Fuel Economy and Land Sale Integration

[devout locust]

Full Proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/186ICFhrKQ_EeBmlQRmE7TO__ns3TUKjopg9tIbqRNbw

Q&A:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mgFTQWx0kh1tz0-b9lwZhsKiqzOQOF4z4Lf0okOWF0

This is a technical change to the fuel balancing mechanic proposed by Aaron Warwick. It assumes the use of an order book mechanic for fuel sales from ILV Zero landholders to players in other Illuvium games, notably Overworld.

This is done by leveraging small, targeted sales of the remaining 80K landplots only when demand has been proven by additional paying players entering Overworld. In doing so, we maintain a relatively stable balance in fuel prices while also minimizing the highly disruptive land plot sales when there is no additional demand to support them. This turns what is otherwise a major challenge (the question of when to sell additional land plots) into the transparent solution for the main mechanical question with fuel production balancing.

Also included is the option to fractionalize future land plots sales, a feature that can be included with or without the core of this proposal being implemented for fuel production balancing.

[lofty lagoon]

As someting that we've been internally considering for a long time it seems reasonable to me. I think it boils down to this: piecemeal sales stabilise prices, but larger discrete sales probably generate more hype since they are an 'event'.

Funnily enough it's not the only proposal that we've already considered internally. Vetemor's is something I pitched to Johnny as a quick hack in case we ran out of time. Nijafe's is also decent but I preferred this to that because on the downside of the market I think we need prices to adjust quickly to spur demand. It's hard to do that with an auto balancer. This one works out fine because there's no 'downside' balance. Full variable does it by letting the price find a new equilibrium. Vetemor's does it with ad hoc sales events.

[devout locust]

I should add that @formal mango's automatic rebalancing proposal was the inspiration for this. Considering how we could minimize team/council impact on the running economy led me to the land sale mechanic as opposed to the monthly automatic rebalancing. So credit to internal council discussions turning over more ideas than we would have otherwise.

[formal mango]

Thank you. And as I’ve mentioned before I think this system of slowly adding additional land plots can still work well in combination with my model. It just means that the auto adjustments will be smaller.
But the auto adjustments I believe is a better option to keep prices from getting out of control than rails.

[minor cipher]

What if revenues spike in a bull, and goes way down after the bull ?

Land sold would still share the little breadcrumb in the end ? Not really land owner friendly …

Good mechanism for up-only though

[formal mango]

That’s why I like my mechanic for a bear market, as demand goes down so does the production of fuel. Lower supply with lower demand will keep prices from plummeting

[tender idol]

The 2nd land sale is going to happen in a bull market anyway so either proposal would result in less revenue for an individual land owner in that following bear market.

[minor cipher]

Lol you know that there is no need to do any land sale ever again if we don’t want to

Whatever the amount of player we have

Update the game, increase the fuel outputs. Done. You didn’t fuck over the land buyers. Wooohoooo.

[tender idol]

The plan has always been to get 100k plots, everyone should have known that. If we somehow have to stay at 20k something massively went wrong.

[devout locust]

Why would we want to cap the number of paying players in our most popular game to 20K? Even 100K is not enough (which is why I proposed fractionalization). It's been widely publicized since the beginning that we would sell 100K plots. This is a mechanic to slowly do that only when there is additional demand instead of a single, major shock to the system.

[formal mango]

With a free2play model built into IZ we wont ever have a cap to IZ gameplay. But the fuel production doesn’t have to be included in all IZ gameplay

[minor cipher]

Increase the output of the fuels on the 20k land, when critical mass is reached, make a sale of plots, lower the output of all lands. Done. Simple.

Everyone is happy, you don’t need crazy mechanism to do that, and you don’t fuck over your land owners.

You guys trying too hard to get crazy complicate mechanisms 🤣

[tender idol]

U can't simply do that. The new sales are going to take time to get in line with production needed u just slashed on old plots at the next sale.

[formal mango]

Interesting how my model increases the output of fuel based on demand. Are you sure you don’t like it?

[minor cipher]

That’s my point @tender idol adjusting output of the park of land plots just make any sale easy. It’s perfectly adaptable and can be sized accordingly to do an easy « in between » to have small sales, or big ones but I don’t know why you guys want complex mechanism to do all that 🤣

@formal mango your proposal is very complicate and as I said, I don’t want to go to the cinema and see the price of the ticket making me feel « ok I’ll see tomorrow if my movie will be chepaer »

You all seems to center the discussion on lands. While the heat of the project are illuvials and the overworld, it’s this piece that’s is the single most important one. Not land, not PvP. Because without overworld, you don’t have player catching illuvials, if you don’t have illuvial you don’t have and ecosystem.

But what do I know. Seems you guys find normal for my Big Mac to cost me 6$ today, 10$ tomorrow and 2$ next Monday. 🤣🤣

[formal mango]

I get that. So you like Vet’s model. If (and when) his get’s shut down mine will be the one that reduces price volatility the most for OW players

[oak ravine]

I feel that this all proposal is only to try fixing the amount of fuel generated for the growing playerbase. with overcomplicated solution, when the Vet solution is scalable as we want (In reduction and augmentation of playerbase) and propose that much more benefit...

[formal mango]

To your Big Mac analogy. If a Big Mac cost 6$ and you were way in the back of the line and starving and you yelled “hey I’ll pay 10$ for that Big Mac”
The cashier can say no wait in line or yes come pay 10$ for it. Which do you think will lead to more revenue for McDonald’s?

[devout locust]

My primary concern with Vet's proposal is that it completely erases the primary end-game loop from one of our three main games. The economic integration is the end-game engine to ILV Zero in its current design, just like pvp is for Arena, just like Illuvial capturing is for Overworld. If you eliminate that, the game can still exist but is a shadow of itself and would require a complete overhaul to be able to be sustainable.

I believe we have a very simple but effective loop that integrates all three of the main games: Zero player uses land to get fuel -> Zero player sells fuel to Overworld player -> Overworld player uses fuel to get Illuvial -> Overworld player sells Illuvial to Arena player -> Arena player uses Illuvial to battle. There's no need to break this as it has been very well designed by the team.

[foggy vine]

Or the guy gets out of line and goes back to playing TFT

[minor cipher]

Fuck Macdonald’s and their prices changing daily man.

Nah ill go at the hawker center and get a chicken rice for 3$

[formal mango]

Touché

[foggy vine]

I think you're forgetting that people can just choose not to play and thats not a good thing for us. We already have such a tiny player base. Why would we want to discourage more?

[oak ravine]

Mmmmh ILV Zero, generate revdis (In ILV / ETH token or something), so it generate you money that you can use to buy the entry of overworld. What benefit we have to generate the token directly from the land other than create overcomplexe system and perhaps unsustainable depending of the playbase. the risk is to high to go that way..

[formal mango]

But as people leave the line the prices will drop back down and a new audience will want that Big Mac

[foggy vine]

How many unique land owners are there? We shouldn't be catering to a minigame within ILZ for such a small number of people compared to our actual target audience. They are still getting their 5%

[minor cipher]

Any marketing person will tell you this: retention is easier than capture

If I like my chicken rice, I’ll never go back to Macdonalds because I know the food is good, and the price is stable

People are lazy, gamer are lazy, make their life easy should be the most important objective of our DAO and councils

[devout locust]

Somewhere north of $72M worth of them who paid for a land plot for a fully functioning game integrated into our economy.

[foggy vine]

Players not money sir

That money has already been spent

[devout locust]

I'm not sure why Overworld players or Arena players would have confidence in us not eliminating the core mechanic of either of those games after they pay for assets if we cavalierly do so with ILV Zero players

[devout locust]

Yes, exactly. Which is why they are owed at least as much consideration as Overworld and Arena players.

[foggy vine]

They are still getting their 5%

We aren't taking their money away and in fact could be increasing it

[tender idol]

You are taking money away from the people that were going to play the fuel market game that was advertised as a feature at the land sale

[foggy vine]

And if the revenue is higher because stable fuel prices lead to a larger playerbase then they make more money and the real game succeeds

[devout locust]

No one knows what impact either proposal would have on revenue. Even Vet acknowledges that it's just an assumption he's making. This isn't an argument for or against the mechanic here because the counterargument is equally valid. If the revenue is lower with stable fuel prices the playerbase makes less money AND the real game (the economic gameplay) is still destroyed

Base-builders don't exist as a sustainable product without meaningful end-game loops. The individuals who are arguing that Zero is fine without an end-game loop don't know the genre and assume that they all just devolve to idle clickers, which is what we would be selling.

[noble cosmos]

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding around Vetemor's proposal. It changes the mechanics but there is still a metagame to be played as you choose when to sell the fuel to claim your % share of revenue. That will still be variable but players have consistent fuel prices. I see that as a win/win.

[foggy vine]

That's not the real game and you know it. Stop pandering

Feel free to answer my question of how many unique land owners there are

[devout locust]

About 7K, and I hope we can make it 500K someday as it has the potential to be a really vibrant part of our economy

[foggy vine]

So 7k is a drop in the bucket compared to what we are aiming for in terms of Arena players

[devout locust]

What are you talking about? The economic trading of fuel always has been the primary end-game of Illuvium Zero up until now. You build your base up until it's at end-game and then you play within a market. Just like AH traders on WOW or Eve Online market players or any number of other games in this space. That's not pandering.

[oak ravine]

100k Max Land was announced. How to destroy the skin and cosmetic value that is why i bought Land, having 500k Land

[foggy vine]

So why are we trying to make things more difficult in onboarding them?

[devout locust]

It's explained through fractionalization in the ICCP of this thread

[tender idol]

This is a gamble system that you have no control over. People somehow saying you can make $100 one day then $200 the next, which makes no sense. If people see a high rate one day they hold, the next day they will flood the system and everyone makes less. You are essentially playing a cat and mouse game with your fuel hoping you throw your fuel in a day a decent amount of people hold. Not to mention you also have to hope that demand is high that day.

[noble cosmos]

I'm really struggling with the idea that IZ land owners are in an all or nothing situation with these proposals. Sure, it changes the game but there is definitely still a metagame to be played with Vet's proposal. It's different and there is certainly less control, but there is still a metagame around fuel. And the blueprint/skin economy will be driven by IZ. I still see both of those as viable reasons to play IZ. I say this as someone who played Clash of Clans for years and enjoyed IZ so far, even if it is still lacking depth at the current state of development.

[foggy vine]

There is still a metagame and they are still getting their 5 percent

[noble cosmos]

How is that much different to an order book system where you are hoping to hold out for higher demand later or selling now as you think there will be less demand tomorrow? I agree that its less impactful with Vet's proposal but it still exists.

[tender idol]

The main problem is in current system you have control and Vet's you don't and most of the people thumbing down and commenting have expressed that.

[devout locust]

There's no longer player agency with the fuel in Vet's proposal for landholders. You put fuel in a box and hope that more players are buying on that day, week, or month (he hasn't specific the time frame of when distributions would occur).

[tender idol]

I can set my price that I think my fuel is worth in the order book.

[noble cosmos]

Agreed but the idea that there is no gamification, which I see implied here by several people, is inaccurate. It's different, for sure, but there is still an economy game. IZ players also still have direct control over blueprints/skins, which was a strong selling point for many people who bought land, in addition to the 5% share of revenue.

[noble cosmos]

Fair. It may never sell if priced too high but it is fair to say in this system that you do have total control.

[oak ravine]

Do you decide to sacrifice more place on your Land to have more storage to spend at a better time. Do you decide to sacrifice your first early fuel that you need for developp your town to get a share that Will perhaps be bigger because low number of people will want to sacrifice thoses. I think they are still gaming decision around this. Just different way to do as buying/ selling in a good time

[devout locust]

I agree with you and Lemz here. There's still gamification elements. My point is that the core end-game loop revolves around the meta-game as ILV Zero is designed now. I have no doubt that we'll interest people for 3-4 months with what we have now. But when you upgrade your land to basically max level and only participate by starting an upgrade once every 5 days and collecting fuel one-time per day, there's no engagement long-term and the game becomes uninteresting

We could introduce a land-attack mechanic like clash of clans or a 4X mini-game or any number of other products. But those would all take a year or more to build and I don't think it's necessary given that the core economic loop isn't broken.

[oak ravine]

Not sure about the argument. Is that more fun to claim fuel all days and selling into the market ? That putting it in a box ? I dont see a end game difference

[devout locust]

For millions of people who play economic genres of games, yes. It's the difference in selling my items to a vendor in an MMO vs. putting them up on the AH. There's clearly a large number of players who like to play those economic games and this is exactly who ILV Zero has been targeted towards so far.

[oak ravine]

Yeah im that kind of player but there are tons other way in illuvium to play with the economy and market. The NFT are the market. Prefer to have a sustainable, less complicated way to entry in the game and onboard easily people and play with the market of the items and nft that with the fuel..

[devout locust]

The flip-side is also true. If you don't want player agency, you should just buy ILV. Any of our games in the ecosystem should fit into this Interoperable blockchain concept. The ILV token doesn't need to though if you just want revdis.

[noble cosmos]

Can IZ not have much more levels of buildings and upgrades? I stopped played when Townhall 11 was max, now it's 15. Those later upgrades take A LONG time and you have to prioritise as you only have so many builders to upgrade buildings. I think this combined with choosing for optimal output of fuel or focusing on blueprint production is an interesting metagame in itself.

Obviously battle mechanics would be a huge addition and would be great to see, but obviously greater dev time. Additional levels is surely a much easier implementation and creates different layers of efficiency by having fuel and blueprint production. If IZ was ONLY about fuel, it would be harder but by forcing people to choose between fuel and blueprints, it already creates variance.

[oak ravine]

I want to play with the skin market. And its what the Land was planned to offer. And other potential next things added to the Land. That give me enough reason to play the Land instead of stacking

[devout locust]

I agree with you to a decent extent. It comes down to a question of agency and creativity in end-game. Everything you shared around the land upgrades (with the exception of blueprints vs. fuel) will within a week be broken down to an optimal upgrade path that is effectively identical that players just follow without any real autonomy. The question of do I 1) make my base a fuel generating one or 2) a blueprint generating one, will typically be answered within the first week or so.

Beyond that, there's nothing in Zero as far as long-term agency decisions for players if there's no variability in fuel prices that keeps it interesting. The economic integration potential gives us endless replayability for free (similar to introducing pvp or Illuvial trading). For those who prefer Autobattler, it's the difference in capping out Arena with the Ascendant structure and having that be the end-game vs. introducing open-ended pvp.

[oak ravine]

with Vet solution, it would even be possible to make season in ILV Zero and have a big reset at the launch of every set. not sure it would be possible to do that kind of thing with a free market that depend of production and where you can't push more the building because you will generate then more, or have to adapt the output.

Do we want that after 1 year of ILV Zero. when set2 comes out and we have all our building maxed out. that we just easy farm the new blueprints ?

[noble cosmos]

Yeah, that's fair. Most will just find the optimal path for one or the other. Some will probably play a middle ground if only holding one land. That's what I would probably do unless I had 2 lands and optimize each accordingly.

I just don't think the variability in fuel prices is worth the impact on Overworld players. 80-90% of my gamer friends would hate variable pricing on fuel with 10-20% who would play the meta and enjoy being able to play the system for more efficient runs. Majority of my traditional gamer friends think this space is a joke with a couple being curious once there's good games to play. The curious ones are the ones who'd probably explore the metagame side but the rest just want to play a good game.

[spiral carbon]

Do you at least have the decency to come up with some proper answers and reply to people's counter arguments? Since you started to defend Vet s proposal all that i see you say is that 'they still have 5%.. and we are increasing the player base... we will make more money' .. based on what studies/data?
And if someone asks you something or comes up with proper counter arguments you ignore it and continue to repeat the same things over and over.
I haven t seen you ONCE saying something constructive besides being arrogant and act with superiority towards people that come up with different ideas to solve issues.
Since i have been asked (in private) to explain myself why did i downvote that model i'm asking you to act like a proper council member and give facts, arguments, proper answers and treat with respect people that share their ideas and opinions. I apologise if this is considered off topic

[foggy vine]

I've stated my opinion already many times. The goal is to onboard players to the real game (PvP). I am against anything that causes friction towards this goal.

[lapis cloak]

Illuvium Zero and Overworld are also “real” games which I appreciate very much and continue to play every day.

[foggy vine]

And I'm glad you have fun playing them

[spiral carbon]

The real game to you. Maybe for me or other Zero or OW are the real games. You only look at it from your point of view. Try to take a few steps back, look at the larger picture. For people to play PVP they need Illuvials which have to be bought off secondary or caught -> for Illuvials to exist people need to travel thus the need for fuel and OW to be played.. so actually PVP is maybe the 5th wheel here...
But to you it all revolves around you and the game you see as the real game.
On what do you base your statement? Why isn t Overworld a real game?

[foggy vine]

ILZ is not necessary. If nobody plays it then the DAO can mint Fuel. The OW is a pack opening

Illuvials will have value based on their use in PvP and getting them from OW runs costs fuel which pays out land owners

[spiral carbon]

And PVP is chess with special effects ..i don t see it necessary at all... if Beyond or a TCG will be built maybe illuvials will find a better market there than for PVP... i don t see your arguments honestly.

[foggy vine]

Just because you don't like the game doesn't mean it isn't very popular

[spiral carbon]

I haven t said a second i don t like the game
It s just you don t have any proper arguments for what you re saying. It s all what you personally like and that is it. It s not in the best interest of the DAO or whatever you re trying to make it look like.

[foggy vine]

I am telling you what our game is and what our target demo is. I'm sorry if you don't understand that

[regal gust]

this discussion is so far off topic. Maybe come back to the (real) discussion.

This topic is not a discussion about what anyone thinks is the "Real" Game.

[foggy vine]

It is relevant because it's my opinion and many others that fluctuating fuel prices will damage the onboarding of players into the ecosystem

[regal gust]

I don't discuss this anymore.

[spiral carbon]

Based on what study? Show me at least the results of a poll or idk something..whatever
You re basing this just on your beliefs, trying to influence people and present it like it s a proven fact. Which is not!

[foggy vine]

Show me the study that says fluctuating prices are favorable. We have every other game in existence on our side

The burden of proof is on you

[spiral carbon]

You can t compare any other game with Illuvium. If one thing works for you it doesn t mean it works for me too! Again this assupmtion is flawed from the start

[foggy vine]

Why can't you compare games to Illuvium?

[devout locust]

Per Synix's request, I'm going to ask to take the general discussion back to either Aaron or Vetemor's proposals and we'll attempt to have this focus on the land sale mechanic

which is technically what this thread is intended to be about

[foggy vine]

Fair enough

[mighty pond]

With the release of 80K lands we can probably keep the price of fuels somewhat stable regardless of demand.
After that, we would probably require centralised changes to increase fuel supply if demand goes that high.

We can say that it isnt an issue because we would be on our yachts but then the project may see a decline after that. Good job to everyone who sold at the opportune time.

So, what is a way to allow this to scale for years to come? Is this it or do we expect that the DAO will have to distribute revenue across the land owners as a matter of course once the lands are all sold out?

[devout locust]

I'm guilty too as we went fairly far afield because there's a lot of interconnected topics here

[devout locust]

To be clear, I view the additional land plot sale mechanic as a sufficient starting point that should last at least a year or two. After all additional land plots are sold, we would need an alternate mechanic in place to increase fuel volume produced. The 5% fuel revenue would still need to go to landholders. My position is that we wouldn't both trying to solve that right now as much will change in the time between now and then. We have two different options already in place in the other proposals here that could be resurrected once we started getting close to that point.

[spiral carbon]

And the way i see it is that somehow we will have to foresee when new land plots should be placed for sale? as time will play a role - reffering to time it takes to develop the new plots to be able to produce extra fuel on top of the 'current' supply

[mighty pond]

fair enough. I'll wait until the town hall to do a proper deep dive into all of this. But for now sure. I don't like selling the lands in short batches, the building up of land on its own already makes for a slow increase in fuel supply, but it's a potential avenue we could explore for sure!

I personally enjoyed the land sale, and a repeat of that would be very much so a good thing from my perspective.

[formal mango]

I have an idea for an alternative mechanic

[devout locust]

Yes, agreed. I see value in both your and Aaron's proposals and think both could work. I would just prefer to use the method we have on-hand (additional land plot sales) first and then evaluate where the project is a year from now. We'll be in a very different place with respect to Illuvium Zero future development and decisions on future game modes, titles, etc. at that point as well that I think we'd want to take into account.

If we implement either of those proposals first, there's no clear route I've heard anyone share or been able to come up with regarding how we could ever sell the additional land plots without a pretty major disruption (or pausing those rebalancing activities).

[formal mango]

I did propose something to the council to have smaller land sales starting after the DAO brought in 19x what the land sale brought in

[formal mango]

I still believe your model can work in conjunction with mine. It doesn’t have to be one or the other

[dusky garden]

Fractionalization (especially of lands) has always intrigued me. Both for future sales and CURRENT plots.

Fractional discovery of blueprints is an elegant and well documented (many f2p games) solution.

I’d think that it’s not how many players are paying for fuel but rather how much players are paying for fuel. It comes down to revenue/price.

One possibility that does not take value from current land owners and hand it over to the DAO (or least limiting upward potential) is Fractional land pieces for current land owners.

[royal kiln]

I see in all these proposals there might be another option.
For now I'd like to go with the one proposed by Aaron maybe with some tweaks?
However when one is going and working I do believe you could all sit down again. Find the good bits in each other's proposals and come up with something unanimous and maybe different to what you all originally thought.

[blissful flame]

I like the concepts in this proposal. The one concern I have is variable player rates (especially right after launch). What if we hit a very high threshold the first month, triggering a land sale month two, but then players fall off over the subsequent few months before picking back up again? Does this happen for large gaming titles? I don't know what a typical player curve would look like for a successful game and would love to see some stats here if someone has them.

If needed, one way to avoid this would be to wait at least a few months after open beta launch before determining when/how to set the variables included in this proposal.

I do agree with Garf too about enjoying the hype and large event of the first land sale. I'd love to see this again, but to go that way and potentially cut land values in half overnight would likely require waiting too long for that sale just to ensure land owners had already made their gains to avoid having them revolt. Such a large addition of plots at once may be impossible to time right.

[devout locust]

Yes, this is certainly a possibility. In fact, when we extend the lens out to consider years in the future, it's guaranteed to happen at some point. Ideally it would only be a temporary drop-off but we'll have months with falling revenue. My intent and position with the council and team discussions for the threshold are to set the limit such that it would be guaranteed to be several months after open beta starts so that current landowners get the first shot at revenue from fuel for a while before we add more.

The other consideration is if we were to wait and require several months worth of stability of monthly paying players (or DAU or MAU or any other similar metric), the system isn't responsive enough to actually change fuel output to where players can feel it. Even in the monthly scenario, it's potentially a 15-45 day lag from when the player base is growing. That's actually a really long time already. I considered weekly but believe it would be too volatile and then landed on monthly as I think it's a good balance but I would like the team to run a number of pricing simulations and make sure it seems to be the right level of responsiveness

[blissful flame]

Thanks, I'm good with this and you have my vote. I agree that seeing those pricing simulations and the internal work the team has done would be quite fascinating.

Surely they've looked at this quite a bit, but without seeing more detail I have a hard time wrapping my head around how the amount of fuel produced by land x20 can end up being the right amount for the economy through different cycles. The supply/demand aspect seems like it would only work well if the initial supply is at least within some correct range.

I think this is why several of these ideas need to converge. Keep land as an important input to the ecosystem, trickle in new plots to keep up with higher demand, have some type of rails or supply balancing to prevent wild price fluctuation, and then also aspects of @elder jay's proposal that could allow for battle passes, bulk purchase discounts on fuel, or holiday/high demand event specials (these things can be done without cutting land owners off from influencing the economy).

[devout locust]

Absolutely. I've shared with the Strategy sub-council that I think we should 100% adopt some concepts and ideas that have come from all 4 proposals. In particular I like the idea of a Battle Pass mechanic for fuel (i.e. buy 1 month worth of fuel for 2 runs daily, 20 shard curing, 10 gear upgrades, etc.). If we can have that come in with an onboarding process of credit cards to allow non-Web3 people then I think it's a really low friction approach

[elder jay]

if the price of fuel fluctuates how do you buy a battle pass containing fuel? where does the fuel come from?

[elder jay]

also bulk purchases with discounts and holiday events with fuel discounts are two things I also dont understand how they could work if all Fuel is produced by Land Owners

curious on ur thoughts as to how that might work

[blissful flame]

As, let's say a mid-size land owner, I'd be happy to allow discounts or set prices based on some moving average for people buying in bulk or buying in advance.

I'm sure this gets more complicated on the backend, but have to think there's a way.

[elder jay]

I dont see the advantage for Land Owners when they can sell the same amount of fuel for $100, why choose to sell it for $90?

[blissful flame]

Thinking about it more....this certainly gets hairy. I don't know, maybe a question to pose to the team's brightest?

[elder jay]

hairy is a great word for it 😆

[blissful flame]

Same reason web2 offers these deals, they generate more revenue overall.

Similar to reasoning in your proposal

[elder jay]

because they can produce an unlimited amount of in game currency for no additional cost to them...

land generates a scarse resource in these proposals, like oil, and no ones out there giving random oil discounts when the price set by supply/demand is higher...

[blissful flame]

It's a good point. I don't have all the answers, but just think these are tactics that work and are worth some further brainstorming on.

[elder jay]

I agree that they work (and is a big part of why I made my proposal as it may be the only way they work well in a clear way)

but 100% if we end up with a fluctuating system we should look for ways to implement these no brainer systems that improve retention and monetisation

[devout locust]

Several different ways it could be implemented. Depending on the approach, they would be more or less complicated.

1. User-based Fixed time purchase - Set a recurring order that on the 4th of each month at 1:00 UTC, I purchase 100 crypton, 50 solon, and 75 hyperion. Those purchases are done at lowest price at that time.
2. User-based Ongoing DCA Purchase - Since we're on L2, gas fees aren't really an issue. You could implement mechanics that purchase 1/30 of those amounts on a daily or weekly buy.
3. Pool-based Arbitrage - Third-party group pools money from individuals (say $25 or $50 monthly) and then purchases over the course of the month attempting to secure lowest prices. This group would presumably take a percentage of savings or just a flat management fee. They then distribute the fuel equally to everyone at the start of the month. This could all be set up via smart contracts as well to be a trustless system.

I'm not advocating for any particular system but none of these is incompatible with a fluctuating fuel price. I firmly believe that even if Illuvium as a DAO doesn't offer some of these structures then other projects will probably elect to do so.

[blissful flame]

I was thinking of more of a gaming integrated system for this with in-game incentives for land owners to elect selling at reduced prices. Threw a quick flow chart together as a concept to maybe get juices flowing for others:

[royal kiln]

Wow.

Cool, I could get behind this.

[toxic stirrup]

Interesting. This reminds me of energy spot markets where certain sources of energy are given preferential application. The analogy here is that if youre producing renewable energy you are first choice to sell vs fossil fuel as an incentive. In this case, before DAO applies the buy from the market they buy it from these land owners who would fill the battle pass pool.

[minor cipher]

What if

• for usual buys 95%/5%
• for pass buys 96%/4%

just an example, but tweaking the % produced to fit the discount

Does that work ?

[lofty lagoon]

In theory I think something similar to this can work, but it would add a lot of extra complexity. I don't think it needs to be there from the outset and I'm not sure it is fully needed at all. Think about something like this:

We set a "bundle" for 10 Fuel. You get "stuff" worth 20 Fuel. This is effectively 50% off. This increases the demand for fuel because now things are cheaper, for those specific actions.

Or we simply set a new 'fuel price' for an action. All of these are ad-hoc sales so I'm very wary of them. The extent of my meddling tolerance is the ratio of costs of various actions. Which is just to say that manual intervention is always going to be needed, but the types of manual intervention matter. If buying a ship skin costs too fuel the only natural parameter for balancing that is the particular fuel type can become more abundant and therefore reduce the price. But it does so for all actions/items that use that fuel.

It might be needed, and it seems more reasonable than just giving straight discounts for fuel (at least in a variable model)

If landholders want to sell fuel at a discount, they don't need any help from us. Just put it up for cheaper. It will instantly sell.

[blissful flame]

Definitely, not MVP, and bundling "stuff" or incentives that are relatively free to the DAO as a way to offer special deals on fuel is an even easier way where land owners just proceed as normal, love it!