the chosen one and the cost of a T1 run is set to 3$ ... down the road this price will have to increase eventually because of inflation right? How will you explain to your players the decision to increase prices? Who makes this decision ? When? Based on what? How would this be decentralised?

[solar nebula]

I was asking for you to clarify your question, its hard to answer a question that I cant understand what its asking

[versed stratus]

My statement is general not a response

Your question, yeah, but the if part idk, it will be wrong, you have nothing comparable in web3/web2, which makes free market and the option for such so good.

Pretty much every game uses pseudo free market price finding with battle pass, bundles, mass discounts etc. If they could use balancer pools, fair durch auctions etc. web2 games would because it is most user friendly and good for revenue.
Blizzard often put up cosmetics for too high and later same for less, if they could have free market it, it would have been better for them.

[solar nebula]

Yeah we discussed this point in Aarons proposal chat, so imo prices will always eventually need adjusting, good example being inflation, and imo a great time to change prices is alongside the release of a new set or season,

im not a fan of price changes being made regularly at random intervals. and if a price increase needs to happen and cannot wait for the on of the set or season or whatever then it better have a very good reason behind it...

[solar nebula]

they could do balancer pools and they could also do dutch auctions

these systems can be executed using web2 frameworks, especially for a company like blizzard this would be easy to pull off

so if they could they wouldnt is actually false because they could and they dont...

also "it would be better for them" is your opinion, I actually don't think it would be better for them...

[versed stratus]

I guess it is empirical but a former high up employee gave me that example when we talked about pricing of their products, not my opinion, but his to be fair, it seems logical to me though

[gray rune]

Okay so at that time how will we be different than a web2 studio that adjusts the prices how and when they see fit? What s the point of bringing a lot of new players into the system and lose them all after some time because it's decided to change prices? People in general don't like these kind of adjustments in any sector ...with a free market you avoid this because they know from the start what to expect (price fluctuation)

[solar nebula]

I don't expect price changes to be occuring regularly mainly because its not well received by gamers, but if for example we made price adjustments once every year or 2 then I think thats okay (if it actually even proves to be necessary)

I'd still rather take that risk than the risk of no gamers playing our game only speculators interested in extraction and we get a FOMO pump, the bubble bursts and our game is dead with no players in sight because we attracted only price speculators and market traders

I really think that to some extent both my proposal and aarons come down to a difference in opinion about what kind of playerbase we want and how we believe they will react to different conditions

[sudden zephyr]

We only had 90 days of ILV beyond pricing and we already changed those prices

[gray rune]

We wouldn't expect price changes too often that is true but if general economics (real life events) dictate it and the studio needs to increase prices 3 times in a year to survive they will do it so it's not something you can speculate on either.
And as far as i'm concerned there is no risk here if the games are fun and well made. Even if the player growth will be slower once a player enters the ecosystem, knows what to expect (price fluctuations) and enjoys the game, retention is instant VS something he can't control and might happen regardless if we want it or not

[solar nebula]

if we increased prices 3 times in a year that might lead us to not be able to survive because of the repercussions of doing that

we have other levers we can pull and other things that we can do (such as putting on events, tournaments, special offers, new content, new season, etc.)

[tropic hare]

This proposal is the best model I have seen so far and too many people are quick to dismiss it. The one thing that could destroy this game is if prices spiral out of control and then crash afterwards.

People who voted thumbs down: have you played any crypto games that got popular before? Because if you have, you noticed that there was an explosion-like growth period in all of them, which is inevitably followed by a crash, leaving most people in the hole. This is what we must avoid, cause it can destroy Illuvium.

I see many people underestimate the effect of real money being involved. The fuel price in this game will be much more similar to stock market (or rather crypto market) prices rather than any of the popular web2 games with economies. The best example is our very own ILV price. We all know that $1900 was absolutely crazy, yet it did happen, leaving many investors at a huge loss. This is fine when it comes to investing, it is NOT fine when it comes to a game.

When this game takes off, there will be news and articles appearing, driving masses to the game all of a sudden. If we leave it to free market, prices WILL get out of control. Land owners will be happy for a while, until the collapse. They will be very unhappy after but it will be too late by then.

Because the price collapse will lead to a tsunami of negative press/videos that will be hard to recover from, if at all possible.

The best scenario for land owners, token holders and all parties involved if the game is played for decades to come. I would urge all of you who are worrying about how to maximize your land investment to worry about how to create a stable gaming environment instead, cause that will lead to the best return for you.

[solar nebula]

"This is what we must avoid, cause it can destroy Illuvium." well said ser

It is EXACTLY this which I am trying to avoid with this proposal, not everyone can see the potential DOOOOM I guess 😋

[tropic hare]

Unfortunately, it appears so ser!

[strange hollow]

Ya when the crypto economy went down by 90% several times. It killed it.

Damn my b

There will be ups and downs. Pvp and game modes like that will be a safe haven and we should try to build more. I’m open to that. But don’t limit the economy bc you made bad investments so far. Cause that’s what that sounds like.

[tropic hare]

It did not kill it. I'm still in the crypto economy but I accept the risk. An average player would just like to enjoy the game and maybe earn some money/retain some of their investment in the process as a bonus. Most people are incapable of rational decisions when it comes to money. I have seen people taking out loans for crypto games and getting destroyed. You could say it's on them, except it will be on us too.

[strange hollow]

How does a fixed cost structure stop ppl from making bad choices? Given the diversity of the economy

[gray rune]

So Illuvium has a lot of deflationary aspects to help prevent things like this – limited supply of Illuvials, as the season gets closer to end it will be significantly more difficult to catch something - as we already know that with every Atlas for ex caught the formula makes it that Atlas is increasing difficult to be found.. so travel will be less in demand thus the price should go down right?
Or how will you feel like in the first week to spend 15$ on 2 travels and get 3 Tier 4s and 2 Tier 5 Illuvials and after 3 months to spend the same amount and get like 2 Tier 2s or nothing good? Wouldn’t it make more sense the price of travel to go down as there’s not that much left in the OW to be caught? Or because you have to make 3-4 times as many travel as before to get something good? Who would spend the same amount of money like in the first 2-3 weeks to get almost nothing good? I don’t understand how do you see this system blow up when it’s all built for deflation and increase in value as time/seasons go by

[vernal grove]

I believe nearly everyone is onboard with the guardrails concept from Aaron's proposal. The DAO would sell unlimited fuel at an upper limit price to completely eliminate this risk.

[nimble pollen]

Plss make a fix price dont let ppl get discouraged by the high prices when the masses start playing

[solar nebula]

at what % would those rails be?

[vernal grove]

It's not a percent, it's a fixed price

[nimble pollen]

Every game has failed by the price flatutation
Plus the bots will ruin the prices buy high sell low

[tropic hare]

You would be wrong here, ser, I am quite happy with my investment decisions but that can't be said to most people. Don't mix up a game with the eye-for-eye, everyone for their own mentality of the crypto market and investments in general. An unhappy player who destroyed themselves due to stupid decisions of their own will still talk and create videos and influence others, affecting your investment in this game in turn.

[nimble pollen]

I just watched @sudden zephyr vidoe and he was like this is my idea this is aarons and also vetemor has an idea

Lol

[solar nebula]

right but that could mean a rail at 10x the starting, or 5% higher than starting, both being very different things, what kind of rails are we talking?

because if they are super wide then I still prefer fixed prices and if the rails are super tight why even have rails when u can just have fixed prices...

[solar nebula]

lol, not surprised

[scenic kestrel]

@sudden zephyr is a YouTuber who made a YouTube video. It’s best to realize he probably made that joke to be funny and show he disagrees with the proposal. Not that vetemor is an idiot or he doesn’t respect his point of view. Let’s stay on topic please.

[nimble pollen]

I know but i was watching it i been watching hims since his fisrt video and i was courious to learn abt vetemors ida but didnt get any info in the video ...

[strange hollow]

That in an inevitability. Does not matter what pricing structure we pick.

[tropic hare]

They could still make plenty of bad choices (people spending the price of a car on a web 2 game could be called a bad choice) leaving plenty of opportunities for you and me to earn in the game. But it would not happen in the same way that happened to every shitty crypto project before us. If they lose money due to a price bubble and collapse it would lead to lots of negative press, guaranteed. If they simply choose to spend a lot on a game without a crash taking them out, it would be the same as if they spent a lot of money on a web2 game. No one complains about that in the press

[vernal grove]

I would be decided by a council that predominantly wants the Overworld gameplay to remain accessible to players and also wants Zero players the chance to have fluctuating prices. There wouldn't be a 'starting price' in the order book proposal, only a guardrail for how much the maximum would cost. Your feedback on relative price points to achieve a deck for Illuvials that's pretty comparable to mainstream Web2 deck-building games was pretty positively received by the councils except for different interpretations of the term competitive decks. I expect we would land somewhere a bit higher than that as an upper limit for fuel. If it makes it more palatable, you can consider that the fixed price of fuel and everything else is a discount.

[strange hollow]

The pricing structure will not stop a bubble.

If anything a rigid one would case a collapse bc it’s inefficient.

[nimble pollen]

I dont like the proposal where i would have to pay 1 $ fee if 10 ppl are palying but 10 $ if a milion are playing ... it will not sentivise growth

[scenic kestrel]

If the rails don’t include the thought process of going instantly from the high rail to low rail ruining the existence of illuvium it is too high just my opinion on that

[tropic hare]

That's reassuring to hear, please don't let it go to a free market pricing without an upper rail (lower rail is a different story, probably not needed at all). We have plenty of real world example of people making stupid decisions when it comes to money. It's their right, of course, but we can't let those stupid decisions take this project down with them.

[solar nebula]

Sure, but what is the benefit of the fluctuating prices though? who benefits?

I still dont see the benefit for anyone, including land owners

[solar nebula]

what ani is saying there has no low rail i believe

[strange hollow]

If ppl are underpaying for cycles into the ow, the price might snap up causing a bubble.

If ppl are overpaying, it collapses and no activity happens. People overpay and sell at a loss over and over bc the price is fixed.

[scenic kestrel]

Ahh yeah forgot about that. Idk how I feel about a higher rail that allows for a 500% increase lol. I’m more than happy to be proven wrong given the evidence but I feel like that would piss a lot of people off 😂

Off topic I apologize lol

[solar nebula]

hes saying a higher rail just above what we'd want people to spend so the game is still accessible

but then why even have it fluctuate right?

[scenic kestrel]

Eh I can see an argument for either tho this is the obvious safer option. I guess the question is do we want safe or risky but unique and engaging

[solar nebula]

fluctuating fuel isnt more engaging for almost anyone

it is unique

[scenic kestrel]

That’s an opinion that I agree with

[strange hollow]

Y’all are acting like ppl aren’t going to sell lol. Land ppl will take the money if there is ANY demand.

[wise crescent]

Safe, we're exposed to enough risk as it is being a web3 game.

[solar nebula]

but if i was to settle for some kind of fluctuating having a ceiling that even if its hit the game is still accessible, but I have a feeling those wanting fluctuation would not be pleased with that at all

[scenic kestrel]

for the record I prefer Vets proposal but acknowledge that Aaron/Nijafes ideas would work if higher rails are set appropriately

[solar nebula]

you dont want to add additional friction?

weird

[scenic kestrel]

I just want what’s best for the DAO idc about who is right or wrong I really could care less

[tropic hare]

There are so many ways to make this project unique and engaging if it goes on for years, with extra games and an endless number of game mechanics. Let's not risk all that because some people would feel they miss out on a short term return on their land investment, imo

[sudden zephyr]

I didn’t want to speak too much of vetemors proposal. I obviously have a bias towards my model.
Instead of poorly trying to explain his I was leaving it up to him to do that.

[strange hollow]

Ppl are going to what to earn eth. If they is fuel to sell to a buyer they will! Of there is more demand more land ppl will increase production.

Like your telling me people are not going to sell and make money

[solar nebula]

I think IZ players will sell, in fact I think they will sell at whatever the price is because they can only store so much anyways, so it actually makes no difference whether ur selling at whatever the price is or just getting ur piece of the 5% on fuel sales revshare based on your efficiency at managin the plot, its literally no different.

so how does fluctuating prices lead to a benefit for land owners exactly

[solar nebula]

honestly v fair

[nimble pollen]

U did say u were gonna be bias ... but it backfired cuz i was forced to come here and find out what the proposal is...

I like your way of trying to find the golden middle but i think that if prices will be different day to day for travel people will start to wait for prices to drop or smth in order to play. They gonna be focused too much in the prices to enter rather than know that thats the cost no matter when and just focus on the game itself

[solar nebula]

and in Gaming if you're not playing and you're waiting and there are sooo many other good games out there, maybe u never come back...

[strange hollow]

You are talked about yourself here. Not all market participants.

You don’t have to worry about that if you don’t want to. More efficient players will try to mm the pools and other strategies.

[solar nebula]

I'm happy to sacrifice the experience of a few IZ players that do really want that very specific experience if it improves the experience of people playing all of our other games that dont have a cap on users like land has...

[solar nebula]

what if min maxing the pools still produced less revenue than having flat prices that mean less friction for more gamers which mean more revenue for all

[nimble pollen]

The focus of the game is not holders of certain assets but new playrs who dont want to follow the market movemnt day to day ( i also hold 7 plots of land ) but i wish the best for the game and its end user ( which hopeffuly will be plyrs who have no idea what the market is and how flancuation works )

[wise crescent]

It's a no brainer imo. Any obstacle that puts off potential paying players buying fuel is a fail. The learning curve is steep enough for your average web2 gamer as it is.

The other proposals are adding complexity just to make the casual gamer experience worse imo. And for what gain?

[solar nebula]

These last 3 messages encapsulate the exact reason for this proposals existence

[strange hollow]

You have ZERO experience to back that up bc you don’t participate in markets like that.

There is also opportunity for the dao to earn from the pools. Which you are not seemingly unaware of do to lack of experience with crypto markets.

[vernal grove]

I think there's a clear misunderstanding of Aaron's proposal. It's not an unbounded free market to avoid this scenario exactly. This is why upper guardrails would be instituted. If fuel fluctuates between $3 and $5 per a T1 run over the span of a week when they know it's connected to a separate land-game, are Web2 gamers really going to be so offput that they just drop the project?

these examples of 500% and 10000% price swings are red herrings

[wise crescent]

If it fluctuates between $3 and $5 why not set at $4 🤷‍♂️

[solar nebula]

$3 - $5 is a 66% increase

this fluctuation will arbitrarily benefit some and hurt others

what for?

[strange hollow]

We could earn a flat fee, we could provide a basic mm not that anyone can add liq too to earn yeild, and more down the line.

[pliant spear]

I was going to say exactly this @vernal grove . Its not the first time in the discussion i see the argument of giant fluctuation and comparing dynamic fuel price to axie or ilv token. The idea of the current proposed model always was to have rails so exactly this can't happen.

The team/council would decide the exact rails but it can move a little, still adding the extra layer of market and interoperability to ilz while not scaring away people or ruining them.

[vernal grove]

The rails are a top end that we've said the upper limit can't go beyond. That wouldn't be randomly changing over time. There are 3 separate mechanics proposed (automatic rebalancing, manual rebalancing, and additional land sales) that would be leveraged to drop the prices under that top rail if it was staying there. The reason it stays there is that fuel production is too low for demand at that price so you need to either increase production on each plot or increase the number of plots.

[desert escarp]

Because I bet they are not set in stone

[pliant spear]

I dont think its necessary, its about the intent.

[solar nebula]

I've spent the last 1.5 years since first getting on the council getting into being a gamer again, experiencing different games and spending over $2k to experience what buying skins and other in-game things is like in different ecosystems, during that time I have built a steam library of over 60 games (not to mention the games that are not on steam) and all while studying monetisation in different games and how they feel for the end user

This is my experience that backs this proposal, actually putting myself in the shoes of our target audience

this has nothing to do with crypto market knowledge lol (also the DAO would not earn from a pool because there is no pool, its an order book system, read aarons proposal)

[strange hollow]

On this note, we should just give everyone in the Country gasoline for 1.50. Why don’t we do this?

Someone call the president, we just fixed the economy.

[solar nebula]

they are not and I know for a fact there are many who want fluctuating prices who want the rails to be as wide as possible, certainly not just a ceiling that if we hit is still accessible pricing because then why even have rails...

[solar nebula]

its a game...

gasoline is an actually scarse natural resource

they should just increase supply

lol

[sudden zephyr]

I’m happy it lead you here. The more feedback we get the more we understand what the community wants and how to come up with the best possible model.
I believe it’s mine, but I’m not afraid of opposing opinions

[nimble pollen]

As a web3 investor i loved urs couse id get the most money from it... but what will the money do for me if the game is dead within 4 months . Im just worried that ordinary people wont want to pay attention to price flactuation for entry and stress about economics when they play the game to have fun.

[strange hollow]

Fuel isn’t scarce! We have tons of way to add more!!!!!!!

There is literally legislative law in most countries AGAINST price fixing lol because it produces inefficient markets.

[nimble pollen]

@sudden zephyr
Now this i liked ...
It lets crypton have free market but price for entry is always fixed in dollar amounts
What happened to this idea?

[sudden zephyr]

Honestly, I still like that model. But after a lot of thought and discussion I changed.
I always said I think free market was the best option, and that was my solution to OW prices.
I ended up thinking of a way to have a free market, but decrease the volatility of the OW pricing and came up with my current model.

[strange hollow]

This is the correct thinking

There is insane white space solving along that line and I wish we were focused there.

[sudden zephyr]

What funny is that my model is basically a compromise of what Vet and Aaron have proposed.
I already found the middle ground if people take the time to understand it.

[nimble pollen]

I only have 1 concern ... i dont want newcommers to worry about prices and economics.. i dont want to have youtube videos explaing how to get the cheapest in OW but instead how they cought this and that and how they did thjs and that .
I am afraid it will get too cplicated and will repel playrs . The market is too competative and pc playrs are less and less (all mobile now)

[sudden zephyr]

So I proposed monthly adjustments, but the shorter the time frame the less volatility.
If we adjusted daily with my model the prices would stay very stable.
I’m open to having those adjustments in a different time frame

[nimble pollen]

The tawnhall will be interesting 🙂

[solar nebula]

for commodities maybe... not for Video Game prices bro

[sudden zephyr]

Fuel is a commodity within the Illuvium ecosystem.

And I’m pretty sure when oil prices go up in the real world that up their production. And when it goes down they slow down.
Or like during Covid they fill up their storage and have to burn it if they over produce.

[civic willow]

fuck genshin that rekt my money because of their fixed prices, even taken a lot of the promotions. now talking about legislative law for this subject...

well there isn't enough gamers to voice louder in that project atm so i'm not surprised about the hard web3(Investors only) focused direction of theses proposal. just gonna wait the townhall...

[solar nebula]

its been a lot of web3 heavy arguments for sure, massive lack of awareness on how both proposal affect the actual players this game is for, maybe we were building a game for crypto folks all along and mass adoption was just a thing to say in the bull times

[civic willow]

we are going to miss so much benefit that are working proved on so many project just to get a free market that the people we are focusing don't care about

[fresh atlas]

Sorry Vet But this is a 180 restructure not only of the internal IZ economy but the interoperability of the games. I get the main sentiment of the idea (price stability) but there is no clear core economical structure of how things could actually work, step by step and what tools are needed for it to work smoothly. It took me a bit of research, reflection and the study of balancer pools to get behind Aaron's old proposal and I still consider it more flexible and with more solid fundamentals than this one ( not saying it's perfect) so it will be a 👎 from me

[strange hollow]

You are assuming that land owners are going to coordinate to pump the prices agaisnt their own self interests, if the dao is forces to step in and dump on their faces.

It is SO CLEAR that you are not experienced in crypto markets. Please detail your experience and prove me wrong.

[sudden zephyr]

We’re built on the blockchain with NFTs and we’re here because we believe it’s the future of gaming even though the mainstream doesn’t understand yet.
Who’s to say and free market pricing model isn’t part of this future?
If we were web2 why even have NFTs. Can’t we continue this experiment? It’s way to early to tell if it’ll work or not. Same goes for NFTs

[fresh atlas]

Actually I've always openly proposed very cheap travel costs that with the current model even at the 25% extreme payers won't really care

That's one way of mitigating price swinging and stimulate more traveling

[gray rune]

Hey guys so I have another concern that I’d like to raise and hear some thoughts. lluvium is built with a lot of deflationary systems in place. So let's say for the sake of discussion that this system (fixed) is applied and we start with a 3$ Stage 1 run and 10$ Stage 3 run - at the beginning of the season let's say 1st 2-3 weeks you will be able to get Illuvials much easier but with each Atlas (just using it for example purposes) caught the formula makes the next one X% more difficult to be encountered -> thus in the beginning of the season travel will happen more often and will be more productive .. let's say you pay 50$ for 5xS3 runs and you get 3 Tier 4 illuvials and 2 Tier 5 Illuvials ... BUT as time goes by they will be more and more difficult to be caught meaning you would have maybe to make 10 runs or 15 runs to get the same value out of it .. now why would I pay the same amount per travel when I know it’s way more difficult to extract the same value as before?
So using this logic it makes sense that towards the end of the season travel will be less sought after -> crypton in less demand thus it should have a lower price ... maybe solon becomes more valuable when people are full of stuff and only are looking to craft things so it makes sense to have its price placed higher than at the start of the season right?
Anyone who understands this with fixed prices would farm the OW a ton to start and then taper off as Illuvials become more scarce.
In a free market model the prices will naturally decrease with the availability of Illuvials.

[strange hollow]

https://tenor.com/view/precise-amal-gopal-gadgets-one-malayalam-tech-tips-यथार्थ-सहीमानेमें-gif-24886636

[pulsar hearth]

On the other hand, if the Arena is interesting enough it will just give the earlybirds a discount to get to playing since the illuvials are more easy to obtain.
Each of the illuvials will rise in price due to the deflationary systems, thereby increasing the costs to play the arena.

So, the run prices should be low to an extent that factors in the bonding curve, and the final value of the bonding curve is the anticipated equilibrium of rhe ecosystem for everything to work out.

It would also work.

[strange hollow]

https://tenor.com/view/seeing-is-believing-the-hobo-the-polar-express-to-see-is-to-believe-see-it-first-before-you-believe-gif-19503835

[civic willow]

bonding curve don't mean you will capture less. You have 5'000 energy or the defined amount energy. so you will get the same amount after it. i don't think it reduce the outcome. or I don't get how this is gonna work.

[strange hollow]

that's could be true - why not let market participant figure it out vs. fixing a price that first movers can use as leverage control of the system.

[gray rune]

Not capture less - but Illuvials have a finite number - so they will be more and more difficult to obtain (encounter)

[pulsar hearth]

Bonding curve decreases capture odds. Aaron at some point mentioned a 2X in capture difficulty, though it was about a year ago when he said that and it wasnt clearly defined or confirmed after that 🙂

Basically you would see the same amount of Illuvials in a run but be able to catch less of them.

[civic willow]

you will find less kukka but more ramphyre ? is that a problem ? ^^

[strange hollow]

This is what is going to make this game fun.

I get it's scary but that's a game with a market, it might not work.

But for fuck sake let's use the best market ideas that have already show to work! in crypto and irl

[civic willow]

oh okay. didn't know that

[gray rune]

not how it works (i'd only wish for that) ... you will find less and less of EACH Illuvial

[pulsar hearth]

You will find the same amount but capture less.

[gray rune]

Hmm anyways is about the same concept 0.005% capturing chance or 0.005% of encountering it's kind of the same issue

The real 'issue' is pricing a run the same when you have 50% chance of capturing vs 1% chance of capturing

[sudden zephyr]

Near the end of the set it might be worth it to start throwing out rarer shards to catch the illuvials. Could lead to increase in Solon price actually.

[strange hollow]

Let different types of players express their view of the in game economy. You do that with an open market as a starting point and add boundaries where needed based on how it actually works. Not fear that 'something' might go wrong, so don't make it open/free.

[pulsar hearth]

There isnt a finite number of illuvials. Envision it like so with made up numbers ofc:

You find 15 Illuvials in a run. First you have 10% of capturing an illuvial, by the end of the set it will be 5%. So you would be forced to use a higher tier shard to pump that number back up to 10%. You will still find 15 every run, but either catch less or spend more to catch the same amount.

At the end of the set, the Illuvial will become unavailable to be found.

[sudden zephyr]

Agreed. And realistically we’ll be starting the game with mostly web3 players and will adopt web2 gamers over time as the kinks get worked out

[strange hollow]

EXACTLY.

[gray rune]

Okay .. but the issue is still there ... use more higher tier shards -> making Hyperion more sought after thus increased in price vs at the start of the season when maybe higher tier shards are not needed as much

After all we're talking about fixed vs free market fuel prices (i was using the difficulty of encoutering/capturing of Illuvials as an analogy)

[strange hollow]

This is way you have a market. right here.

different views and the flexibility to express them via game play

If you don't want that you are in the wrong game/industry.

[sudden zephyr]

It’s just like crypto in general. Once people understand they’re more likely to adopt it.
It’s education we need.

[pulsar hearth]

I would argue that fuel price decreases if you require more of it for the same outcome.

Either that or the Illuvial price would go up.
And so what is the conclusion?

In a free market you would use more hyperion for a better shard and pay more because Hyperion is more sought after. Thus, Illuvial prices go up and Arena becomes more expensive. The early players would have had a discount

In the Stable price you would do more runs because your odds are worse of obtaining something. So you would still spend more if the fuel prices are the same, and the Illuvial price would also go up.

What is the difference?

[strange hollow]

If someone wants to be a fuel provider that offers fuel at consistent prices bc there is MARKET demand, someone can build that and sell that. The protocle should be open to support something like that, sounds sick!

idk why ppl want to block that all from happening down the road.

We just need to make it easier, not make the system worst overall.

@solar nebula Sounds like a business idea that you want to create. I fully support that being possible for you or anyone to build.

[tropic hare]

You are thinking way too short term, worrying about your return on investment rather than worrying about the game's longevity. You keep bringing up the crypto market, this is not just a market we are building, its a game. For gamers, not for investors. You can still invest and speculate plenty but that should not be the primary design issue

[gray rune]

The difference is that free market is a natural way of deciding how much a run/fuel costs at a specific time of a season ...
and secondly i would argue that sales would go down if prices are fixed ..who would pay the same amount of money at the end of the season when they know it's X% more difficult to find/catch whatever they are looking for

[tropic hare]

That's precisely the problem. Crypto in general is crazy for the average Joe. We are trying to create a game, not a high-risk environment most players get wrecked in

[sudden zephyr]

I don’t disagree. Which is why my model helps decrease that risk vs Aaron’s

[gray rune]

It's not like we're onboarding players at the start of the season and afterwards we stop .. we look to onboard players at a steady rate .. what about players that want to enter or do enter the ecosystem late in a season? What kind of experience would they have if spending a lot for travel and don't catch anything

[tropic hare]

You ignore the prices of illuvials you catch. If the game is good (and price pools are lucrative) there will also be an increased demand on the market, meaning it could very well be even more profitable to run even with less chance to catch

[strange hollow]

Fuel prices will have limited affect on whether there is a bubble and people get rekt though. Does not matter if fixed or not.

What it will do is create blind spots in the market bc there is a fix price that is going to dictate the price of the rest of the economy. As there is evidence to show happens with price fixing.

[gray rune]

For you or me maybe yes as we will be here from the start ... But what about new players that get into Illuvium towards the end of the season?

[strange hollow]

Fixing the price will likey lead to higher costs overall in the system.

[pulsar hearth]

As long as the game is fun enough, they probably will pay whatever is required.

But regardless of the model, the price of Illuvials will go up.

The fact remains that the Illuvials will become more difficult to obtain. In the free market one, you could even see a bigger increase in cost because there is a 25% fluctuation in value.
If everyone requires higher tier shards for the same Illuvials, you will see Hyperion price increase through increased demand thereby the Illuvial costs will increase further.

So i dont think this is per se a jab at either of these models but at the bonding curve itself.

[solar nebula]

"no clear core economical structure of how things could actually work" - wdym?

[tropic hare]

It would be the same, regardless of when do you get in. If you pay the same, have 50% less chance to catch an Atlas than you had at the beginning, but the market price of an Atlas increased 2.5x, you are just as incentivised to do a run as at the beginning of the season

[strange hollow]

yeah it's a bonding curve, so would be better if pricing could adjust automatically.

oh, like a market!

[tropic hare]

The market for illuvials is a free market

[strange hollow]

and is that working?

[solar nebula]

the current model being proposed isnt 25% fluctuation max

they are proposing some bars as a ceiling with no floor bar

I'd probably be fine with bars up to 25% if there was no shot at this, but I know aaron wants there to be a lot more freedom for price to move

[gray rune]

Price of Illuvials is not the main point imo .. this will be a risk vs reward decision that each player will have to make when attempting a run. Price of illuvials is outside of the scope here. We're talking about onboarding loads of players at a constant rate - not about how we that are debating here will play the market. A new player that starts at the end of the season and pays for 10 travels to get almost nothing good in return will not have a very good experience vs if the travel costs are really low and he gets to try over and over for cheaper prices

[scenic kestrel]

Not sure what you mean by this but it does in TCGs unless im misunderstanding your point

[strange hollow]

the market for fuel is going to be 100% simpler than the market for illuvitars and more price efficient, given it's fungible tokens. So if that market is working I really don't see how the fuel market is such a risk. Honestly get them to break down in simple terms what actions from which market participate will cause price to balloon?

It's all fear.

[tropic hare]

Here is one more issue I have not seen anyone talk about. Changes in the fuel price will be amplified in several other aspects of the game.

Lets consider a fix fuel price first. As the number of players increase, so does the income of the DAO, and in turn, the revdis. This will raise the token price, which makes everything you can earn tokens with more lucrative. Now you have the illuvial and illuvitar prices increase too. This will drive more people to play and catch them etc. You will already see a bubble to some extent, with plenty of room for us early adopters to make a return.

Now add an increase in fuel pricing to this, and you just amplified this bubble by raising the short-term income significantly and having a domino effect on everything I just mentioned. Now the bubble is much bigger, meaning the crash that will follow will be much bigger.

The exact scenario we would need to avoid...

[solar nebula]

so ur talking about the illuvials supply curves there

common misconception is that there is a limited number of illuvials, this is untrue, illuvials (while the set lasts) are unlimited

each illuvial has a different rarity, and each starts on launch at 1 on their individual supply curves, once the game starts and people catch more or less of an illuvial their individual supply curves will tend towards 0.5, this means that no illuvial will ever be more than double as rare as it is on launch

this is great as illuvials more demanded than others will naturally become rarer faster, if OW prices are stable it also means that Illuvial prices will naturally tend to increase as a set goes on (and likely increase further once a set ends and supply becomes limited)

[tropic hare]

It's not working as it does not yet exist. But it will exist, so there will be your free market you want

[strange hollow]

bro needs to watch mean girls. 'the limit doesn't exist' jfc get a grip vet, it will approach zero over time - yes or no?

Plus bonding to upgrade them.

[solar nebula]

I agree that this is what we need to avoid if we wont long term sustainable success,

I would be personally all for fluctuating prices if I didn't care about the long term of this project and wanted a higher short-term bubble to form just after launch for exit liquidity

But I want this project to be around in a decade personally

[solar nebula]

no it will approach 0.5

the curve does not approach 0, it approaches 0.5 ser

It then goes straight to 0 when the set ends, but while it is live it will always approach and never quite touch 0.5

[tropic hare]

The same here, I love playing the illuvitar market already, and it will be even more lucrative with the addition of illuvials. I also own 7 land plots. And I like money.

But many people seem to be fixated on their ROIs as opposed to the game longevity. Human greed has the big potential to destroy many good things, this game is no exception.

Even though I would love to be involved in Illuvium for decades, if we get this wrong I might have to consider switching my focus to exit speculation instead. It would be a petty

[strange hollow]

but with bonding, it will go 'lower' in the long run (but yeah, maybe there is a little bounce at the end when it flattens out), which is why we will need more sets.

Regardless, the primary point is there is a shifting supply. Open pricing allows for that to be factored in to fuel prices dynamically, instead of my vet eye test.

[gray rune]

Yes i got it and it's correct. Not a finite supply but much harder to catch - as i've said already the issue is still here as we're not talking about illuvial prices. Fuel prices for travel should decrease as Illuvials are more difficult to catch thus require more runs - this is something that new players that enter the ecosystem towards the end of the season will experience so we want to make it as good as we can for onbording as many as we hope

[solar nebula]

up to double as hard (not like 10x harder which would be far more significant)

[strange hollow]

you say you want experts, I agree. Thats the people playing the game - or who exactly and how often will they be updating the prices? How will that be decide?

you? the council? I'd rather keep in in the hand of the players.

[tropic hare]

But how can you ignore half of the equasion? Fuel prices are one half, illuvial prices are the other half.

[gray rune]

I haven't heard there is a cap of how difficult will get to catch an illuvial but i'll take your word on it. Still even if it's only hald that means that the price should go down by that amount

[pulsar hearth]

If there is no demand for assets you would indeed have this issue for the stable pricings while fuel costs would go to zero in the open market one.

If the demand values the illuvials the same as at the start you would also have this issue for the stable pricings, while the price for fuel would go down a bit in the open market proposal.

If the demand values illuvials higher because their difficulty to obtain goes up, you would not have any problems with either model.

[solar nebula]

why? if something is double are rare because there is more demand for it, then its price doubles... the price of fuel does not need to decrease

[gray rune]

Because you don't need illuvials to travel or cure shards or a new player won't know the value of X Illuvial when attempting a T1 run ... so the failure to catch illuvials will be a bad experience imo

[solar nebula]

which is why it will never be worse than double as hard as launch

anyway this feels somewhat off topic

[strange hollow]

This is ultimately a power grab and I say fuck that.

The players should decide the price we need an open system to make sure that happens.

[gray rune]

I don't think it's off topic but i will stop here and my main reason/concern remains - twice as hard to catch means twice more runs to successfully catch it so the price per run should be lower than when i had 100% of getting it (regardless if i have 10000 illuvials in my collection or none)

[tropic hare]

And you think they will not check market prices of illuvials they can catch? You keep saying that fuel price should go down with the increased difficulty of cathing them but this would only apply if the illuvial prices on the market would stay constant. There is very little chance of that happening

[solar nebula]

only if u believe that the prices of illuvials should be stable
which fyi is an opinion I have never encountered before actually

[gray rune]

I feel this argument is off topic cuz illuvial price won't matter to new players

[solar nebula]

oh it will matter to new players lol

its the barrier to entry to play the game lol

[tropic hare]

What do you think the main attraction will be for new players? Its a crypto game, they will probably hear about it due to the potential to earn with it

[gray rune]

You really think a new player that sees an ad about Illuvium will spend hours into researching the market ..find out the value of a Goliant and where it's used and what synergies you can accomplish with it? loooool 😄
It's the most ridiculous argument you've said so far honestly ... a new player will just pay the first entry with minimal knowledge about the ecosystem just to see how it goes and how fun is it... they will go deeper into this as they progress and like the game

[gray rune]

I can't say because i don't know ... it depends from player to player i guess

[tropic hare]

Which means they will likely start with tier 0 runs, for free

[tropic hare]

I'm saying this based on my past experience with crypto games. Axie blew up because of press coverage of people earning money while playing a game, so did others that attracted a big player base

[strange hollow]

@solar nebula Please express in simple terms your experience in crypto markets. Special emphisis on experiences that are directly guiding your judgment here.

I think understanding the experience of the person suggesting such an important strategy should be very well understood.

I'll ask for an indication of your performace, as that is the ultimate indicator. But I'll leave that up to your discretion.

[gray rune]

Axie in the first place had an inflationary system (breeding) which is not the case here

[fresh atlas]

First you are basing yourself in anchoring that could explain a type of consumer behavioral but I don't consider a fundamental pricing tool. That aside your explanation of "deposit box" is very shallow, again I undesrstand the broad concept but not the details of how it could actually be implemented it's an idea but not much depth behind it, I would need something more technical of how it could work, a layout a blueprint....something more concise

[tropic hare]

I know that but it's a different topic. I was talking about what attracted people to play it. It was certainly not due to the gameplay, it was the money they all thought they could make

[pulsar hearth]

It would have been shot down by the other council members if it was an inherently bad proposal.

In essence it is a fair proposal and very doable, but it gives a lot of authority to the team rather than the community. It has its pro's and cons.

So lets not discuss whó brought this proposal up but its contents 👍

[tropic hare]

Anyway, nice to see so much engagement, hopefully, we can come up with a good solution in the end. It looks like the process worked for the illuvitar wave 2 proposal

[strange hollow]

I'll ask any question I want and so should anyone else. He is fine to ignore.

[cosmic ridge]

If my understanding is correct, treat it as a leader board in which all parties split the revenue based on their standing.

If you produce 4% of crypton, you get 4% of revenue from crypton. If you produce 0.01% of crypton, you get 0.01% of revenue from crypton. This would have to be evaluated periodically (monthly in the example), but yous basically be getting revenue proportional to your production (assuming you deposited said production into the deposit box).

As an concept it's not particularly difficult, it's the same as fuel will work with order books, but without the ability to play upswing and downswings in price.

[strange hollow]

or for the dao to capture revenue from the aspects of a pool in addition to selling into the pool itself.

[cosmic ridge]

I do think the team would be best qualified to determine the specifics of technical implementation if this proposal were to move forward, but as with the other proposals this is about the core idea more than it is about technical details.

[strange hollow]

Who is going to verify that it's all correct, are we going to create a smart contract to verify all this?

It's complete none sense this is why we are building on a blockchain.

Someone who doesn't understand the literal basics of this industry is suggesting this idea.

[pulsar hearth]

Wouldnt we do this regardless if we ever go across the upper rail threshold? How do you determine what revenue someone gets extra out of the excess that moves to the DAO?

[solar nebula]

if your concern is whether or not it could work and it could be build the team has informed me that it is not only doable but easier to implement than fluctuating fuel

The deposit box and 30day rolling average is a suggestion, there are other ways it could be done and the rolling average could be longer or shorter day average

payouts could be daily, hourly etc. another thing that can be adjusted a bunch

the purpose of the proposal is prices remaining static, accessible and simple to understand, the details beyond that are certainly editable

what specifically do you not understand as to how it would work, happy to answer

[strange hollow]

if we go above the threshold the dao would be getting a larger share, and it would all be verifiable onchain exactly how it happened.

i didn't understand you second q

[solar nebula]

100%

[pulsar hearth]

But the landholders are entitled to the same 5% share as always. So the excess would have to be distributed back to the landholders to make this come true.

[strange hollow]

I thought it was financial incentive to keep the price low. Otherwise what is the upper limit doing for us?

If it all just gets equaled out for land holders in the end - i don't get it. But if that did make sense it would be very easy to see funds from the dao, and do the math.

With a web2 architecture like being described it would be opace and we would just have to blindly trust the team. unless the extra work of contracting it to the chain, and again why on earth would we do it like that?

[pulsar hearth]

Maybe my assumption is wrong and the DAO would get a bigger share in the case that the upper rails is hit. 👀 i guess this isnt figured out yet. Im curious what the thoughts are on that ^^

[strange hollow]

That's the negative finanical incetive for landholders to sell and keep the price low.

lads come on

[pulsar hearth]

I thought that it would be distributed based on who sold more fuel. So it would be an incentive to sell as much fuel all the time to get a bigger cut if the price goes across the boundary xD
Idk.
I havent figured the rails out yet.

[cosmic ridge]

What? The team will absolutely have off-chain software to handle elements of normal game play, why is this a point of contention?

This isn't about who is vetting software implementations, it's about the DAO's approach to monetization models, and it would be beneficial to stay focused on that element.

[strange hollow]

that could work too

[strange hollow]

Gameplay mechanics offchain. The economy is onchain.

there is no way we are debating that rn - are we?

[cosmic ridge]

Do you want wake spawn locations on chain? Deposit types, locations etc. on chain? If we want to interact in any way with the world outside web3 we need to acknowledge that there are practical realities that mean everything cannot be on chain. Direct credit card payments are off-chain, and there is NO way the DAO gets any benefit from not pursuing ways to make it easier for people to spend money.

Regardless, that's really not the point of this proposal. Fixed fuel prices can exist on-chain or off-chain, it's a technical implementation decision.

[strange hollow]

Again - game play off chain.

[cosmic ridge]

Yes, and the DAO selling fuel at fixed prices can be on-chain. So I remain curious about why you're making it a point of contention.

[strange hollow]

the whole mechanism for determining share would be off chain

with a pool it's on chain

[cosmic ridge]

I don't see that specified, and I don't believe that needs to be the case.

[strange hollow]

Then this is a gross over statement. Putting this onchain would be writting a complicated contract from scratch without examples to build from.

[solar nebula]

this is simply what the team told me and they have read my entire proposal...

[strange hollow]

They where considering writing a contract on chain for this? I bet they read it like i did and where like ya we could throw up a database to support this, bc it would just be an issuance contract as the backend? Bc honestly why would you put the rest of this on chain when you could just create a pool

Also you realise that if the price is two high someone will just create a pool for the tokens to be traded, and i think we should own that so we get the revenue from fees.

There is going to be a secondary market for these coins, that's only going to confuse ppl more and create a worst UI. We need to build that at somepoint - like right?

[solar nebula]

if prices fluctuate maybe...

if my proposal goes through theres kinda no real need

[solar nebula]

a lot of assumptions here ser

[strange hollow]

lmao it will happen

Your assumption is that markets don't work and I know better because i say so

[solar nebula]

my experience as previously stated beyond what I have previously done in the Illuvium ecosystem and council is primarily in Gaming Monetisation and that has been my main area of study over the last 1.5years

I really don't understand what "crypto market experience" has to do with a proposal about "the monetisation strategy of a game" even if that game has web3 functionality

The game and player experience is always paramount in web3 gaming, web2 gaming or otherwise... unless this is a game exclusively targeting Forex/Crypto Traders which it is not, OW and by extension Arena target Autobattler, Strategy, Resource Collection, Creature Collection type gamers primarily with the secondary market targeting those that enjoy trading and collection also. It is these games that are the primary money sinks in our ecosystem until additional games are built in future.

IZ's F2P targets non investors who enjoy Land Builder games, IZ paid version targets investors wanting a more gamified investing experience. IZ also was presented with having a possible end game mechanic (that was never approved by council yet) where Fuel selling, trading and min maxing is a thing, that would be targeting traders (but to a limited extent as there is a limit to how much Fuel can be held before becoming a forced seller anyways)

It doesnt take a Rocket Scientist to understand that an added feature on IZ is not worth sacrificing player experience in OW (and affects all future games also) which is our primary form of monetisation in our ecosystem.

[strange hollow]

'I really don't understand what "crypto market experience" has to do with a proposal about "the monetisation strategy of a game" even if that game has web3 functionality'

for the love of god - it's a cypto game. It's going to be a crypto market, regardless of this proposal or not.

I'm sorry, but you are not qualified to be on the counsel.

You literally have zero experience that suggests you know anything about this.

NO crypto experience and no game development experience.

Your explanations show that you are completely our of your depth.

I SUGGEST YOU USE CRYPTO BEFORE TRYING TO BUILD IT and act like your uneducated opions is the word of god and free of assumptions.

[pure trail]

I repeat that once again the target demographic for marketing is not crypto people

Just because you think something is so doesn't make it so

[strange hollow]

my track record speaking out against bad idea and being right speaks for it's self. there are just a couple quick ones.

#809220563397902346 message

#809220563397902346 message

I demonstrated clear forsight with the land sale, but because of my deep experiecne in the crytpo markets and how rocky the road would be.

Vet voted for the land sale rev dis.

I called the bottom of the crypto market in real time on my twitter.

The bottom of the ilv market, the local top and the most recent bottem. Happen to go get those links as well.

This is my third cycle I'm not an rookie. I don't even need this to work, I just want this to be sick.

I've used every chain and basically every type of protocol. Profitable trading major, I sold the 2021 top and the 2018 top.

I bough eth at 1000 and 200 respectively. I've traded shit coins and nfts. I ran 10k to 400k in a month on sol in oct/noc 2021.

[strange hollow]

we need to make cypto product easier to use not reproduce web2 designs in a smart contract, that's fucking dumb

https://twitter.com/zz__cap/status/1597997088729894913?s=20

#💰〕token message

#💰〕token message

zz cap (@zz__cap)

holy fuck - let's gooooooo. bottom in or close as a mfer

Twitter · Nov 30, 2022, 4:52 PM

I've call several bangers in the degen channel

unibot and this 40x #1023650415893545031 message

sure - I'm honestly a scrub compared to ppl that are really good. but I'm not afraid to put my stats on the board

No - I'm showing I have deep crypto expertise AND results to back that claim up.

[pure trail]

This is a game not a crypto trade

[strange hollow]

I'm trying to tell you there is a perfectly good crypto tool that will add value and keep costs low.

Vetmore is saying nah I know better even though I don't use those things.

All while keeping control in the hands of the players, which is a core ethos of the game from the BEGINNING.

Aarons is on the right track

[pure trail]

You can't guarantee that it keeps prices anywhere

[strange hollow]

Yes we can

[pure trail]

You can theorize it but thats all

[strange hollow]

at least I have experience informing my theory.

Theory alone only gets you so far

https://tenor.com/view/cillian-murphy-oppenheimer-oppenheimer-movie-gif-2350483879960124035

[pure trail]

It's introducing risk into a system where it doesnt need to be at the potential expense of reducing the onboarding of players into the real game

[strange hollow]

it's introducing efficiency and revenue for the dao - there is already a fuck ton of risk and the parameters (ceiling or other) help with this part.

[pure trail]

If less people play Illuvium because of this then it reduces revenue

[strange hollow]

sure - that goes both ways. You are assuming perfect pricing determined by who? over the life time of the project?

[pure trail]

When looking at a system you cant just ignore potential downsides and only look at the upsides

[tropic hare]

All the examples you bring are about the crypto market. This is a game first, crypto second project. All the crypto peeps you are used to play with, they are NOT the main target market. Your very insistence of this is what makes you unqualified.

[pure trail]

Exactly

[strange hollow]

Do you really trust a popularity contest to determine the in game price of the economy?

[strange hollow]

brother - I have experience with a crypto markets. I payed all the games, I'm still playing all the games.

There is going to be a crypto market in this game, you guys are just hyper focused on something that scares you

I get that, but trust. The crypto tools work, we just need better UI. Not web2 tooling in a smart contract. That's illogical it really is why would you use a smart contract for this system.

Can either of you tell me why that helps?

[pure trail]

The Web3 market is so small compared to what our main focus is.

[strange hollow]

right, but we will still be onboarding ppl to a cypto experience and i agree with need to abstract as much of that away as possible.

But you don't do that by removing what works about crpto entirly.

You use a better wallet and better onboarding experience from fiat. Account abstraction to make it so they don't have to sign a trasnaction every time they do anything.

[pure trail]

The idea is to make things as seamless as possible as to not offput people from the start considering we are starting from a point of "NFT games suck and are all scams"

[prime sparrow]

DMs are scams

Mods and Team members will never DM you.
Never trust advice or links received in DMs.

Beta access, giveaways, and promotions are not given out via DM. Scams are designed to trick you into installing malicious software to gain access to your wallet or to convince you to enter your seed phrase into a website. Never give your private key (12 to 24-word seed phrase) to anyone.

Support is not provided via DMs

Support is handled publicly, or in threads within the Illuvium Discord. People offering support via DM are scammers.

Please follow the instructions pinned in #report-scammers to report bad actors so we can remove them from the server.

[pure trail]

You want people to feel like its just any other normal game

[strange hollow]

To build great experiences for people you don't meet them where they are you show them how it can be sooo much better

steve jobs - 'start with the user experience and work backwards.'
Henry ford - 'if I asked ppl what they wanted they would have said faster horses'

I'm being lame but it's true

[pure trail]

There are already aspects in place that do that. You don't need to change everything up just for the sake of doing it

[strange hollow]

no we want it to be much much better, even if they have to learn some new things

[pure trail]

I agree with you on a lot of the aspects of Web3 and it being an improvement over normal systems. But that does us no good if we can't onboad people into our game and be a success.

Thats why I'm all for limiting the risk of that

It's fine to start things slow

[strange hollow]

I agree. it needs to be better.

But are we really going to sell ppl coins and not given them a place to trade them.

Like come on make that make sense.

and build a smart contract that hard codes the economy? like what are we even doing here guys

and keeps it in the hands of the counsel to price and not the players? is that what this dao is about now

[tropic hare]

That's right, you absolutely cannot trust a game economy to the players. They will gravitate to self interest and short term gains, human nature 101. There has to be a data driven approach to governance and you can't expect your average player to be able to do that. This is why we pay council members.

[pure trail]

The goal is to have a massively successful game.

If one system is better than another for that then thats what we should use

[strange hollow]

no that is not what we pay the council for - no one gave them that responsibility. They are not qualified in any capacity to do that at the moment as not one of them has experience doing that.

The players are all in a competition environment, we are using their self interest to price the market. Same reason gas is cheap, even tho it's an insane process to produce.

If ow ppl see value in fuel, they will buy and cycle, if they don't they won't. If land ppl can sell into a good price they will if not they won't.

So the land owners can't organize we are talking about a protection, so that it's against their incentive to do this.

[tropic hare]

The self interest of individual players rarely align with that of game longevity. I am an investor in every aspect of this game and I would gladly give up a portion of my short term income to see the game persist. Not everyone thinks like this and if you let players (investors) dictate game economy, self interest will always win.

[cosmic ridge]

4 of the council members are senior team members, and we consult with other team members as necessary. The council absolutely is paid to make decisions on behalf of the DAO, and that can include monetization models and pricing. It's not like we're doing that in isolation though - the team is involved, as is the community, through processes and discussions like this.

[strange hollow]

fair

I'm just saying the community council members don't currently hold any special knowledge/experience at the moment. No one ran on that or has experience beyond anyone else in pricing this properly

[strange hollow]

Bro I voted to defer land sale revenue to the dao to keep it funded. It was me an one other person at the time.

I've proven time and time again, I'm looking at the big picture and have a wealth of native crypto experience to offer.

you can see that here: #809220563397902346 message

I also was a proponent of spreading the staking love to the Apes community, bc I valuse more holders over staking rewards. #809220563397902346 message

that was rejects bc of marketing pricing done in the bull market which I pointed out was short sighted and it was we should run the math on this again. lmao bet I was right at todays prices

[tropic hare]

Fair enough, I can see from your level of engagement that you care. But could you guarantee the same for ever other land owner/investor? When real money is involved, it's usually a small number of opportunist people who are looking every way to potentially exploit others, regardless of what the project is. We need to come up with a system that prevents this.

You are also right that no one is an expert in web3 game economies, after all, no project has successfully pulled this off yet. It's near impossible to get pricing right at the first try. But we can strive to prevent a big disaster from happening if we can. If there are no guard rails from preventing a sudden price spike, likely causing a collapse later, we will fail at this.

[slim veldt]

Give me land staking and 5% revdis and I don’t need to sell my fuel

I’d make way more money like that than min-maxing my land fuel production because of the flat 5% (illuvitars sales, etc)

done, every land owner is happy

Then get a clear question to the community and debates: do we want fluctuating price, yes or no ? Why it’s good? Why it’s bad?

[tropic hare]

Not so fast, I believe blueprints are the better way to profit from land, at least from a T1 plot.

[slim veldt]

Well I’m not changing anything for blueprints

Or stop anything to be added for land owner lol

[tropic hare]

I like that. I will 100% focus on blueprints on my 7 plots and I'm happy about less competition.

[slim veldt]

And getting more $

More value for land owner, simplified mechanics

Still one question about fluctuating price would still to be answered

[strange hollow]

I think the safty parameters are plenty to protect small players. If not we should change them so that they do the second an issue arrives. The benefits of a market are much higher, better pricing with the changes in the economy, more revenue to the dao, and overall a better/sustainable ux.

Engagement is super low. We are gonna have to work to get ppl in. When open beta launches there is gonna be land going with fuel, it's probably more likely that there is a surplus of fuel at the start.

This would be a boost and cheap af onboarding for the core first movers, then as demand picks up we can see what happens to prices. On the first wave or price increase, land owners will optimise their land to meet the demand, if that is met then we can add more land maybe.

We can also just increase the amount of fuel produced from all the plots. That would be a better use of our time determining when and who to do all that and that's what aaron and the other guy are working on.

But like how are we going to sell a coin and not have a pool for ppl to trade, that would be a terrible user experience.

[tropic hare]

Gonna go to bed, good debate! Only crypto people would even know what is a pool to trade in. Players would just buy the fuel and use it for OW runs...

[strange hollow]

we gotta make it stupid easy for them - let's figure that out!

ty and goodnight

[solar nebula]

bro please stop trolling, I've used crypto lol

[strange hollow]

bruv you really make me question if that is real - what are things you have done?

would you dox this wallet to someone?

no way someone with this activlity doesn't want a pool for coins they will be useing like tf it's a basic part of people in crypto. just to exist on chain.

unisway was the first use case

Also - you got into crypto mid 2021, and you cranked 1000 transactions since then? you would be a power user or there about

[solar nebula]

this wallet is vetemor.eth lol

🤣

the most doxed wallet i have

[solar nebula]

I did indeed ser, I went in full time and full force

[solar nebula]

most of those transactions arent even recent

[strange hollow]

seems trading isn't for you

[solar nebula]

I'm primarily a long term investor and not a trader, crypto isnt just for traders

[strange hollow]

right - but maybe you don't appreciate the value of a permissionless pool - one where price is capped

[solar nebula]

oh I do...

but there is no permissionless pool in either proposal so whats ur point exactly

unless u classify a buy/sell order system as a permissionless pool

which imo is different

[strange hollow]

orderbook or pool, people are going to be able to trade fuel

[solar nebula]

people can only buy fuel with that order book

only land owners can sell only the fuel they produce

its super limited

with limited storage on land

its not nearly the meta trading game everyone pretends when maximising production and minimising storage and just selling whatever the price is probably ends up the best and easiest strat lol

[strange hollow]

bro

'The current plan is to build a multi-token pool using an AMM system that only allows landholders and players to buy or sell Fuel at market price'

the orderbook just allows beter price matching with less cost to players

like this is a good idea

[solar nebula]

lol gg he changed it, fair enough thanks for the info

[strange hollow]

idk doesn't matter - this is a good idea. We can build a dead simple ui around this

[solar nebula]

its even worse, now anyone can stockpile an infinite amount of fuel as a player and sell whenever they want, great

[strange hollow]

bro maybe chill. honestly dude this has been tiring and you didn't even have your facts straigh 2 mins ago

people are going to sell at good prices - it's not complicated or the dao will dump on them and they will miss out of revenue

[solar nebula]

bro u maybe chill, you've been saying i've never made a trade in my life or used crypto until 2 mins ago

[solar nebula]

what is the benefit? seriously?

[strange hollow]

You traded 150k on that wallet and lost 500

like maybe you don't get this part that well. it's ok

[slim veldt]

Why the hell are we talking about vetemor transactions here ?

Can you be mature guys and focus on what matters ?

[solar nebula]

seriously bro, its 2am here, im so done with u talking to me like this

[slim veldt]

Otherwise I can talk about my breakfast and how I’m happy it’s price is not changing every day ?

[strange hollow]

we can earn a fee, the ui is consistent for the long term, pricing can adjust to the market so many things are better, it's permissionless, you can sell, there is a record of all this on chain

[pure trail]

Insults hurled at people the Team doesnt like is fine here.

[strange hollow]

Maybe don't come in so fucking hot trying to save us and you don't even understand how a dex works and why that's valueable.

[solar nebula]

I know exactly how a DEX works, youre just assuming that I dont

I'm considering other things beyond creating a dex so that ILV holders can make additional rake on Fuel transactions with

[strange hollow]

ask some questions don't push an agenda noone is asking you for so hard

[drifting fog]

Can we go back to the topic at hand before someone gets timed out.

There's no need to go attacking the crypto history or character of a person if you feel the proposal is a no-go.

By the looks of things thats where this is headed anyway. So there's nothing to gain by bring nonsensical arguments that's not related to the proposal here.

[strange hollow]

bro there is no coming back that you didn't understand the basics of aarons proposal and the merits of a dex. like I'm sorry, but that is literally why you are here to no fuck that stuff up

[solar nebula]

bro... I have read 2 previous proposals that aaron wrote and listened to him explain it all in a meeting

I didnt read the proposal he posted just this morning (I thought it was one of those he has already shared with us previously, he made no mention of a new and different proposal)

and i've been busy responding to people here all day as well

lay off mate

[slim veldt]

I agrée, but don’t do it too

I’m against giving trading tools or feeling to players

[strange hollow]

it's never not been clear, they have been saying balancer pool since the early days bro

[solar nebula]

eh... theres so few gamers in our community rn... not shocking were going to end up with an over financialised game

[strange hollow]

like it's been the plan for years now

[solar nebula]

im aware

[slim veldt]

Game for investors and crypto-bro

We’re planning to pull an axie or what ? 🤣😁

[strange hollow]

the illuvidex?

[solar nebula]

feels like

[slim veldt]

People need to understand we need to get money in the system more than out of it 🤣

[solar nebula]

eh i tried lol

[strange hollow]

no our token design is so much better.

[slim veldt]

Lol our token is dead if people don’t spend money in the game lol

You may understand dex but try to understand how money is made

[strange hollow]

hahaha okay

[solar nebula]

nah making it over financialised means we get a stronger ILV pump when everyone piles into the FOMO, gives them a chance to liquidate at a better price and move on

[slim veldt]

Anyway my breakfast was 3$, as yesterday, so I didn’t had to wait until tomorrow to maybe get a cheaper one

[solar nebula]

some people want an axie cos theyre not here for a long term investment

[slim veldt]

Make sense now

[solar nebula]

[strange hollow]

ya - it's so easy. Y'all should start a project - make sure you post it here so we can see how it goes!

[solar nebula]

whats ur gaming development experience?

[pure trail]

Some of us have more experience than your heroes

[strange hollow]

I don't claim to have any

[solar nebula]

...

[strange hollow]

I just know BS when i see it.

[solar nebula]

#qualified

please stop talking to me

[strange hollow]

okay try to read the proposal next time, champ

[vernal grove]

Let’s keep it focused on the proposal and not on people. I know it a heated topic and many have strong opinions.

[strange hollow]

is there anything for a vote of no confidence? He didn't even know the basics of the thing he was fighting against

The communities time and attencion is more valuable than this and it's honestly disrespectful af that we had to deal with that garbage

Completly unaccepable behavior from a sitting council member

[drifting fog]

Anyone from the community can initiate that. I invite you to review gov v2 structure passed last epoch.

I appreciate your passion and position on this matter. Clearly shows you're driven to want illuvium to succeed but I must ask you to refrain from personal attacks.

[strange hollow]

I will honestly try

started the process here #1138647120635760672 message

It's just rediculous how he is not educated on basics you can't have a normal conversation with something that isn't doing the bear minimum but convinced they are going to save us.

[gritty orbit]

I feel this will be completely different once things are on chain.
It's a bit hard to say what the retention will be using the betas and alphas, when the whole circle isn't complete.

[bleak storm]

Damn it Scrubs, look what u started 🤣🤣

[drifting fog]

Lol. Better there than here. Now let's get back on topic.

[gritty orbit]

This is a major point. It will most likely take a few years to get major web2 adoption.
It seems like some think if we accommodate them now they will all come rushing in.
For me web3 is like the beginning of the monetization model of web2 games. It was difficult to get rolling, yet it did and people began to understand it and now it's a standard.
It's okay to try something different.
Even though we want web2 players they will not be our main audience for a while, so taking time to go with a free market + rails, probably won't be as disastrous as some people are claiming.

[pure trail]

You realize we will be targetting Web 2 immediately right?

Not in a couple of years

The population of Web3 gamers is so incredibly small

[gritty orbit]

Illuvium is a model. There are other games that use different models.
Azra are having no in game nfts. The web3 component will be outside of the game.
Shrapnel has map building, nfts in game and skins ext. The player in shrapnel can lose all their items and be taken by someone else.
No one actually knows which model will work. Maybe it will be a sleuth of different things.
I don't have a good head for math yet I can even adapt to the differences in price.
Also there are a lot of assumptions the price will be too high. I don't actually see this happening all that often.

[gritty orbit]

Yeh lol. They stockpile it.

[gritty orbit]

It is still a crypto game though. Probably in it's purest form and we have an all encompassing DAO.
I'm not sure if web2 players will be happy with a system that allows the game to change on a dime.
Yet that's what we have and it could be amazing.

[gritty orbit]

Agreed. We can't hide or remove the crypto element completely. So why bother.
The alternative is to have a game that is not on chain and the web3 elements are elsewhere.

[gritty orbit]

Food prices fluctuate, probably more than anything else.
Sometimes the cost is absorbed mostly it's passed on in ways we don't realise. Like an extra 20cents for your coffee or less ingredients. They just don't tell you the price is the same. Yet you have 2 eggs in that omelet now instead of 3. 1 slice of tomato instead of 2 ext.

[gritty orbit]

Yes I do know this. Yet the big push into web2 afaik isn't for a while.

[solar nebula]

It has been mentioned multiple times that on launch we will be marketing to web2 as well as web3, there are some big marketing plans for web2 but not sure what I can and cant share more so ill leave it there

As a whole mainstream adoption has always been a big goal in this project and web2 gamers is how we get there, regardless if its sooner or later

[gritty orbit]

Okay thanks.
Hey I was just thinking. What if DAO buys an amount of fuel when it's cheap and then your idea of a bundle, to sell to new players.
I actually feel like some. Of the elements of your proposal are good.
I could see all the proposals merging into a new one.
I came into illuvium with no crypto experience.
At first I hated the idea of the free market. Yet I can see how it may benefit me at times when fuel is low then I get more at that time with the money I'm willing to spend. I'd probably even plan for it.

I wanted land to make skins and possibly fund my own play.

I want to go with Aaron's because I'd like to see it play out. I also think it would be better received to start there and change than a fixed price model. That to me is what I don't like in games. When someone other than the player make the price decision.
It could also be highly possible that people undercut the market on fuel because it's of value to them.
Then in order to sell your crypton you would have to match that price or wait.

Regardless of the onboarding it's still a crypto game and I don't believe we need to shy too far away from that. I got used to the way markets work and I'm a dumb ass.

[delicate lion]

I big part of game is the shared economy, that actions you take when you play has real economic consequences. It’s our big differentiator against other games. Please don’t take it away.

[frosty vortex]

This breaks the 20:1. I havent gone through and reviewed the proposals again but this would need to send 5% of of the erc20 to your wallet no?

[frosty vortex]

760 msgs in this one chat, kinda crazy

[still ridge]

DAO tings 😛

[rustic shadow]

And these are the messages just in 1 post out of 4 on this topic 😄

[wise crescent]

It's been a really good interesting conversation... mostly. DAO in action 💪

[elfin socket]

I think there are plenty of ways to control the price for OW travel runs to ensure the volatility for our player base is good. As can be seen by 3 different approaches already being proposed by Aaron, Njaif and Ani.(and there are several others that have been suggested)

The underlying fear is that a web2 audience would not engage with a fluctuating travel cost. We do know we are a Web3 game and that is the core of our current demographic. I think it would be a waste to throw away what makes us different at this point, when it could be a large attraction for traditional gamers. We can always condense this volatility with ICCPs till we hit a sweet spot where the volatility is enjoyable for all gamers. Even all the way down to a Pegged price as Vetemor describes.

[civic willow]

I think that we miss a big point around theses discussions that turn around "free market or not".
In free market and Nijafe / Aaron solution, I feel like it put so hard constraints on Illuvium Zero that have to manage the good amount of fuel generated and balancing the ecosystem. but the only little update, change, new feature could have a impact in the WHOLE economy.

The solution from vet separate all risk about it. it just makes a split depending of the land from the players. we could imagine some season for each set. with a hard reset, with upgrade, new feature. without having a big impact on the whole amount of fuel that have to be generated and "not change" what is currently in place.
I think it's important for a game, and for people that want to see Illuvium Zero becoming more fun to play. I see this as a so hard benefit to get this flexibility in.

I would love to have a "gameplay" perspective of this discussion from the team. If what I wrote is totally false from a dev perspective, or if it open a lot more possibility for the game in the future.

[solar nebula]

This is what people seem to not get, any changes to IZ past launch will always affect our entire ecosystem in a fundamental way,

The whole thing is just risk and bloatware that we’ve decided to stick right in the middle of our entire ecosystem forever and once its done it wont be easy to un-do

Idk, it seems that this entire community has a ton of risk tolerance that for an already risky project I’m just not into I guess…

[solar nebula]

The “but we are a web3” game argument is so dry

The game is no less web3 or less engaging for a web3 audience, its even more of a free market…

And lol at “it could be a large attraction for trad gamers”

My proposal just has less pump and dump potential, maybe thats what web3 is all about, I just didnt think pump and dumps were sustainable long-term mechanics 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

[solar nebula]

Heard this a lot. If this is actually our big USP then the project wont make it, 99% of gamers wont care and it distracts from our real USP which is bringing in-game ownership to the masses.

The economy is shared but no benefits are shared, just complication, inconvenience and some room for a few traders to make some arbitrage 🤷‍♀️

[gaunt flare]

I believe that your assessment of the alternative proposals is not entirely fair. While I do appreciate certain aspects of your proposal and the reduction of risk holds considerable appeal for me. However, "game feel" plays a vital role in enhancing game enjoyment. Moreover, the sense of participating in a broader economy, complete with all its intricacies and complexities, serves as a powerful unique selling point. Instead of people trying to "win" the debate by disregarding nuance, I think we should strive to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal. There are positives and negatives to all, I really don't like "The economy is shared but no benefits are shared, just complication, inconvenience and some room for a few traders to make some arbitrage".

[fresh atlas]

@solar nebula ,It's definitely a tough subject and one I'm not too keen on continuing by text because it's hard to get details across in the rough waters of discord (I'll try my outmost to be at the townhall even tought it is at 3:30 am 😵).

I just feel that 1) For me to back a proposal on an overhaul of our current system it has to be a way more robust one that triumphs the previous one 2) I think we can come up with interesting ways to make price swings less impacful to the players.

I will end here with a compliment to you on your effort in this proposal and be sure that price stability it's a factor I absolutely care about.

[gritty orbit]

I don't believe this is a dry statement.
We all want more people to join crypto. Yet I'm kind of wondering why there is such a push to hide it as much as possible.
I get the case of onboarding yet it also feels like pretending the economy doesn't exist. Like hey look over here at my smoke and mirrors.
Maybe being straight and honest about it, having discussions will help educate about crypto and the ethos of decentralization.
I'd imagine most people coming in would have an idea it's crypto and be curious.

I'd like to see the market driven way first. Then we have a metric to go by.

I don't believe there will be so many people joining that using Aaron's or a tweeked version of will wrek the game.

I'd also much rather see a mass push to web2 once the mechanisms have been tested, proved to need changing, works well and any bugs or issues sorted. Like whichever model stands a time test is solid.

[sudden zephyr]

Aaron explained to us how this would work. He can probably talk about it in the townhall. In the background it would basically act as if you’re selling it to yourself.

[frosty vortex]

Hahha yeah I know how Aaron said it would work, I just thought you were suggesting something different with the way you worded it. All good

[granite pollen]

Onboarding the masses will involve the F2P aspect of it, the crypto aspect of it is to make Web3 fun to learn and invest into imo.

[edgy vapor]

This discussion falls prey to the binary thinking fallacy.: We can either have fluctuating prices or fixed prices.

But why not have both?

Our players/customers should be able to pick what suits them best.

Please see here: #1138461435995901995 message

[rustic shadow]

Weren't we supposed to have a web2 onboarding in which gamers would not even know they're playing a web 3 game?
And now we want to ask them to finish a simple economics 101 class to understand markets and orderbooks to play a game.

[sudden zephyr]

"if we end up hitting the top rail continually just a matter of making land produce more fuel by some multiplier"

How can you say this and that you are against my model, when my model proactively does this so that we're less likely to hit any upper rail.

Seeing as your model won't be going through you shouldn't be disregarding the remaining model that keeps prices the most stable and most accessible.

[solar nebula]

we'll be going with a fluctuating fuel system like in aarons idea, my idea did not get enough support unfortunately...

just a matter of figuring out exactly how we go about it, what limitations and mechanics etc.

Personally my goals are to make the game as player friendly and accessible as possible to give us the best shot of mass adoption

How I think we can accomplish this is using @strong shale's idea of showing the UI in a way that makes any price below the top rail to be bonus fuel (imo genius)

a single ceiling rail at a price that is still accessible is enough, then it just becomes a case of figuring out that top rail's price

if we end up hitting the top rail continually just a matter of making land produce more fuel by some multiplier (as well as Ani's proposal)

The above is imo the best fluctuating fuel solution that I've seen so far, we'll see what further discussion brings though

I am against @sudden zephyr's proposal in any system as I feel it is unneccessary bloat and thanks to @cedar belfry's order book system volatility shouldnt be too much of an issue

@vernal grove's proposal regarding beginning to sell Land in small chunks is one that shouldnt begin straight on launch but is a great idea for gradually ramping up supply a few months in

there will defo be more discussion around this topic and wouldn't be surprised if theres another town hall on it either as we progress further