ICCP - Dissolution of Marketing Sub-Council:

[bronze creek]

Summary:

This proposal seeks the dissolution of our DAO's Marketing Sub-Council (“MSC”) as a strategic step towards optimisation. The existing model incurs significant costs in compensating the MSC while providing minimal value to the Labs Marketing Team's (“LMT”) projects or initiatives. The MSC’s relevance is diminished by the lack of substantial topics or issues demanding its attention that would justify its existence. Furthermore, the MSC is often not privy to any partnership initiatives due to NDAs and that marketing directives predominantly stem from the LMT.

By dissolving this structure, we streamline decision-making and reduce bureaucracy, as the LMT is able to respond to opportunities freely within bounds. Alternatively, the DAO can redirect funds towards hiring an agency or consultant possessing the requisite expertise and experience. This change would enable us to respond more swiftly to opportunities, eliminate unnecessary overhead, and maximize the impact of our marketing initiatives, ultimately ensuring the optimisation of our resources for enhanced results.

Objective:

The primary objective of this proposal is to enhance our DAO's governance framework and resource utilisation by dissolving the MSC. This move is aimed towards optimizing resource allocation, streamlining decision-making, and elevating the effectiveness of our marketing directives. Through this restructuring, we seek to streamline decision-making, empower our LMT, and leverage external expertise to drive impactful outcomes.

Full proposal (Too long to post here)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xKsNNO3Yt76V9T98fOTSCfBzBm0dIbE7eiFh0kfhFDA/edit

ICCP - Dissolution of Marketing Sub-Council:

[gloomy ore]

Agreed

[nova sand]

👀

[silk yacht]

<@&1107754344499122206> - want to make sure you are aware of this and can share your feedback

[patent chasm]

Agreed

[dreamy spire]

I'd like to hear responses from the MSC before voting. Seems only fair to listen to all concerned first.

[void jungle]

Web3 Marketing deep in the bear market with a recession yet to come is a waste of runway.
Paying a marketing subcouncil who oversee a $5k marketing budget is just......

We have seen the Becker Pump.
Becker > marketing team

@bronze creek did i get this right
TL:DR
MSC = waste of money

[dreamy spire]

Isn't a deep bear with a possible recession on the way the perfect time for strategic marketing? Players aren't actively looking so you've got to get illuvium in their face.

I share @bronze creek concerns with MSC performance but market ups and downs shouldn't be a consideration when deciding on permanently removing a sub council.

[bronze creek]

Yeah I don't think this has anything to do with my proposal

[void jungle]

in web2 social media ads are declining on all major platforms.
e.g. twitter ads rev down by 50%, coincidently traffic and engagement are down too.
in web3, google search interest is low.
there is no point of marketing in this market, unless you are willing to burn

our marketing budget is $5k, lower than the budget for MSC

[snow crescent]

Agree. I would like to have information from each of them, of what they have been doing since being elected, aside from Illuvitar pricing. Give them a chance to justify their cost to the DAO.

[molten halo]

This IIP seems premature, and to end the MSC in the middle of an Epoch seems even more premature. Up to this point the MSC meetings were consumed with Wave 2 parameter discussions, this was a highly debated discussion which took up most of our time. As was pointed out in the IIP setting prices for Wave 2 was pushed onto us, we did our best to listen to everyone's opinion on the topic and we put forth multiple proposals on the topic doing the job that was asked of us. I can only speak for myself but I would have rather been coming up with long term marketing Initiative proposals.

In the background during all this I have been working on a Marketing Initiative that I believe will be both cost efficient and effective. I had yet shared this idea with the MSC as we were focused on Wave 2. I'm sure the rest of the MSC have their ideas as well and now that the Wave 2 sale is done we can come together and work on a long term marketing proposal.

My main argument to this IIP is to not vote to dissolve the MSC in the middle of an Epoch but allow us the full Epoch to either prove or disprove that a MSC is valuable.

I also want to add this IIP’s plan is to replace the MSC with a Marketing Agency. Has the sponsor of this IIP contacted a Marketing Agency to inquire how much they would charge for an advertising campaign? Like what has been stated here in this discussion already, Illuviums Marketing budget is very little so why would you hire a Marketing Agency when you dont have a budget?

The sponsor's plan of what to do instead of having a MSC doesn't seem to be well thought out and like I said previously this IIP seems premature.

[whole rampart]

I agree, but I'm a hard no on hiring a marketing agency. We only have one product out yet and we have a huge campaign planned for it in the coming weeks. Our best campaigns have come from the team, and I'm 100% confident we can continue to scale as our revenue grows. Absolutely nothing against any of the marketing members but there just isn't enough work right now, hence us downsizing the marketing team recently.

[bronze creek]

Somebody asked me to post this:
To better understand the impact the marketing subcouncil has made can you explain what you did and what measurements can be provided to show the result from your efforts

[molten halo]

So you are the sponsor but someone asked you to post this? Why didn't the person who asked you to post this make themselves the Sponsor? TSG asked the Marketing team to write a proposal for his Affiliate Proposal and Scoriox did a great job at doing so, also TSG asked us to get this proposal voted on and pushed thorough asap to help get it out before Wave 2 which we were happy to help. That is just one example where I don't think we have let the community down to do our part to contribute to the DAO. I wanted to say that, but my main point was that we made. I shared that to show we have done things in the background that maybe most people do not know about so thank you for the asking but my main point is we made TSG the Sponsor of the proposal, so everyone knew where the proposal came from. Why would you post this IIP on the behalf of someone else? I don't understand

[bronze creek]

The question below is obviously what they asked me to post ...

[molten halo]

ahh gotcha.

OK well the above paragraph answers one thing we helped to do to help with marketing efforts. We also passed the Wave 2 parameters proposal after multiple IIps had been written, also the idea to do a 24-hour Alpha sale came from the MSC which people seemed to like. After the proposal voting was over, we looked at marketing for the Wave 2 beyond sale the team already had some ideas but I put forth an idea based on what was already being discussed, unfortunately there was not enough time to implement anything more that what the team already had planned. I will post my idea I shared here. Perhaps we can use it for wave 3 .

[exotic valve]

@molten halo Bot Blocked it. here you go.

[molten halo]

thank you, not sure why it was blocked

[alpine wigeon]

I hate linking my wallet but I didn't want Betty to have to keep talking for me @molten halo I was the person with the question. I don't mean this in a way that I'm talking down on your efforts but this just seems like you pushed ideas forward and signed what the team had which means the marketing team didn't really contribute much to the wave 2. I'm more on the side that the council should be as small as possible right now while there's nothing really going on. I was trying to give you space to say exactly what the marketing team has done to be impactful. Not saying it doesnt exist, but since we can't see behind the scenes I was asking if you could clarify and provide some measurable points on what the marketing subcouncil has accomplished

more than just approving ideas and meeting up. I don't mean this in an insulting way, I mean it in a way for you to provide insight to what benefit the marketing subcouncil provides to defend whether or not it's a drain on resources

With what, like 1 IIP a quarter currently being submitted I say we should have like 2 people on the DAO just as a tax shield until we actually have work for the council to do but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise

[molten halo]

Without the marketing team the prices for disk would have stayed pretty much the same, I argured with the whole team on this topic not just because I thought a lower cost to entry for Wave 2 was the best route but because I was listening to the community. People seem to like the lower prices as well as the 24 hour sale which like I said before the marketing team came up with.

[alpine wigeon]

Honestly setting a price can be done without a marketing subcouncil, any of the other councils could have done it or team could have decide w/ a community vote. I'd also argue that we can't measure the success of that against what would have happened without a discount. I think everyone on the council is useful and intelligent but at this point where we don't really have a marketable product we are just burning treasury funds

[silver crater]

I downvoted this cause I think the MSC was pivotal in making changes to wave 2 which the team were openly against, based on some (in my opinion) super bad arguments. The MSC contributed to make wave 2 way more fun, and I think they provide a thoughtful and valuable counterview to the team. So thanks <@&1107754344499122206>. Your deeds haven’t gone unnoticed

[molten halo]

Im not disagreeing with you, my main argument is our epoch had been derailed by wave 2 parameters and now we can finally come up with some ideas for longterm marketing strategies. Dissolving the MSC midway seems unfair to me and to the rest of the MSC when it was others who had tasked us to be in charge of the pricing.

[molten halo]

most anything can be voted on and proposed without a Sub-Council

[alpine wigeon]

can you clarify what you're talking about derailing wave 2 parameters? Because again, the council doesn't really have any work to do at the moment so I can't see how one launch for something that isn't pivotal to the community could really derail.

[bronze creek]

Say no more

[alpine wigeon]

I agree, which is why I say we have 2, or 3 to be safe, council members

I appreciate the effort you and the council have put in, I just don't see the cost to reward paying off for the community

they may like the council but I'm looking at it as an investor not as an emotional person

[molten halo]

but that is a whole different IIP

[molten halo]

So why dident you write an IIP to dissovle all Sub-Councils?

[molten halo]

Thank you

[alpine wigeon]

Honestly if we dissolved all of the sub-council I'd be happy, and I wouldn't complain if we made a gesture of goodwill and paid them for the full epoch even if we cut their tenure short. I say we launch the game and see how much of a DAO is needed before we keep burning money on something that honestly isn't really doing much work.

just a bit of background on me for my day job I'm a product owner and a large part of what I do is looking at where we are burning money in AWS across all teams for a large insurance company and develop solutions to achieve the same work but for much less. So figuring out under utilized resources is pretty much what I do 40 hours a week.

[bronze creek]

Like Kieran said they cut down on marketing team members with experience. I’ll let you guys discuss I obviously support this

[snow crescent]

I have to say as an investor I agree with this. As much as I really like most (some I don't know very well) of the current council members I can't help but feel that now is the time to spend minimally and let the team do what needs to be done. Put on 3 members who will be instrumental in bringing community concerns and desires to the team and get on with it.

[alpine wigeon]

yup exactly. Let's save resources everywhere we can. It's not just 5k a month or whatever we are paying. this is just one item that we are spending money on that we can save. Little things add up and we need as much runway as possible.

[molten halo]

We havent gotten to talk about a long term Marketing Strategy because Wave 2 disk pricing had gotten in our way. Like I said before I have been working on a marketing strategy and now, I finally get to talk to the Marketing team about it and there is a IIP to dissolve us, feels bad man. If the majority doesn't want a MSC it feels like it should be voted on towards the end of our Epoch

[bronze creek]

Obviously it feels bad but we can’t let emotions come into this. This a company and we have to do what is best for the DAO, especially the council. I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the marketing council would actually say they agree with this if they are honest with themselves.

[icy dune]

fuck yes - to the no marketing agency part

[molten halo]

It's not emotional, you are trying to cut my time to make a difference short with this IIP.

[snow crescent]

I have a question for you. You said that the sub-council was instrumental in changing the prices for Wave 2. How have our profits been for the first 2 weeks of Wave 2 sales compared to the first 2 weeks of Wave 1 sales? Was the change a positive one in terms of profitability?

[alpine wigeon]

As someone who was let go from ilv when you weren’t expecting it I understand completely. I just think we need to use the resources we have in the best way possible and I can’t see how the council is providing the benefit it is being paid for. I think in the future we will likely need a larger council but it seems silly and wasteful to have a large council for an unfinished product.

[bronze creek]

I’m not on the council and here I am posting an ICCP. Here I am making a difference and I don’t need to spend DAO funds on it.

[alpine wigeon]

That’s pretty much my thought process. Anyone can submit an iip for marketing ideas or really do anything the council could do. The council should be three seats that vote based on community sentiment. Council providing guidance and direction centralizes it to the point where it’s just a web2 company, if the dao doesn’t shield ilv for taxes what’s the point. We need the dao to be as decentralized as possible.

[molten halo]

I won't even disagree with yall about the DAO being smaller or discussing if we need every sub-council. I'm just not sure why MSC is being targeted, pretty sure we have put out more proposals than any other Sub-Council, I feel like this IIP is saying we have let the community down up to this point and I don't think we have.

Either way If the community votes they don't want a MSC then so be it

[silver crater]

2 very different setups. Making these comparisons would lead you to wrong conclusions

[molten halo]

I dont have all the data to give you an answer but I will put together something for you after I get off work.

[alpine wigeon]

I think marketing should be done by a dedicated team of professionals to be honest. It’s concerning we don’t have a marketing team fully set up and currently running a campaign if we are only 120 days out from public beta launch but that’s another story. It’s not marketing being targeted, I just think it’s the first sub council to go since it’s the easiest to show the benefit isn’t supporting the cost

[silk yacht]

Anyone from the Community or Holder can make a difference - all ideas are welcome and alot of IIPs / ICCPs are being worked on in the background. CSC can also assist in writing it up for you if you would like 👍

[silk yacht]

I feel like this is more towards the reduced amount of IIPs in general and wouldn't take it personally....

Quantifying the number of IIPs or ICCPs is not the way to look at it IMO

As am example CSC is working on several IIPs with Community members and other councils.

Also Stratgey has been working on the fuel IIPs since one of their first meetings, major items (like the wave2 proposed changes) take time and effort before sharing.

The IIP is just the tip of the iceberg, everything else happening under the surface is hard to quantify - but alot of leg work was put into them

Edited/added: Let's also no forget that MOST if not ALL the information cannot be shared fully because of NDAs as a Council Member; it would be just as vague as the meeting minutes shared publically = super generalized and limited

[vital loom]

Savings: I respect the sentiment to save money in a bear market. If this money were saved here, it would not be spent on Marketing via agency/consultants due to market conditions.

Spend: Marketing is typically 30%-60% of the spend of a game studio during it's life cycle. Currently it is a small fraction of that. As @whole rampart mentioned Marketing has been cost-optimized, and rightfully so.

Progress: If ILV token holders and the Illuvium Community would like to establish the processes, reporting, oversight and contributions they will make to Marketing, dissolving the Marketing Sub-Council will be a step backward here.

**Long Term: **At what point to you re-establish Marketing sub-council if you dissolve it now? Launch? Drastic short term decisions about MSC, need to be with a long term understanding of Marketing governance and it's role in the DAO.

TL:DR -- Dissolving the MSC in the short term only makes sense if there is a proper long term marketing goverance plan in place, which I am not aware of.

[icy dune]

I agree the council is a net good thing.

However - I think we should strategically hire a content generation team of ppl as the council.

The best thing we can do for the next 6 months is spread awareness through crypto-native platforms with high-quality content. Twitter, TY, FT, and anything else.

A few ppl on the council could fit into this but we don't have an editor on the council. We should probably have two given our current needs.

[bronze creek]

You’ll have new people long term that have to start from scratch each time, it doesn’t make any sense. You don’t re-establish them.

[alpine wigeon]

Honestly thoguh what can a marketing sub council do that the community couldn’t do

[vital loom]

What can any of the councils do, that the community can't do?

[alpine wigeon]

I’m against a large council so I do think most of the council is useless and should only be used as a tax shield but I don’t think the current iteration will be successful of.

We should have a few council members that only are there to vote on proposals submitted by the community

[silk yacht]

We are elected members of "said" community 😉

[alpine wigeon]

And the team do all aspects of the game

[vital loom]

That's not how governments and goverance works. New people come in, and they take up the mantle of the "office" of their predecessors. How? They have processes, reporting, and systems that were operated before them that they can now use and improve upon.

[icy dune]

each seat should have a specific role.

Project Manager, Editor 1, Editor 2, In-game capture, and team
Open source it a bit, and get ppl in the community to fill in gaps in idea generation and distribution

[alpine wigeon]

honestly if we get to it and I get time it sounds like we should target restructuring the DAO completely so it's actually a tax shield and making it closer to the original structure. Then we aren't targeting marketing and it becoms an actual DAO rather than the centralized org we currently have

I'm still in favor of this IIP since it will tell the direction the community wants to go, but I think we should have a follow up IIP. I have a large project this week and AWS test but I can prob try to write one in the coming weeks

[snow crescent]

Marketing has to be making comparisons and reaching conclusions so that they can make future decisions. I am aware that there are psychological buying motives associated with wave 1 vs wave 2. However, if someone from MSC would like to post the numbers and also explain to us why there are differences then that would be even better. It would establish that they are actively analyzing what they are implementing.

[last thunder]

Kinda at a loss for words here tbh. The impact you feel from marketing takes time. The first chunk of time was spent fighting for a lot of the same people that are in here saying we haven't done our job (re: Wave 2 pricing). Aside from that, there's been loads of work done and we're not even 3 months in yet. Marketing is not instant-gratification like other areas of business are. The work product we're shipping is stuff that isn't even public until days, weeks or months later. With all due respect, there's a lot of shortsighted takes here and it shows.

[dreamy spire]

I'm assuming council members have access to information not available to the wider community. Decisions made with this info in mind is the biggest difference between a council member and us mere mortals right?

[alpine wigeon]

Well the thing with marketing is there's also ways to measure the success of marketing. Through growth achieved on social media, players, interactions on social media and especially discord, and whether or not people like it the token price. Bringing in investors should also be a target for marketing. For the most part growth has been relatively stagnant

to be fair we are in a bear market but there are opportunities for growth out there. Marketing subcouncil could also prove it's worth since we are supposedly close to public launch

we should be in full force in marketing for the public beta to get as much money into the launch as possible

[last thunder]

Yes, again, growth takes time and execution of work product. If anyone thought the MSC was going to be able to come in on week 1 and flip a switch for 100,000 new community members, i don't really know what to tell you.

Our focus has been and continues to be on gamer adoption, all plans that can't be actioned until PVP or open beta.

[alpine wigeon]

It does take time, but it's been 3 months and we look the same as we did before the council

[alpine wigeon]

well also marketing should be prepping for launch

you don't market after launch

you prep for launch

if we aren't launching for 6 months then fair

but if we arent' then that gets into another issue where we need to announce a delay, get some heat off marketing

[last thunder]

We are prepping for launch, that's what we're spending all of our time on, so what is the issue people are voicing?

If the community wants more transparency then make that the issue, not the notion that we aren't working

[alpine wigeon]

well honestly, with less than 120 days we should have started already bu that's besides the point

anything the subcouncils can do the community can also do

so I still don't see a benefit of having any subcouncils

I believe having the council directly work on game or strategy centralizes it

which means it no longer is atax shield

so we should save our runway for taxes

[last thunder]

then that's an issue with the DAO v2 model, not the MSC, let's be clear what we're voting for here.

[alpine wigeon]

they're onein the same

if part of the model is wasteful

start trimming

like I said when I get time I'll write an IIP to also restructure the DAO

in a way that is less wasteful and is actually a DAO

nothing aginst your work

[last thunder]

we have already started, that is what i'm saying lol

[dreamy spire]

Well for me personally it was the marketing for wave 2 beyond. Or should I say lack of. The launch of wave 2 was a massive L compared to wave 1. The numbers clearly show this.

[alpine wigeon]

not really, we haven't had any growth

working on marketing isn't the same

we are close to launch, we should be launching the campaign now

marketing has always been not our strongest suite to be fair

[last thunder]

let's be clear - we are not marketing employees for Illuvium Labs

if your issue is with them, that's also a different issue

[alpine wigeon]

right but I'm talking about making the DAO more decentralized

[last thunder]

we don't have access to any of the socials

[alpine wigeon]

and if the council is working on strategy that's the same thing

DAO should be 100% vote casters

otherwise prep for regulatory bodies once they start focusing on DAOs

[last thunder]

What you are voicing here is fundamentally different than what this ICCP is voting on

[alpine wigeon]

i'm talking about the subcouncils being wasteful

which supports the IIP

I appreciate the work and effort the council has put in

but if we are going this route, we should prep to not be seen as a DAO

[last thunder]

what if we leave the legal / regulatory structuring of the DAO to the attorneys?

and if not, also, not relevant to this ICCP

[alpine wigeon]

fine even with out regulatory arguments the subcouncils are still wasteful lol

I still believe the community can do everything the council is doing

IIPs were built for that.

price change has been the only example of support for marketing subcouncil, which 100% could have been done by the community

I'm pretty sure we changed prices in the past using community vote haven't we?

or was land changed without a vote

no think it was wave 1 originally that was too expensive

[last thunder]

Yes, and if your issue is with Gov v2 then that's totally cool, but if you think that 100+ people voting and discussing the pricing models without having direct input to the odds, traffic analytics, purchase modeling, etc., would have worked, then we just disagree

[alpine wigeon]

that's literally why DAOs were created lol. and why couldn't the community be provided that information?

[last thunder]

Because we're under NDA and you aren't

unless you're suggesting that Illuvium Labs puts every community member under NDA

We have access to sensitive details because that's how we make more informed decisions as representatives of those without NDAs.

[alpine wigeon]

I still don't see the benefit of having a large DAO over community voting and using DAO just as a method to vote. If we are really getting into specifics then you don't need a council at all and can just 100% base it on community vote, don't need representatives

it's worked in the past, so I still believe we don't need council even w/ the NDAs

ILV Beyond I don't think is going to be a large seller and doesn't require a council to make decisions on

[last thunder]

It worked in the past? Where has that model worked in the past?

[alpine wigeon]

Community vote controling protocol? You know that's why DAOs were created within Eth correct?

that's the entire philosophy of why they were started lol

If we are getting technical I think it's dangerous but even vetos take away from a true DAO but I'm not going to submit that IIP or get into that lol

[last thunder]

I know what a DAO is lol, i'm saying what example are you referring to in gaming that has proven the model works as you are describing it?

[alpine wigeon]

Merit Circle

isnt uniswap 100% community as well

[last thunder]

Neither of those examples are what we're talking about here. I know both teams intimately. Maybe i'm not wording my question clearly, i am saying where is there an example of a AAA-quality game studio being run by a community each with their own individual say in what happens?

i don't know if that's worded any better but i'm running out of ways to word it lol.

[alpine wigeon]

what

I said 100% community run

don't need a council

[rich portal]

Well, if a system lets people with relevant information beg for votes from people without said information to make things happen, then I would argue that’s not an optimised system…? Also, I wasn’t a big fan of changing prices for wave 2. Still think community sentiment in that regard was kind of a self fulfilling prophecy and time could have been better spent elsewhere.

[eternal fulcrum]

I am upvoting this. I believe that Gov v2 needs revision.

[last thunder]

I am not even saying that Gov v2 shouldn't be revised. I am saying that what this ICCP is doing is not Gov v2 revision.

Let's take that energy to a ICCP on Gov v2 revision and then have this convo lol

[alpine wigeon]

this is the start of Gov V2 revision

If we remove marketing subcouncil which I think most people so far are agreeing would be a good move, at least according to the thumbs, it shows we definately do need to restructure the DAO

[eternal fulcrum]

We need to look at each sub council in isolation in order to start formulating how gov3 potentially can be structured.

[alpine wigeon]

I think that's a good way to put it. I'm pushing for no council eventually but we need to take baby steps

[dreamy spire]

I agree, I'm just not sure upvoting this iccp is the solution though. Dissolution is not revision

[eternal fulcrum]

I am not in favour of no council but serous thought needs to be put into what roles can be filled in the future with staff or admin that are dedicated to helping the Dao. This may offer more continuity instead of changing people every 6 months.

[alpine wigeon]

I think this is also a good test of the council. If a majority of people agree with the iccp and it isn’t enacted it supports the notion that votes should 100% be community based and automated.

[alpine wigeon]

To be a dao it really shouldn’t include team members although they would be the best for determining direction

[last thunder]

Well, I don't think this is the appropriate place to debate Gov v3 structuring, so I'll try to hold back on my opinions regarding that.

With that said, if anyone has any questions or clarification needed specifically regarding MSC performance (or lack thereof) then I'm happy to speak to it.

The bottom line is that we're working hard, meeting at least weekly - if not more - and are producing meaningful strategy and/or input to the employed marketing team (of which we are not employed marketing team members). This ICCP unjustly targets the MSC as a means to greater dissolution of Gov v2, which is not only unfair to us, but a cheap "way around" revising the underlying governance system via low-hanging fruit.

[eternal fulcrum]

The Dao can hire staff directly

[alpine wigeon]

It can but I don’t think that would be considered a dao legally when regulation comes. But we can discuss in another channel

[last thunder]

So I'd ask community members here to isolate their feelings between MSC specifically, and Gov V2 broadly. If your issue is with Gov V2, that's cool, but here isn't the place to vote down Gov V2.

If you genuinely have a position of no-confidence in the MSC, that's an entirely different thing and I'd love to hear why.

Dissolving the MSC as collateral damage for dismantling Gov V2 is wild.

[eternal fulcrum]

I agree. I think this discussion will likely start a wider discussion on revision of Gov V2

[alpine wigeon]

It’s not collateral damage. I just also believe the marketing sub council is a waste of money. I appreciate the effort but think a team member dedicated to it would be better.

[last thunder]

Scaling the marketing team internally (again, Illuvium Labs not Illuvium DAO) is great, but it costs money. To say that the marketing sub-council is a waste of money is categorically false, because we are not paid money. We do not cost Illuvium any money because we work for ILV. Team members do not work for ILV (as far as I know).

If you can find a marketing professional and/or agency that will work for ILV for Illuvium Labs, then I'll vote for that too.

Final thought here for now, but if someone tags me I'll circle back to answer questions.

I would ask that the community at least give us until the end of the epoch to show what we're working on. The biggest issue I see with doing this now is that there are many things mid-process behind the scenes, largely around PvP / Open Beta, and I think it's a mistake to throw out the MSC right before being able to activate these strategies, especially without a replacement.

If the team says they will budget the cost to replace the MSC with team members, then that's different, but this ICCP is only going to get rid of hardworking individuals who aren't being replaced, going into multiple milestones.

[alpine wigeon]

I mean... the community can still put forward the same IIPs as the marketing council so it wont be going away 100%. Same result for no money

[last thunder]

That's incredibly presumptious. We can't even get people to give feedback on MSC ideas, much less put forth their own? I would love if that were the reality of the situation, but it simply isn't, nor does the community have access to the resources and information that is necessary for informed decisions.

and again- we don't cost money

[alpine wigeon]

being paid ILV == money, that's being purposely misleading

[last thunder]

The only way ILV is money is if the team sells it to pay a team member in fiat.

Not at all misleading. ILV costs the DAO zero runway. And if it's used to budget in extra fiat op costs, then it's sell pressure.

[raven hull]

Voted down. I think it's too premature to discuss this. Assessing the effectiveness of an initiative takes longer if we're talking about a serious project/business (and hoping to witness an impact overnight is naive + we're not (at least, I am not) privvy to all the internal discussions to be able to say that such and such counsil is useful or not). My view: we wait until the end of the epoch. If there is a substantiated need to scale down the council or dissolve it temporarily, sure. But what's the rush now?

[rich portal]

They’re letting us vote on the outcome of their ‘privvy conversations’, so playing the nda card is actually a counter argument (at least for me). But I agree that’s a wider issue (and not the fault of this subcouncil). I was however not convinced by their pricing proposal (especially the first draft which how it was presented felt like they thought was a slam dunk) but atm that’s not enough for me to upvote this.

[sleek saffron]

I don't think it's fair to discuss only the Marketing Council.
I think we should include other councils in the discussion.
I agree that even without the Council, we would still be in the same situation as we are now.
Are we talking here about costs being a waste? Or is it that the Marketing Council is useless?
What if a Council Member offers to work for free?
I am neither for nor against this proposal, I think the result would have been the same as it is now, no matter who did it.
@molten halo I like you personally.

[rancid relic]

Oh boy this is a super fun one 🙂

Pros:
There isn't a whole lot to do for the marketing sub-council at this time and I am not going to lie to you about that. That being said we have been doing as much as we possibly can to both assist the marketing team and work on future plans for upcoming betas and the eventual rollout of Illuvium. We have also been conducting our own independant research on behalf of the DAO to free up more time for the rest of the marketing team.

We could save 6k USD every month from the treasury if we dissolve the Marketing DAO. Whether that cost is not worth the assistance we are providing is up for discussion and that's fine. Personally I don't think it has been these past 3 months and don't expect it to be for the next 1 month at least.

Cons:

Saving this 6k USD does significantly less than you'd think. Even if this did mean hire an external Marketing team these funds would come out of runway and not the treasury, we would actually be spending more money and not necessarily gaining more productivity in place of it. That being said I feel expanding the marketing team soon is actually very important (but as Andrew said that's not the plan).

We lose an important element of decentralisation. I agree that because of the NDA's with partnerships, the Marketing Sub-councils ability to work gets greatly diminished. However for everything else, such as future IB pricing, adjustments to the product and other marketing prioritisation and incentives structures for the community, this would be almost purely the will of the team. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but the community would lose a % of their influence over the DAO.

Then there's the long term implications. Would the MSC ever return? And when? After or during Open Beta launch?

I'd like to see ways the 'Marketing Proposals' would be divided amongst the other Sub-councils. For example Strategy could easily take care of general DAO prioritisation.

[orchid aspen]

There are a few issues I have with this proposal. I won't be weighing in on the MSC's activities this epoch, the community should decide that for themselves. We should also be clear that this needs to be a vote against the existence of A marketing sub-council, not a vote against the current membership of the marketing sub-council. If we're to pursue dissolution of the MSC as a DAO, we should be doing it because having a marketing sub-council doesn't provide value to the DAO, not because we don't like A, B or C current members on the MSC.

The main issue I have is that this proposal simply removes a piece of a system, without discussing replacement, alternatives, or ways to improve the current system. Gov V2 was developed to work holistically, and the MSC is part of that whole.

A 4 member IMC could easily arrive at a 2:2 stalemate when voting. This isn't an unsolvable problem, but should be addressed by a proposal removing one of the sub-councils and IMC reps.

Additionally, can the MSC be directed to alternative or additional tasks that can provide value to the DAO?

No system is above revision, and Gov V2 will need revision, I hope we were clear about that when we passed it last epoch. (ref: #📯〕council-chambers message) It's entirely possible that removing the MSC is the best revision we can make, but taking the most extreme step first generally isn't my preference.

Others have already identified that saving ILV tokens doesn't open up additional spending power for the DAO. Saving Treasury ILV tokens is absolutely important, and we should strive to be fiscally responsible, but it needs to be clear that saving ~170 ILV tokens for the Treasury each month doesn't translate to $7500 of additional spending power for the DAO, unless we start market selling those ILV tokens.

With that in mind, if the DAO believes it is not deriving value from the council, there are viable alternatives to dissolution of a sub-council. Reducing membership per sub-council (ex. 3 member sub-councils), combining sub-councils (ex. 2 sub-councils with 5 members each, covering a wider range of topics each), or introducing a mechanism to reduce pay for sub-councils or council members not meeting expectations all seem like preferable alternatives.

To me, this discussion NEEDS to be bigger than just pulling a piece out of the system, and I'm happy to have that discussion with the community. There are a lot of moving parts in Governance, and it's always a challenge to balance transparency against sharing confidential information about what's happening behind the scenes and under NDA. I believe finding improvements for that transparency would be better than stripping the system down. Our council and DAO will absolutely be worse off for removing MSC with no replacement in mind, for reasons of precedent (will council members performing to the best of their ability want to sit on a DAO where they can be removed?), structure (4 man IMC poses obvious problems in voting) and from my personal experience interacting with membership from the MSC this epoch.

[delicate beacon]

I agree!


Well sort of, let me explain.

I will only speak for myself here and not for the MSC.

Everything I wanted to achieve in the MSC for better terms gets shut down due to lack of resources mainly and not having a ‘product’ to market.

Just a couple of things that I wanted to achieve were:
Streamlining social media presence, cultivating a TikTok account with six daily posts, creating YouTube shorts, devising a marketing strategy, collecting data, and formulating engaging responses to comments, among other ideas. However, the Marketing department lacks the necessary resources or has chosen not to allocate them presently. Given a monthly budget of less than $5,000, our current options are limited.

I personally also have friends with 40 million+ subscribers on platforms that I can reach out to and can’t really use these contacts yet.


I believe all this will change towards end of the year when Illuvium can spend the $$ on this and can ramp up efforts.

The only issue I have is it worth shutting it down than in 3 months or there about’s (with or without me) do you re-open it?

The financial aspect is of little concern to me, as my intention was solely to contribute value to the Illuvium team and community. Is a budget of around $6,000 per month sufficient reason to halt a sector that could yield significant benefits once a product is launched?


I’m open to feedback and love to know what the community thinks.

[molten halo]

Thank you aruwaioh99 😁

[fiery linden]

Ever since I was consulted to review the initial draft Gov v2, I have been vocal about my apprehension on having a separate marketing sub-council. Even then, I felt that it was too specific that the DAO would only have little to no issues that would be directed at marketing. On top of this, we already have a whole team working on marketing specifically. Back then SCs were posed to be a 3 man council and I felt that we could have repurposed marketing to be more general than specific. I gave it the benefit of the doubt as the original authors wanted to push marketing and wait until we actually tested out the structure.

The issue at hand is definitely not about who is in the MSC and if they were effective or not but whether or not the MSC as a whole is effective or is justified in its existence as Blickter mentioned. Marketing iniatives stem from the team as well as its execution. If we wanted the MSC to act as the teams research arm, would that justify its existence? I think not. It would be better to just add a headcount in the team who can do that as a full time job.

To address Andrew's comments:

Progress: If ILV token holders and the Illuvium Community would like to establish the processes, reporting, oversight and contributions they will make to Marketing, dissolving the Marketing Sub-Council will be a step backward here.

Long Term: At what point to you re-establish Marketing sub-council if you dissolve it now? Launch? Drastic short term decisions about MSC, need to be with a long term understanding of Marketing governance and it's role in the DAO.

Having a MSC is not required to establish process, reporting or oversight while contributions can stem from anywhere and this was shown where the pricing proposal that was passed came from @orchid aspen and not from the marketing sub council. While the three former points can be introduced as a governance proposal to establish proper DAO oversight on the team's marketing efforts. My opinion here is that this can be lodged to the deciding body of the DAO which is the IMC. Why would the team be making reports only to the MSC? In addition, and to the point of Blickter and Scoriox, marketing can be absorbed/combined into a more general sub-council.

I share the same sentiment as the others here, I would prefer that this proposal should it pass be implemented at the end of this epoch. It would open up more ideas on how governance would be properly restructured. Replacing MSC with another sub council while reducing the total headcounts to 3 is not ideal. Not only are we faced with the same predicament of having too niche of a council we would now have 2 elected members which hampers proper discourse of ideas. A better option is to have 2 SCs with 5 members with better delineation of responsibilities and clear expectations on what each sub council will do.

To sum, there needs to be a change in the whole Gov v2 structure and though this is about the Marketing Sub Council, the effects of passing this proposal will cascade into the bigger picture which needs to be addressed in future proposals. Therefore, I agree with the caveat that this should be implemented after this epoch while addressing the void that MSC will leave once dissolved whether it would be a replacement of another type of subcouncil or a reduction/combining of sub councils.

[rancid relic]

I agree that a general subcouncil is good but generally speaking it is how I see the community subcouncil.

But I think even 2 x 7 person subcouncils might be a great move forward here. But we need to consider that the IMC reduction from 5 to 3 is a significant loss to decentralisation. Given the team admin Is a team member it takes 1 single other vote to push through any proposal. This is a big change in any case

[gloomy ore]

Lot of interesting comments especially Andrew and Sam that make me question my thumb up.

@delicate beacon
« Streamlining social media presence, cultivating a TikTok account with six daily posts, creating YouTube shorts, devising a marketing strategy, collecting data, and formulating engaging responses to comments, among other ideas. »

I see a lot of things requiring man-hours more than $, or am I wrong?

Andrew is full time on content, not getting out much video so any other platform content needed he can be of service, no?

I saw you’ve been off for a while and just back. And I see @molten halo fighting back saying the time spent was on fighting for wave2 prices.

OK. But all that should not be excuses to explain the current lack of strategy. I agree with Andrew, it’s the moment to build one, damn, it’s the moment to build one for the past year already… So what’s the status of it ? Where are we today ?

[fiery linden]

I dont think there should be a reduction of 5 to 3 in IMC. I think the reduction being discussed is with the sub-councils. So yes, I agree with you that no reduction on IMC. Its also why I would prefer that implemention of this if ever is after this epoch to give us enough time to address the potential void of the marketing IMC rep.

[last thunder]

I think it would be great to look at the efficacy of all sub-councils, including marketing, and gov v2 in general, I just think it should happen at the end of the epoch.

I think it would also be good for each council to self-audit their performance for the first 3 months, and we can publicize our findings or something. Could be a step towards greater transparency for each group.

This self reflection will also help council members identify the good and bad, and better correct course for the remaining half of the epoch.

[silk yacht]

@last thunder - this sounds a lot like the #1135831363946283090 , which will highlight the performance in a type of "self-audit" and peer evaluation (estimated for next month I believe)

A lot of the discussions I read through (as well as DMs) all seem to touch one major concern: "Efficiency of GOV V2"; Let's not forget that this is the first iteration of Gov V2 and we will need to patch holes, make repairs, fine-tune processes and improve efficiency - which is only possible through trial and error of what works and what doesn't.

CSC (and I know some other council members as well) are keeping track of corrections required for portions of GOV V2 and recommended changes that would benefit the DAO. Some might come up in advance as ICCPs, however, the bulk are not urgent enough and can wait until the end of the epoch after attempts have been made to improve. I am entirely in favor of this waiting until the end of the epoch and be implemented as one dedicated section of the "ICCP - Improvements to GOV V2" (if the community feels so strongly about it)

Reviewing most feedback here and the current vote (30 - 30) - it feels like the most split decision we have had recently.

I would like to highlight these 3 posts and encourage anyone to take the time to read them (if not, this entire thread, as there is very good points of views shared by many Council Members and Community Members):

Scoriox's Opinion on this matter: #1145736367331090432 message
Blickter's Concerns/Questions: #1145736367331090432 message
Scub's Reasoning and further information on additional revisions to GOV V2: #1145736367331090432 message

[last thunder]

Thanks Ricky. Yes, my vote would be to compile feedback/suggestions/critiques for all sub-councils/processes and address them in one ICCP at the end of the epoch- including any doubts or issues with MSC.

[reef smelt]

Given the proposal to “dissolve” the Marketing Council, it's imperative we reflect on the original objectives set for our sub-councils. The Marketing Council was created to combine community feedback with special insights under NDA, using their marketing expertise to make decisions that benefit our token holders.

Does dissolving the marketing council provide more value to token holders?

I would like to remind everyone of the person you voted for in this council.

Now Imagine them also with a rich history in launching AAA games, offering their seasoned insights, and possibly without even seeking compensation. With full transparency from LMT about partnership deals

Wouldn't such insights and decision making significantly benefit our token holders?

I believe they could!

In the arena of the gaming industry, marketing is not just a side note. It's often the driving force. We've seen brilliant games fade into obscurity due to poor marketing. At the same time, some trash games with questionable quality rise to prominence because of marketing gimmicks.

The current IIP, from my perspective, seems flawed and genuinely causes more harm to the DAO. I ask the OP to think it over and consider its removal.

The IIP outlines three main concerns:

Costs: The perceived high expense of the current council's advice is a concern. If the issue is with candidate remuneration, then perhaps addressing payment structures and ensuring fair compensation based on expertise could be a more constructive solution. Would an adjustment in ILV token compensation address this?
Write an ICCP

Insight & Expertise: Concerns have been raised about the council not having more insights than a regular DAO member and that the NDA doesn't contribute to enhanced decision-making. I'd argue that even if additional insights aren't accessed, the specialized backgrounds of council members empower them to make more informed decisions than a larger, potentially less specialized community. Moreover, while it might be worth discussing if the MSC should access partnership deals, we should be cautious, as divulging too much might deter potential high-caliber partners.

Decision-making Efficiency: The belief that the council can be slow, hindering Labs' operations, has merit. However, with proactive planning and foresight, we can ensure that the council echoes the community's sentiments efficiently and promptly in both meetings and via IIPs/ICCPs.

To wrap up, I must stress my deep concern. Supporting the Marketing Council's dissolution feels like a step in the wrong direction, potentially sidelining invaluable expertise. It's not just about now; it's about the future of Illuvium and the potential we might be squandering. I sincerely hope everyone considers the wider implications and does not support this. If you are supporting this proposal I am assuming you are not thinking it through.

You are voting on the proposal as it is written. If you believe change needs to be made to GOV v2 let’s start a conversation about the parameters like council pay, expertise, Information access, etc, not the dissolution of a sub-council

[rugged oasis]

Hypothetical to indicate the benefit of council members, specifically in marketing:
If I were to reach out to people that I know regarding advertising in their publication or partnerships with their brands I would personally struggle to explain to them why I as a member of a community am empowered to start such a conversation. Granted I could have tried to bring my idea to the team and then made an introduction to an official team representative, but it still feels bad. And if every community member that might think they know a guy tries and wastes team member’s time then it’s even less efficient.

But if I were a council member elected by the community I feel like such conversations actually make sense.

[fiery linden]

This is a fair take. And I would like to believe that "if" the MSC is dissolved the responsibilities of which are not removed from the DAO. It merely transfers to different sub councils which means a regular community member has access to a council member who can bring forth any idea/proposal to the team.

What I believe is one of the main points here which Kieran initially mentioned was theres just little to no work to give to sub-council of 5 people focused solely on marketing. Plus the fact that the system does not enable the MSC to push their own initiatives as they are constricted with the bandwidth and resources afforded to the marketing team currently.

[rugged oasis]

The perception (inaccurate or not) of little being done for marketing is not ideal. Perhaps a simple calendar with planned phases would help. Though it might tread into the area of unduly influencing token price, but every action or inaction could be considered to influence token price. I can’t imagine that a simple phase 1,2,3 could run afoul of NDA.

[void jungle]

Curious, why not propose an IIP to increase marketing budget?

CMIIW reading kieran's post, your post and how kieran wasnt happy with the MSC candidates, I sense that the MSC is not being involved by the marketing team?

Tbh pricing of wave2 could have been done by the strategic sub council

[snow crescent]

In regards to your last sentence, I had a long DM conversation with a community sub-council member about the pricing. I think marketing, community and strategy were all involved in that one.

[errant thunder]

I'm going to vote yes. With a caveat to it being done at the end of the epoch.

My main reason is that in my experience any plan to implement change takes time to see the merits and deficits. With that knowledge adjustments can be made with informed decisions.
I didn't believe marketing was a great avenue for the sub councils as I believe marketing should always be the main teams arena.
However I do see the value In having marketing elements with the sub-councils and perhaps adding it to the other sub-councils would be beneficial.
My main assumption for a marketing sub-council was to fill a gap in the marketing of IlvLabs due to available funds and the current state of the games iteration.
I would personally like the sub-councils reviewed as a whole after the epoch.

My concerns are:

Will any of this disrupt implementation or strategies going forward when we do have a game/product at the end of the Q4?
What role, If any does the MSC have within this last quarter?

I see value in re discussing all the parameters of GOV V2 when the epoch is over.

[void jungle]

we should avoid overlapping roles.
a separate discussion: double council role 👀

[errant thunder]

I don't see this as a problem. They can work together while still being separate, some things will require that.

I think the discussion in the end will be about how effective and what roles sub-councils need to take or not take.

[patent chasm]

I think the marketing sub council has yielded a net negative thus far. With the bulk of work around pricing of disks and no clear strategy or framework plan for marketing going forward.

I think at least this could be a wake up call for people to be more proactive and work together internally to figure out a good bang for buck strategy and then getting feedback from the team.

At the moment you look at the quality of results from the sub councils since they have been voted in and it does make you think, is the juice worth the squeeze?

@delicate beacon comments are valid, I'd say some of those contacts could be tapped for illuvitars but if the plan is during PvP/open beta, I guess watch this space.

[orchid flint]

This seems premature. As many pointed out, when do you get new marketing council back? When it's too late? We've read that members of the council have ideas brewing and are preparing for when the time is right.

[void jungle]

for discussion, sure. but it doesnt warrant a sub council to discuss things. imo what we need right now is a crypto native who has experiences as NFT advisor.
look at the marketing sub council, which person has experience in launching NFT products?

[errant thunder]

I agree that could help with some elemnts, yet not all, maybe some from varying backgrounds relating to games and web3 would be good.

[clever star]

I agree, The In place council has proven no idea of the gaming market.
With this said, I can't say i value more the Illuvium's team abilities for marketing lately. So there definitely is a problem to solve here, but i don't know if dissolving a council that could have been a great help for the project, is the right thing to do. It failed this epoch, Ok it happens in any democracy.

Doesn't mean we won't need it later.

[dense berry]

Whether or not I am for or against dissolving MSC, I have to say that I do not think it should be dissolved this epoch for sure.

Any decision to dissolve MSC should begin to take effect from next epoch if it is made...

as for should it be dissolved, although @whole rampart's initial tweet about dissolving it was poorly timed (just as the epoch began) it may not have been wildly off base... I'll say that much

I wont be voting up or down on this proposal yet though and stand firmly that if a change is made it should begin from next epoch (as with many other changes to gov v2 that are in the works

[vague stirrup]

IMO:
Ive always thought there was way too many members in the council as whole. The reason i say this is because i look at it on a wage aspect.. How many hours has each council member put in towards its sub council's goal, outside of the hours spent in meetings? is the wage justifiable? Could the same goal be achieved with less people?

With this proposal:
I feel as though it would be fair to say to allow the MSC showcase their current work/ contribution with the upcoming release of the new beta & give it time to see what the growth % is before making any official decisions.

Its a big NO NO from me hiring an outside marketing agency

Maybe with this proposal out, it would be a good opportunity to showcase other sub council's work in the time they have been given. Maybe consider an AMA for each sub council..? Before the new beta release..?

[delicate beacon]

I see a lot of things requiring man-hours more than $, or am I wrong?
So to produce content e.g tiktok, shorts and so on it takes man hours from the Illuvium Team and this can't be done by the MSC to produce/capture this. There are more pressing issues at this stage then creating the content which I do agree with just frustrating. IMO it's better to focus on PVP, Beta and other internal products.

Andrew is full time on content, not getting out much video so any other platform content needed he can be of service, no?
I can't speak for Andrew but he is much more then that and is super busy.

I saw you’ve been off for a while and just back
I actually never left I just stop tweeting and engaging on discord. I have read most comments and opinions from every thread/discussion on both twitter/discord. I thought it was best to just observe as a lot of discussions where going around in circles and people just wanted their voices heard which is fair enough. I like to engage if I see a reason to and see something positive coming from it.

OK. But all that should not be excuses to explain the current lack of strategy. I agree with Andrew, it’s the moment to build one, damn, it’s the moment to build one for the past year already… So what’s the status of it ? Where are we today ?
So I wish it was as simple as I was hoping for but unfortunalty there are more moving parts then even I anticipated. I belive there is a lot of internal things going on.

Just to be clear things are moving forward and a lot of discussions are being had so don't think nothing is getting done there is actually quite a lot just not visible things. I understand that its frustrating as well.

I hope this clears some things up.

[delicate beacon]

Because even I think that would be a bad move as again it comes down to resources and when is the best time to use the budget. I would agree wait till at least PVP and/or even Beta.

[delicate beacon]

To use my large contacts list for this it would be best for Beta as it would be a waste for illuvitars IMO

[gloomy ore]

Vision > Strategy > Plan > Tasks

I’m pretty sure it’s not too bad to come up with up to a plan, coming to the tasks things then maybe some doable, some won’t. But the strategy and plan can be all grounded and give a proper path to success.

Personally I think it won’t be possible to even go to a plan level. Because even the die hard community do not know how the game mechanics will all be working together. No one outside of the team have a proper vision of what’s going to be achieve by go live and subsequent waves of product delivery.

(Examples? Who knew the overload thing and impact before the beta? Who knows what has changed? Who knows how the crafting work fully? Why more Mozart? What do they allow? Why new type of nfts and what will they be used for? Plenty of example. There is 0 document today, explaining and setting in stone the scope of the game mechanics)

I see that maybe as one of the biggest weakness of the project and a killer for whoever not on the team is trying to work on marketing.

So, what can the marketing council work on in the meantime ? Strategy ? How is the council able to provide more value than a marketing contractor to build a strategy for the same budget ?

Open questions here, sorry if that hurt some feelings.

PS: I agree with @clever star, and Sam and Andrew, cancel my thumb up, for now. Not that anyone care anyway 🤣

[zinc lotus]

Seems a bit premature and why didn’t the person who’s idea it was put the proposal forward, you need a wingman for IIPs?

[bronze creek]

I did. And I talked with multiple community members and council members. @fiery linden took the task on him to write it all up.

[void jungle]

i need scrub to write my next idea

[fiery linden]

I don't mind. I mean that's why we're council members. We're supposed to help the community and one of my skill sets is to craft documents 😀

[gloomy ore]

What’s the issue having people named as supporter or help, lets focus on the question, give ideas and opinions, build a conversation, rather than being toxic

[rapid raft]

I believe there is some positive discussion and takeaways to come from this IIP. However, as it is currently constituted I do not believe it is comprehensive enough nor the right timing to make a change like this. Below are the areas I encourage our community to think about.

Structure - We expected the optimal structure would not be identified right away. I’m pleased that we’re having discussions within the community about the optimal approach with number and size of councils. I do think there is room for optimization and SSC is actively working on this. Remember that a key reason we have such a large number of council members is to demonstrate clear decentralization. Not only is the community involved but 17 rotating, non-core contributors are permanently in the process. This is a huge point in terms of our compliance when showing the DAO structure to regulators.

Process - Strategy subcouncil already has changes to Gov V2 coming as our key topic for the next month to evaluate. Adjustments need to be decided in time to allow for any changes prior to campaign and voting processes next epoch. We have been working on the process of gathering feedback from the councils, team and community over the past couple of months. This is planned for the mid-epoch time frame which we are just now entering. The number 1 reason this particular IIP shouldn’t pass as-is but be taken into account with the other Gov V2 enhancements is the entire structure, process flow, and framework have to be aligned to the DAO’s needs. Just dropping a council with no plan for what to do with their responsibilities is short-sighted.

Responsibilities - ‘Marketing Subcouncil’ was always a poor name choice and as one of the co-drafters I take partial responsibility - we tried to come up with a better name but couldn’t find one that fit. This subcouncil has responsibility for marketing but also partnerships, content creators, and guild relations. My personal belief is that these areas should each be a focus for one of the subcouncil members for the remainder of the epoch while a couple individuals focus on pure marketing activities. The goal this epoch is to get processes and structures in place going into open beta. There is of course overlap and gray areas with all the other councils. In the Gov V2 discussions, each council responsibilities were set up to balance out workload. I believe the main takeaway from this discussion for the Marketing subcouncil should be an added focus equally on the other duties that are outlined in their responsibilities that haven’t gotten enough attention during the first half of this epoch.

Timing - This is overly hasty timing not three months into the epoch.

Compensation - We are paying a very low compensation rate for the type of work we are asking for. That makes it impossible to recruit top tier talent who are not already in Illuvium’s ecosystem and essentially willing to volunteer their time at a loss. That is the community’s prerogative but the compensation adjustments for Gov V2 went overboard to try to reduce compensation in my opinion. I said at the time and will reiterate that you get what you pay for. Underfunding a role, complaining about the output, and then eliminating the role isn’t the way to indicate the function’s importance.

[dreamy spire]

A council member reached out to me and offered to help write up a proposal. It wasn't needed in the end but I'm grateful they did. Nothing wrong with proposals being a team effort

As for this ICCP I decided to vote against in the end. Imo its a little premature to make such a decisive change in gov v2s first epoch. That said I could very easily vote the other way in the future should this be brought up again.

[zinc lotus]

All good, I misread a comment from Matt, thought it was his idea.

[rancid relic]

Andrew is already up against the wall. He does much more than just content and even then, for each major campaign/event he produces 5-10 major videos. I mean if we wanted the quality on video content to drop as a whole, increasing the quantity isn't a stretch. But that's not what Illuvium is about

[icy dune]

Do you just mean we are not about quantity over quality? bc I agree and I think there is space for more quality content as we move to launch and post-launch.

Andrew is going to have his hands full with 'essential content' and really needs to be - trailers, explainers, and live streams with partners. Plus he is so good at all that.

There is an opportunity for Andrew to direct/support a smaller team focused on creating viral content. IMHO this is the best-case scenario for the marketing council rn. I don't think it would be hard to find people looking to break into crypto gaming marketing to take a smaller check to have a chance at launching the best AAA yet in crypto.

Again - I wish we could just onboard Web2 ppl out of the gate. But don't think that is realistic we are going to depend on crypto people for the initial burst of growth.

We should cater to that audience in a high-quality Illuvium way, and that's different than the content we currently produce.

---

it's an opportunity to elevate meme culture at a super high level - tell me that isn't exciting to the right group of talented ppl

this is deep cut, weird, pure nonsense or whatever - but what does this type of content look like with Illuvium quality and style?

If we take this type of content to the next level we drive all of CT, Reddit, YT wherever ever to Illuvium and I'd bet anything on that.

If we really couldn't figure out a way to do it within the 'brand' (i think we can), but if we couldn't. We could do it gorilla and just give the content to the right accounts to post.

---

I'm not claiming to have the perfect idea for what the content should be but I'm certain we could get a group of ppl to create some good stuff that drive traffic.

[rancid relic]

I agree adding in budget for hiring a small team of people that can create short form content would be a good move however it comes at a cost. To maintain our standards Andrew or someone else would have to give them oversight, direction and management, which believe me is a big job.

Also we aren't some freelance business, we can't just hire a bunch of unpaid interns or anything. So like this proposal suggests an external agency might be smart, but at that point it would be difficult to effectively manage the output and ensure it fits in with our brand and strategy, although certainly not impossible.

Obviously that would require doubling the current marketing budget. This proposal suggests cutting the MSC increases the marketing budget which couldn't be further from the truth. If the real intention was to allow for more of a marketing push then the proposal should have been to increase the marketing budget. This proposal does nothing to achieve that. Not to say it doesn't provide solid reasoning as to why the MSC isn't needed. But it seems to suggest the MSC is significantly less utilised than the other Sub-councils, which isn't true.

Its a good proposal thats created an important discussion. But this discussion goes far beyond the MSC and is more commentary on Gov V2 and potential improvements for Gov V3.

Any proposal without a real plan in place for what happens after its execution shouldn't be taken seriously at face value in terms of being actionable. As a point of conversation it's an excellent tool so I have no issue with governance being used this way, but that is what this proposal is.

[void jungle]

LOLLLLLLLL

[fiery linden]

One of core issues here is that the system doesnt allow the current MSC to do any "marketing" as they dont have a budget and they dont have access to the marketing teams planning. If MSC provides ideas it wouldnt be actionable due to limited budget while marketing team already has campaigns in mind or planned and MSC is informed after the planning stage. Either way, MSC is limited and DAO's expectations from the sub council is misaligned.

This subcouncil has responsibility for marketing but also partnerships, content creators, and guild relations. My personal belief is that these areas should each be a focus for one of the subcouncil members for the remainder of the epoch while a couple individuals focus on pure marketing activities. The goal this epoch is to get processes and structures in place going into open beta.

From what I read here, Marketing is the wrong fit. This looks to be more of a Business development/relationship council where the intention is to leverage their connections and/or build connections which the marketing team has not tapped or has limitations to tap. The idea would be to engage these groups and provide contacts to Partnerships or Marketing. I feel this is way better than its current responsibilities where the expectations doesnt match what MSC can inherently do. By shifting it away from marketing to building engagement the DAO's expectations and the council members scope of what they can do and achieve are aligned.

Timing - This is overly hasty timing not three months into the epoch.

Contrary to popular belief, I am happy that this issue was brought up this early. The proposal need not pass and it still would have added value to the DAO. We see clearly that expectations of the council is misaligned and that there is a need to look deeper and solve it during this epoch. If this came out at the end of the epoch, we wouldnt have had the time to right the ship and we would have elected a new set of MSC members with the same issues.

Compensation - We are paying a very low compensation rate for the type of work we are asking for. That makes it impossible to recruit top tier talent who are not already in Illuvium’s ecosystem and essentially willing to volunteer their time at a loss. That is the community’s prerogative but the compensation adjustments for Gov V2 went overboard to try to reduce compensation in my opinion. I said at the time and will reiterate that you get what you pay for. Underfunding a role, complaining about the output, and then eliminating the role isn’t the way to indicate the function’s importance.

Touching a bit on this. I think the number of council members + high compensation + low bar of requirements and expectations is net negative for the DAO. If we are to look at the goal of attracting higher caliber then we should raise the bar regarding standards AND reduce the number of council members.

The DAO might get lucky getting 1-3 high caliber members but at the same time we might get underqualified and overpaid members. This undermines the work a few will do while leaving a sour taste in the mouth of many. High compensation begets higher standards.

[fiery linden]

Forgot to touch on this point.

Remember that a key reason we have such a large number of council members is to demonstrate clear decentralization. Not only is the community involved but 17 rotating, non-core contributors are permanently in the process. This is a huge point in terms of our compliance when showing the DAO structure to regulators.

I agree that the our numbers and processes are a badge of decentralization but I disagree that 17 is the magic number. Theres still room to reduce the number of council members while still being decentralized and more importantly, effectively optimized to render the fiduciary duties imposed upon each of them.

[rancid relic]

I think this is a tough balance to strike. With 4 per subcouncil you have the chance of a 2-2 tie. With 3 I feel its too few to boast decentralisation, especially since one seat is an elected team member, thus making the community elects a swing vote on every single proposal rather than actual control of the DAO.

Unfortunately we cant escape the seat of 5 being the magic number. However there could be interesting alternatives. Eg the IMC elect representative holding 2 votes thus bringing a 4 member subcouncil to 5 total votes and breaking ties. But then a single member has an extensive amount of power and re presents the swing vote conundrum

[rugged oasis]

Community vote to break ties.

While this is a rather off the cuff comment I would think that most proposals would not require a tie breaker. Especially anything that was time sensitive.

I look forward to future threads intended for discussing novel governance ideas.

[fiery linden]

I agree. Though initial gov v2 was supposed to be 3 man. Another alternative is to remove the team member and make them act as a consultant role with no voting power. You have 3 elected positions. Weve seen the CSC be effective in inviting Team members to meetings same with other sub councils. So theres a good argument that we may not need team members in all the meetings and just arrange them to join in when topics require it.

Another alternative is to maintain 5 man council but with only 2 sub councils with broad jurisdiction. One idea I had is we split it by Game related topics and Dao related topics. Anything to do with pricing in game economics major changes to the games goes to the GRC while DAO related topics such as governance community even regulations go to the Governance Council

[alpine wigeon]

community vote for all iips, why do we need a council to vote for something the community can vote on themselves. having a council is just a waste of time

Also there's not much work involved in council, I've known several people who have been on council, not sure why people act like it's a full time job. The game hasn't even launched yet, once the game launches then maybe they'll be busy

[icy dune]

I'm saying we reconfigured the MSC to do this.

Honestly, we need two talented editors (storytellers) - if we had to give them the 6k per month (whatever the budget is for the MSC) I would support that and we could get solid ppl with that budget.

Andrew could produce (stamp of approval for quality), the community could help come up with ideas and content (for the editors to use), and ideally, we increase the budget a bit so we have an effective project manager (but at the normal MSC rate - ideally someone serving right now).

With a good workflow, this is entirely possible.

1. Basic market research (one time) led by the editors, supported by the team and community.
2. Community forum in Discord for idea generation - with specific guidelines provided by the editors so they receive workable material from the community. The editors can act as community members and create ideas.
3. Idea approval by Andrew - needs to fit into a standard format so it's easy for him.
4. The project manager (PM) manages the discord process, Andrews approvals, and external software where the production workflow is managed - can make this public (airtable or another) so the community can see every idea (approved and not), cut of videos and stage it's in, then offer input via discord.
5. Final approval by Andrew.
6. Distribution - This could be owned by the team primarily (as they own the channels), but all ideas should have a distribution strategy.

For the expected duties of the MSC, we just assume in the gov v2 process that what the team wants to do is passed after they consider 'light' input from the community, but are less obligated to field iips from the community. Just to streamline things (if we are being honest this is basically happening anyway and that's okay for now.)

We should decentralize, but we also in to get stuff done well in the beginning so we have that opportunity.

[rancid relic]

I like these options. I like the 2 subcouncils and 2 from each go to IMC option.

I also don't mind a 3 person council with a standing team member manditory to meetings, and any changes easily possible at the councils discretion

[rancid relic]

I quite like this workflow. Theres a step in the middle to speed up the process for editors, and I think you might be overestimating 'ideas' and how many are usable concepts for a video team. But if that all gets worked through its a novel way of increasing productivity at reduced cost.

[icy dune]

for sure - this needs to be worked on still.

[orchid aspen]

It's not a full time job, and it's not compensated as a full time job. It's about 8 hours a week in my experience, sometimes as much as 15-20 if there's a TON going on, which isn't super often. I don't want to speak out of turn here, but we've had multiple councils who did very little, especially in hindsight. If we'd had a group of people being more proactive, it's possible we could have been more prepared for some of the events of the past year.

I don't mean to throw shade at all, but I feel like you might not be up to date with governance. You mentioned earlier that we're passing 1-2 proposals a quarter. We've moved 9 proposals entirely through governance in the first 3 months of this epoch, and another 3 are pending (in the process of being voted on). This includes all the time spent onboarding new membership and setting up communication systems between councils, which admittedly was a challenge and took longer than I'd personally expected.

I should also mention that while passing proposals is important, a fair bit can be accomplished without proposals. Proposals passed should not be the only metric we're evaluating, looking at overall efficacy and ability to perform the roles outlined in Governance V2 should be how we're evaluating, and we should update those roles and responsibilities if they aren't serving the DAO.

I do think it would be a strange approach to go to direct democracy at this point. We've already tackled some topics this epoch and last epoch that direct democracy wouldn't have been able to. More importantly, how is direct democracy going to work when we have open beta going, and hundreds or thousands of proposals for balance changes etc. Who is going to take on the administrative burden of getting those proposals drafted and voted on, and how is the community going to stay apprised of all relevant details for each? How do we check technical limitations of proposals with the team and ensure proper legal vetting? It's wildly impractical.

[errant thunder]

I think if the point of thousands of proposals were released for game balancing, we would need an automated system, and probably not a proposal at all.
I can't see that being doable in any rational scale, within the sub-councils.

[orchid aspen]

We've already taken the first step towards creating a more practical system with the creation of #1126838877429182506, but there's still more work that needs to be done, particularly determining a process for gameplay related proposals like balance or feature additions.

[fiery linden]

If we do scale up we should have better metrics for something to go up to a proper proposal.

1. Provide a template proposal format accessible to the community (gforms as an example) - This lessens the load on the councils having to rewrite things
2. Increase the required upvotes (if were using this method still)
3. Clearer guidelines on what can be acted upon as a proposal or not

[eternal fulcrum]

I’m kind of surprised we don’t have this already tbh

[silver crater]

So you’re telling me that Andrew Wall is up against the Wall?

https://tenor.com/view/giggle-chuckle-hahaha-holding-laughter-gif-15462551

[timid nova]

This is something that is actively being discussed and outlined.

[silk yacht]

@bronze creek - Wanted to reach out on behalf of <@&1107754780744487002> , since this proposal has achieved the threshold of 25 upvotes 👍🏻

As the OP/Sponsor for this proposal, how would you like to proceed? Some options (not all) outlined below:

• Would you like to have this moved to a Council Vote as-is (no changes)? (Github > Snapshot > CSC Vote)

• Do you want to make any revisions based on feedback received in this forum? (There have been a lot of great points from both sides that could be considered)

The choice will ultimately be yours - please let us know how you would like to proceed!

[bronze creek]

https://tenor.com/view/work-gif-19243958

No vote for now.

[silk yacht]

Noted - we are but a ping away

[nova sand]

I can lock this then?