#Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To create Buy/Sell Orders For Fuel

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

worthy gulch
#

Full Proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X4DyKBMolA0MnChw_ZfPrO5aTVr7BdoUadleM2aXPhU/edit

This is a technical change to the current plan for the Fuel Pool that has been in place since the proposal of inception of Illuvium: Zero. It proposes an order book implementation rather than a multi-token pool.

From a consumer perspective there is almost no change, except the ability to set buy/sell orders rather than being forced to accept the current market price. It also removes the requirement for liquidity which most likely reduces fees, and provides for an easier implementation of a rails system (should the council deem that a requirement).

It can be summarised as an optimisation of the current system.

Google Docs
IIP-XX Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To create Buy/Sell Orders ...

IIP-XX Allow Purchasers and Land Holders To create Buy/Sell Orders For Fuel Author: Aaron Created: 8-2-2023 Simple Summary 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, with slippage, which require...

#

It might also be prudent to point out that this proposal is contingent on Vetemor's. Should his pass, this system (or the original planned AMM) would not be built, and so this wouldn't go to vote.

For anyone interested in variable price examples.

Eve Online is a "hybrid system". The price for playing is variable if you want (ISK), and fixed if you want (Buy with money).

Second Life is "fully variable" and has been pretty stable for years. This is closest to what our current plan is.

It is my experience that explaining variability to gamers is trivial. "What makes the price change?" -> "Demand." For many, variability is a feature, especially when it is one of the cornerstones of what we are building: An interconnected system of cause and effect that is bigger than the sum of its parts.

Note: For anyone wondering, one reason I'm against Vetemor's proposal is there is an obviously better hybrid system that would be analogous to Eve Online, which I have explained before. I have no idea why that isn't being proposed. I would be against that as well, but it doesn't have the major blind spots. In essence price for actions would be fixed or variable depending if you buy and hold fuel, vs buying instantly.

cunning willow
#

This balances out the land owner agency while keeping thing relatively stable for the general OW user.

The main variable being the agreed upon range of the rails.

Keen to see what the team / council decides on regarding that range. 😁

These are arbitrary numbers but the way I see it:
15% - 20% range on rails - this is a much better solution.
60% - 70% range on rails - Vets option of stability is a better solution.

serene carbon
#

This is a pure upgrade to what we have voted in already.
However this does not mean it's the best possible system that we can have.

Most gamers don't like price volatility, charts, economics and so on.

I'll be voting it down. Because Aaron already put it as mutually exclusive with Vet's proposal.

fallow aurora
#

IIP: Fuel stock trading program 🔥

lapis stratus
cunning willow
#

Guys talking about “volatility” without knowing the rail range seems hasty and premature.

A range of 10% is very different to a range of 90%.

That’s an incredibly crucial factor.

drifting plume
#

For those following at home, the first question is whether to have stable or market adjusted prices for fuel (Aaron vs. Vetemor's proposals). The second question is what mechanic would be used to balance fuel production as new gamers enter the ecosystem (Aaron, Nijafe, or Ani's proposals) if we are using the orderbook system Aaron proposes here.

civic mauve
#

Would people that don't own land be able to store infinite amount of fuel via buying? Locking orders to storage is a bit ambiguous as i don't understand if it refers to buyers that don't own land also

serene carbon
civic mauve
lapis stratus
lunar musk
#

I'm open to both suggestions, it's a bit tough to really parse out how this one looks in practice without clearly defining exactly what the higher & lower rails look like and how they work.

Accessibility is guarded by the proposed higher rail, but I assume fuel demand likely on launch keeps us at the Higher Rail, until the secondary hits a point of being unsustainable, low demand and or illiquid, then a trend to the lower rail starts that can in theory be offset by more Illuvials, Games, Uses for Overworld Materials & Burning Mechanisms.

Ontop of this, as secondary fuel demand slows, you also have people able to run Overworld cheaper and cheaper, meaning that they can undercut secondary floors with less loss. This can speed up and create a further death spiral for existing downtrending assets that are illiquid, which also impacts the perceived value of a run.

I do like the idea of more fixed Overworld pricing instead of Rails, it allows us to preserve accessibility and allows the DAO more control to balance the economy drastic changes are needed.

I think in reality Rails just play out as fixed Overworld pricing with more steps that overall likely results in less longer term revenue for the DAO, the average land owner and creates a bitterness to the pricing of the Overworld Runs when the price starts trending downward.

noble topaz
serene carbon
# drifting plume For those following at home, the first question is whether to have stable or mar...

Isn't Vet's proposal already handling balancing. It's a like a staking system. You get fuel which you burn in order to get access to the proceeds for specific period. And speculate with future proceeds by storing our fuel and burning it at the time we see fit.

It might sound strange but Vet's proposal has a more free market than Aaron's. Rails is a bad thing. And we know this from history(check communism for reference).

drifting plume
noble topaz
fallow aurora
#

So many ideas at once lol, love reading them and the passion behind each

calculation-math.gif
serene carbon
worthy gulch
# lunar musk I'm open to both suggestions, it's a bit tough to really parse out how this one ...

Land takes time to ramp up. As production grows, so will demand. Then we have 80k more plots to sell. For a long time we will be able to keep up with demand.

Secondary Runs could get cheaper and cheaper, but keep in mind there is a curve for the capture difficulty (which I doubt many have considered) which naturally makes things get more expensive over time.

Overall I don't like rails but I would not say that it is fixed with extra steps. I would say that fixed is variable with extra steps (the council needing to step in and set sale prices or increase prices if required. An equilibrium system does this automatically.)

Gamers can get on board with variable prices. They have shown a massive aversion to companies (or in our case councils) jacking up the price, which might need to be done.

lapis stratus
#

I agree that players have a massive aversion to prices increasing for things that should be stable or only ever discounted (such as in-game currency)

but if prices can fluctuate, 50% of the time prices will be increasing and not decreasing...

drifting plume
# lapis stratus why would we need to jack up the price?

Because demand will constantly change for the product and the DAO is attempting to maximize revenue. I've assumed in your proposal that the council would be regularly reviewing fuel costs and changing prices for it. You propose some of these mechanics (sales, bundled packages, etc.) Fuel prices for you are fixed but in the sense that it's determined to be a flat rate and then changed as deemed best by the council/team. Web2 games constantly change the prices of their products as well - it's just done internally by a corporation.

noble topaz
lapis stratus
drifting plume
lapis stratus
drifting plume
#

If our modeling showed a higher revenue during non-sale periods than during sale periods, that would indicate that more than likely we have the price set too low to maximize revenue. It's not guaranteed but this is one reason why you have sales anyway - to help gather more data. To imply that we'd have sales and not use that data to help maximize revenue would mean that we're breaching our fiduciary responsibility to the DAO. This inherently implies that the council/team would be then responsible to change prices directly. If they didn't, as a DAO member I'd move to hold a vote of no confidence immediately in anyone that didn't support it without some clearly articulated reason involving short vs. long-term revenue maximization.

lapis stratus
worthy gulch
# lapis stratus I agree that players have a massive aversion to prices increasing for things tha...

only ever discounted

This doesn't feel like a serious reply. There are obviously reasons to increase prices and I'd be surprised to find out you hadn't considered them. It's why it happens so often in games. Further on you say that can be evaluated. I'm saying this will almost certainly need to be evaluated, and then you are putting that future council in a position where their positions likely depend on it since anyone voting for a price increase is going to have some firm criticism.

We've already seen how it can be the case that someone can value a spot on the council more than the good of the project. So it's likely to think that necessary price increases probably won't happen.

It also supposes that we will get the price correct from the outset. That's not likely. We can err on the side of too high, and then just do sales or slash prices if required, but it is quite "hands on".

Pretty normal for a big corporation. They want that control. But for a decentralised system I feel like organic content updates [tied to specific approved metrics such as fuel demand] are more palatable. This is why Nijafe's system has legs. It's basically procedural content updates, (without need for new content).

plush prism
#

I do like the order book system over the original pool idea. But it does not eliminate the main risk of exploding fuel price due to sudden demand. Please don't let it go to free market pricing. Due to the real money involvement, this game economy will be more similar to the behaviour of the crypto market than the behaviour of a web 2 game, such as EVE online.

People have proven many times that they make poor decisions when it comes to money. It's human nature. There will be sudden influx of players due to real money payouts, a huge tournament, or a big press coverage. If we allow the price to follow these sudden jumps, it will lead to a bubble and a collapse later. People will wreck themselves, just like they do at the end of a crypto bull run.

I fully support people's right to wreck themselves, except they will not blame the FED or macroeconomics. They will blame Illuvium. Even if we think we had a fair free market system, they will blame the project to let the bubble and crash happen. So will the news coverage that follows. The media rarely presents a fair assessment, they just highlight negativity cause that bring them the eyeballs. Let's protect this brand we all come to love, by not giving them the fuel they can use to burn us.

icy wolf
#

Aarons proposal does not use the term erc20 token. Is that because it’s already assumed fact that fuel tokens will be erc20 tokens or is it because fuel nfts might actually work as described in this proposal on IMX marketplace infrastructure TODAY?

spiral matrix
#

When I first learnt about fuel being market driven I wasn't a fan. Yet over time, I have come to see it might not be a bad thing. There are games out there where a player pays on multiple levels at multiple times for access to play.

I don't see the price skyrocketing. As ILV is a mobile game and reaches different audiences, for instance Asia.
It may be that, the buy price for fuel is set low, as economies and value of time vs reward are perceived differently.
A dollar may be a lot for someone so they feel their time is worth it.
I'm erring on the side of the market driven with the system proposed here.
My main reason is, I'd like to see it in action and changing a system as the one proposed here will be a lot easier than changing a fixed price.

As a player I can see a benefit to the money I'm willing to spend sometimes being worth more, hence getting more value at times.
That's kind of a game in itself.

I'm no longer convinced set prices would actually be a deterrent.
As it's similar to in game marketplaces where people sell items ECT. Or travel within a game, where the price changes depending on how far you travel.
Granted they are not 'real money'
Yet a player has to invest their time or buy in game currency to get those items.

lunar musk
#

Just wanted to share a recent personal experience about Gamers reaction to variable prices.

I played Ni No Kuni Crossworlds for about 4 months and ran the largest English speaking Guild on our server (This was Netmarbles second attempt at a Blockchain Game), which featured two farmable & tradeable currencies that had no rails (Territe & Asterite). I want to preface that this economy specifically was a LOT more volatile on launch than I expect Illuvium to be, so this is not a 1:1 comparison of how I expect things to be, just some insight into what I experienced with Gamers dealing with changing pricing & the impacts it had.

We had endless daily complaints in Guild Chat about the price fluctuation of both. A lot of the Whales just trying to play the game and spend absolutely hated the volatility and having to try and time the market to get the most out of their play session and upgrades, but there were very aggressive swings volatile supply/demand swings where the price of the tokens would change 200-500% over a few days during the first month, due to 5-10 Korean Giga Whales buying up the supply of Asterite to spend it all trying to max roll their cursed equipment.

Recruitment was difficult, for content we had to maintain a roster of 30 players and we had so much churn over the first few months, we had about 10-20 players quit because they couldn't put up with the "Crypto BS" anymore, we had our 2nd largest Whale quit as well, a guy who had spent over $40,000 who just hated having to wait around and monitor the Territe market weekly to not get significantly overcharged for his upgrades. It was a huge turnoff for a lot of players and one of the most challenging guild rosters I've had to manage.

#

About 4 months in, for many reasons around the game and the stress of just managing an aggressively churning roster of players that wanted to quit, myself and all my officers were super burned out and we all just ended up quitting.

In my experience, the social aspects of any game are really essential to long term player retention and health. Variable pricing and volatility can create scenarios where you have people that can play it well and have a great time and people that can't play it and get rekt, as we all probably know from our experience in Crypto Markets. As variables continue to chop, more people can get rekt and this can negatively compound chopping away at players that would have continued playing and being regular paying customers if the direct pricing for playing had a level of stability.

This is just my experience, I still do believe that fixed dollar value pricing for Overworld entry specifically is the way to go for long term player base health, I also appreciate the Land Holders want a buy/sell Fuel Metagame to play and that's what they've been sold on for a while. I think there's still solutions that allow for both.

I also respect and appreciate the entire Illuvium Economy has been churning in your head for nearly 3 Years now and you've got a much deeper insight & long term vision for the project than anyone does externally. I've got confidence that the right solution will be found, but I just wanted to share some of my recent experience.

lapis stratus
# lunar musk About 4 months in, for many reasons around the game and the stress of just manag...

"the entire Illuvium Economy has been churning in your head for nearly 3 Years now and you've got a much deeper insight & long term vision for the project than anyone does externally."

  • for this reason I'm pretty sure that no one currently in our community will struggle significantly with fluctuating prices at all, but as your example makes clear a fluctuating system, even one thats somewhat more stable, will lead to poorer player retention in new players than we would otherwise expect if fuel was stable and simplified...

I hope those currently here that can wrap their heads around fluctuations and might even enjoy them appreciate that the success of this project depends heavily on large numbers of new players coming in and being retained...

dull quiver
#

I quoted some text below from decrypt.co about a new Game affiliated with Yuga called Wreck League.

They have developed a novel solution by which Web3 NFT owners can sell their NFT creations in the normal App Stores to Web2 players and get a cut from the sale.

I advocate for us to separate Web3 and Web2 in a similar way they do. With fuel the solutions will obviously look different, but they do exist. For example sponsorships that allow Web2 people to play the Overworld for free or a fixed price (fuel paid for or price fixed by Web3 people) and share their OW catch with the Web3 sponsor. This could work well within an order book system, basically a fuel sell order for a relatively small fixed price with attached conditions e.g. 30% revenue sharing when the fuel is used in an OW run.

If we continue to try to fit Web3 into Web2 and vice versa, we will never succeed in finding solutions (fuel etc.) that work for both Web3 and Web2 people and will basically make both player demographics unhappy.

While Wreck League will offer NFTs and asset trading for players that desire it, nWay will also let mech NFT creators turn their creations into user-generated content and sell them as playable characters to traditional, non-crypto Wreck League players in the game’s “Web2” game store.
NFT mechs can be “copied” to Wreck League’s store as playable, off-chain game assets, with “a portion of the revenue” from such sales going to the original NFT owners, nWay explained in a statement. Like assets in games like Fortnite and Roblox, these in-game items would be locked within the non-blockchain version Wreck League.

noble topaz
#

@worthy gulch Do you envision a one step approach for in-game purchases with ETH?

Could I choose “travel to S1 region” and then pay in ETH so that in the background it’s going ETH -> Crypton -> travel? Or would you require it to happen in two steps. Buy the Crypton, then use it to travel?

noble topaz
#

Fuel is still an erc20 so I’d imagine it will need a signature to use on travel.
I could be wrong tho

worthy gulch
worthy gulch
noble topaz
worthy gulch
noble topaz
#

@worthy gulch If you had rails how would you implement it. A rail set to a USD amount? A rail set to a % change over a certain time period? (eg 200% increase based on a 30 day rolling average)

slow meadow
#

No rail 👍

dull quiver
#

I don't get it, why some are so concerned about fluctuating prices and see a need for rails.

The real issue is: Why would a Web2 (or Web3) gamer consider to pay for a run in the Overworld?

A rational person would consider the value of potential loot to be found in such a run and weigh it against the price of fuel needed.

When someone has already accepted the fact that this is a game of money: Why would they be concerned about 10% or even 50% price fluctuations?

They are already in the world of money and have accepted that the value of loot also fluctuates. If not, they would have played the free version or used a sponsorship for play.

Rails are the worst idea I can imagine.

If someone wants to go on a run for a certain price of fuel: Just put a limit order for that price into the order book and wait until it gets fullfilled.

I don't know about the implementation, but maybe you get a notification (e.g. email) telling you that your fuel was bought and then you can go on your run at your price point.

No rails needed.

icy wolf
hazy sable
dull quiver
hazy sable
#

OK got it.

I'm OK if we say the target of Illuvium is crypto-oriented people that are 35yo+ but it's not compatible with the "mainstream players" the project advocate it's targetting.

But do you think a 5-10yo kid that would love to play with his ramphyre, will understand that ? In all honesty... I mean ... "your kid should also consider what value of loot to expect from each run" seems not realistic lol

dull quiver
#

If your kid is a good gamer then we should do all we can, to bring her (I will continue to assume a she for now on) into our universe.

That said, I would advocate for her to improve her skills in free runs and when she has proven herself, we should offer her a sponsorship (see my post above).

That would allow her to play for free or a small fixed price and use just her skills to collect as much valuable loot as possible.

She would have to share some of her loot with whoever sponsored the fuel for her runs.

But she would basically earn loot without paying almost anything.

I would consider this a big draw into our universe.

A grown up would cover the financial aspects, she brings in her skills, time and talent.

hazy sable
#

Honest opinion and I'll stop there.

I understand what you say, it's very crypto-axie kind of stuff.

But you won't convert any casual, mainstream gamers with those speeches and mechanics. Caputre a small % maybe, but it won't change the mindset of gamer that think crypto are scams.

Because here, with your example, we are saying that my 5yo girl would have to find a sponsor (imagine a casual gamer hearing that...), play and depending of the day she can play more or less, depends... and get items in game that someone else could take away from her (bye bye).

While my kids just wanted to enjoy a few hours of game to capture illuvials.

Imagine you give 3$ to your kid to buy a lollipop, she go to the store and the store manager tell her "Yeah well, no, price made +100% last night, but come back tmorrow it'll maybe be cheaper"

I just can't see how all those complicated-financial-oriented-mechanics will change the mindset of gamers that think crypto-games are scams.

But anyway, the project will have to find a direction, go live, and see the reaction of players and maybe adapt I guess.

I hope I am wrong, because if I'm right Illuvium will start with a negative image in the mind of the casual / mainstream gamers. While starting with fixed prices, may convert a huge number of players. And moving into variable prices, will be easier to do once a critical mass of players have been reached.

I belive fluctuating prices is taking risks for nothing.

Just my 2 cents.

high saffronBOT
#
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.
dull quiver
#

When I said "find a sponsor" I meant the system from my post above:

You open the Overworld and see a list of sponsored runs to choose from. A sponsored run is basically like buying fuel from the order book. But with an attached constraint on the fuel, that means you will have to share some percentage of your loot with the seller of the fuel.

She picks one that gives her 30% of whatever she finds.

She doesn't have to find a guild or a sponsor. She doesn't even have to know that these are sponsored runs.

If she pays 3$ she can boost that percentage a bit.

These are just rough examples, we would have to figure out how we divide the loot between sponsor and player etc.

And if she doesn't like that model, then let her play for free and pay for skins etc. with micro transactions.

That's why I mentioned the Wreck League game. We don't know if it will work, but they have at least developed a solution that makes the Web3 game with NFTs etc. show up in normal Apple App Store like any other game. See my post above.

serene carbon
#

I think out of 4 proposals we're missing the 5th option. Not doing anything. Aaron already confirmed that buy/sell orders would take longer time to implement than the fake fuel idea. And we have systems that would take even longer, because they'd need the limit orders as a base.

Can we get a comparisson of the AMM we had voted in year and a half before to the limit order AMM proposed now. Would this delay the launch?

To me this looks like a nice to have, that can come at a later date. Not MVP requirement.

dull quiver
#

I have a gut feeling that there is no solution for fuel selling/buying ready at all.

We are in August and are still discussing how fuel will work in our ecosystem.

Pretty scary IMO.

I posted my suggestion to use an order book system in the beginning of May: #🗻〕land-owner message

Now, I can not ask the team to read every post and consider it. But we should have had a discussion about the fuel pool a long time ago and not have to wait until August.

dusky onyx
#

I don't think I can contribute anything to this conversation, but I just want to add one thing. We're always talking about how the price will rise and it will be different to what it was yesterday. What about price being lower than yesterday? That will also happen I guess.

serene carbon
#

When prices started dropping in axie more people left, than joined. That's a bad example however because people needed to be at gunpoint to play that.

dull quiver
#

I guess we have avoid attracting gamers that want to milk our system e.g. by collecting all valuable assets in the Overworld, sell them and then leave.

I would rather have a few gamers/collectors that believe in the long term vision of Illuvium spend lots of money, than Millions who are here for the quick buck and milk our valuable assets on cheap fixed price Overworld runs.

I sense some personal interest in a few vocal people in the community, who want cheap Overworld runs for exactly such a reason.

I see Illuvium more as a high value NFT universe and we should care who we sell them to and at which price. You wouldn’t sell Gucci items for cheap just to attract masses.

I am currently playing the HV-MTL Forge from Yuga. We are only around 6.600 people. But I expect a system by which we can have other (Millions?) gamers play with our NFT mechs in the OtherSide meta verse in the future. Which would mean a distinction between the Web3 NFT owners and the Web2 gamers.

That being said, it doesn't have to mean we can not have Millions playing our F2P versions or go on sponsored runs etc.

But the Web3 gamers should love Illuvium and not the money.

dusky onyx
#

But Illuvium games should not be about anyone making anything, it should just be a game that is fun to play. And also has to be easy to play (by easy I mean registration, buying fuel, etc).

dull quiver
#

Nobody will go on a PAID Overworld run for the fun alone.

What seems to get lost in the discussion about fuel and pricing: We are not talking about buying a game or a game pass: We are talking money for x amount of time to play the Overworld. I don't know how many games have such a monetization model. It only works when you collect loot of value.

And then you are big into a collectors mindset. Basically we try to attract collectors that like to play loot box style games or find other gamers who play the Overworld for them (sponsors).

drifting plume
# dull quiver I have a gut feeling that there is no solution for fuel selling/buying ready at ...

To hopefully help reduce some of your concerns, the proposals that have been shared all have no risk to the project timeline and this was confirmed in discussions with Aaron. The strategy sub-council requested for this discussion to be done openly with the community before work was done to build in the integration components so there is no wasted effort on development. I appreciate the foresight you also shared earlier and this has been top of mind for many of us as it’s such a critical system.

If it makes you feel better, this discussion has been going on for 2.5 months already in the councils (our second meeting this epoch on May 31st) so we are on the same page as you.
#📰〕governance-news message

dull quiver
worthy gulch
# hazy sable OK got it. I'm OK if we say the target of Illuvium is crypto-oriented people th...

Your child should absolutely not play without supervision. Because they won’t “wait until cheaper” or “not play because it is too expensive”. They will 100% just keep draining your bank account if you have set them up to be able to pay without your approval.

You will come back to find your wallet $10,000 lighter.

If you have to approve their spends you will teach them how to be responsible.

This advice is valid for any system, fluctuating or not. Personally I will give my children an account with an allowance. They will decide how to use it. It will not have a large amount in it (unless they message @limber dew and he tops it up, which I expect will probably happen).

worthy gulch
worthy gulch
worthy gulch
hazy sable
# worthy gulch Your child should absolutely not play without supervision. Because they won’t “w...

Bla bla bla

I still don’t see any reasoning and « why » fluctuating prices are better than fix prices.
I don’t see any good reason on how Itll bring more players.
I don’t see good reason how it’ll help adoption for mainstream gamers.
I don’t see how it help the project to reach out to new population of players.

I just see people countering and finding excuses to justify a choice. Not how and why it’s good for people and justify to be done.

I see mechanics that are centering the game on web3 rather than opening and convincing casual players that web3 are not scam.

But yeah I agree, I see a lot of justification on doing it, but 0 why we should do it.

high saffronBOT
#
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.
serene carbon
dull quiver
# hazy sable Bla bla bla I still don’t see any reasoning and « why » fluctuating prices are ...

I guess at some point it comes down to liking a certain philosophy or not.

Nobody can prove anything at the moment. We are charting new territory.

But the worst option is a mix and match of different philosophies that end up creating a big incoherent mess.

So far my thinking is mostly in alignment with the team, but it has taken me some time to adjust and grasp certain things.

If someone feels this project is no longer in alignment with his own thinking it might be better to cut the losses and move on.

I did the same with Axie when I saw that there idea and progress for land was just lacking on all fronts.

drifting plume
# serene carbon Don't bother man. Do you think all those 78 people that upvoted this are followi...

A key philosophical difference I think is the importance of player agency vs a typical Web2 centralized control structure. Aaron described very well the difference in the emergent gameplay we would like to see where we give more levers to the players than in any gaming ecosystem in history to impact the game worlds. If Illuvium Zero isn’t actually connected to the Overworld and Arena then that doesn’t exist. It’s just an idle-clicker mini-game we’re using it as another revenue distribution mechanic instead of an engaging part of the broader interconnected experience.

It’s totally fine if people are concerned this vision might not work well (or at all). Of course I have concerns and so does the team. And the councils, community and team are, in my experience, working in good faith to make this thing successful. That said, I would argue this model is one logical conclusion of the Web3 ethos (ownership and responsibility in a decentralized way) applied to gaming. I don’t think it’s an uncritical view of the idea just because it came from Aaron - we’ve had literally days of discussions in the councils to get to this point.

serene carbon
# drifting plume A key philosophical difference I think is the importance of player agency vs a t...

Sure you're taking the time and are willing to put in the work to think it through. As I expect from a council member. But this is not the case for everybody and when we put ideas out your vote is the same as a random bot.

The biggest concern I'd like to raise is not trying to overdo it. Get an MVP out with an AMM. You can have a simpler system to just put tokens in to preserve the rail. And evaluate after launch and after we've seen how people use sILV2 over fuel.

Then vote this in if it's needed.

drifting plume
# serene carbon Sure you're taking the time and are willing to put in the work to think it throu...

I believe from Aaron’s discussions with us that the AMM would take a similar amount of work to develop, test and connect as the order book system and it’s pretty objectively a worse solution. I think every person I’ve spoken to in the council has agreed on that and I have yet to see a single argument from anyone on the community why we would choose to implement that in lieu of an order book. What’s your main rationale for why to build an AMM instead of an order book?

serene carbon
edgy hemlock
#

It's the classic Quality vs Quantity debate

worthy gulch
# serene carbon 1. It's already voted in. 2. I was left with the idea that it would take shorter...

It’s not an AMM + Order book we are building (if it passes). Just an order book.

There are complexities to both, but because we only need some basic functionality it will be simpler than other implementations.

I’d say an AMM might be a touch easier but if we then switch we have to build everything again.

There are always unknowns with building these things so you can’t be certain but I just hope we get a solution one way or another. We will not do more work than we have done already on either solution until we get clarity. In the meantime we have enough to keep us busy.

Tomorrow I have to spend the whole days finalising some validation checks, for instance. It’s a tough one because there is no perfect solution. At least not that I am smart enough to see. So people will be annoyed no matter what we do.

kind kraken
#

"This is a technical change to the current plan for the Fuel Pool that has been in place since the proposal of inception of Illuvium: Zero."

You can formulate an idea in advance but really, until you lift the bonnet and start building on any project, you don't actually know how things will pan out.

It's pretty cool the team are coming up with better ideas and engaging the community along the journey.

Until the game starts we don't actually know the merit of any proposed system and we need to remember a large majority of the senior team building on this project have a lot of skin in the game. It’s highly unlikely they are going to put forward a proposal that will be detrimental to the game or it’s broader ecosystem.

I've read all proposals, it's hard for me to visualise which one will be better until the rubber hits the road if I'm honest. In this situation, I'm trusting the people on the factory floor, closest to all the moving parts.

merry scarab
ancient citrus
#

I will always be for the closest to a free market. So it is the order book for me.

We want to create a full ecosystem and economy here.

Forget web2 or web3. The game will start with web3 on the next bull and web2 will become web3 with time.

lusty owl
#

This has been said before and I will echo the sentiment. Free market is ideal. The only thing the team needs to do is determine what the dollar value per run of Overworld regions being entered will be. Instead of fixed fuel amount for a specific run, make it a set in stone dollar amount. Example: If runs cost $5, one week crypton could be $10 each and the player only needs to buy 0.5 crypton to play. The next week the market could be down and crypton is $1 each. Okay fine, the player buys 5 crypton for $5 on the open market. True players who buy on an as needed basis will not be affected by a free market.

The only people negatively affected are those who like to gamble by speculating on the market. Some who aren’t actual players will load up on fuel when prices are high cause they wanna play the market and they guessed wrong. That’s their mistake for speculating. And others will inevitably guess right in buying fuel when it’s cheap and profiting off of the market if prices go up.

I’m surprised after this idea was introduced that we’re still even talking about rails.

dull quiver
#

I am not an economist, but I would agree, that we need mechanisms that allow for control of the „heat“ of our economy. There are different schools and philosophies when it comes to monetary theory. I am not sure, if we have economists on our team, but they should have fun coming up with such a model for our universe. The current concerns are all about player count and revenue and to find a price to attract as many of them as possible. I would argue that we need to grow a stable und sustainable economy and should start slow with potentially higher prices and lower them gradually by increasing the amount of fuel produced by land holders. In the beginning, there will be a slow increase of fuel in circulation anyway, because land holders need to build out their lands. Later we might want to increase fuel production by either selling more land or by allowing land holders to produce more fuel e.g. by buying booster packs from the DAO that increases their resource production rate. This would allow the DAO/economists to modify prices in our economy without actually fixing them to a certain dollar amount.