IIP-XX Fuel and Land Plot Balancing

[night python]

Sponsor:
@night python @lofty bone @indigo terrace @nocturne gyro @trim basalt

Full Proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zPzu-MLzgsh78RGxsNG-CO2rvDwboGDPNHBmpIB7fw8/edit?usp=sharing

Simple Summary:
Fuel sales are planned to be launched via an order book system allowing buyers and sellers autonomy in a free market system. This proposal suggests the balancing systems and processes necessary for the fuel production system and interrelated land sales.

[lofty bone]

Look forward to everyones questions and contributions

[weak brook]

[neon knoll]

Why are we talking about a free market when there is a system
Fuel Guardrail....
Lie

[lofty bone]

wdym?

[neon knoll]

It doesn't look like a free market..

[lofty bone]

what are the negative outcomes that you are concerned guardrails would cause?

[neon knoll]

I feel like I have parental contrôle.

I invested to be owners and to be free on my assets

I won't be able to express my native languages ​​and French, sorry for my English 😦

[marsh trellis]

Revenue Sharing
What form would the distribution take? Fuel? Eth? ILV?
Oh and it seems like it’s just for the tokens that are sold at GUARDRAIL prices. But the greater the amount of tokens that a land owner sells the greater the portion of that 5% that they will be entitled to.

Weird thought speculation: ||So if a whale lists all their fuel at lower prices they might even end up with a better because they will have sold a larger fraction of all fuel sold. ||

Bonus Fuel

[lofty bone]

The purpose of having an upper guardrail is to keep the game accessible even if demand for our game rises massively, (we dont want our game to get hugely more expensive to play if it got popular, we would instead want to absorb and cater to all of those new players)

we should almost never actually be touching the guardrail

there is no practical alternative to guardrails if we want to guarantee accessibility to future players

[lofty bone]

any Fuel listed for sale by a land owner automatically generates 19x that amount of fuel for sale at the same price from the DAO

you only get revenue for the Fuel you sell

in the rare event of us hitting the guardrail, 5% of revenue generated by the DAO selling additional Fuel at that price would likely be distributed to land owners in ETH, exactly how that would work would be up to the team

(to your speculative point, if we were hitting the guardrail a whale could just dump their fuel storage onto the market at current price, there would be no benefit to undercutting the market, if we are at guardrail all fuel that landowners have they would have a strong incentive to just sell at current price, this will either lead to the price balancing below the guardrail or demand for fuel being higher than supply meaning the DAO needs to increase the amount of fuel that landowners produce)

[marsh trellis]

Love it

[acoustic jewel]

I honestly don't see the price becoming prohibitive as it's in direct opposition to actually selling and making the game successful. If a whale or a group try to push the price, there will be massive opposition to it. So it will probably fall anyway.
However if it makes people feel better, safer, then sure let's do it. Then over time we can see how it works and adjust if necessary.

[lofty bone]

if its possible for the price to become prohibitive...
and all it would take to make it prohibitive is sufficient Hype...
and Kieran the Hype Lord is our CEO...

for that reason I'd personally rather be safe than sorry and set-up a full proof system than cannot become prohibitive 😊

[acoustic jewel]

I get you.
Personally I'm more worried about it being devalued.

Still. As a land holder myself If the price is too high, I'd start selling for a reasonable price.
I can see people getting hyped and setting the price high, yet does that mean others will buy it. Maybe some whales will jump in and buy heaps of fuel so they can get in on early runs, yet even that doesn't seem reasonable as they still have to catch, gather or sell to make a return.

[lofty bone]

market will balance itself, cant disagree with you that early on we may see higher volatility as the market finds its groove

[acoustic jewel]

I agree with you that there will probably be an initial hype. Yet what I've seen in other games the price of things usually is very low. It may be different in this situation though as there isn't a massive amount of land holders, and a few that own a lot.

Yet we would shoot ourselves in the foot.
It might appear better for people coming in to have this.
I'm going to digest this a bit then wait for Aaron's before voting.

[lofty bone]

"Yet what I've seen in other games the price of things usually is very low"

what specifically are you concerned about? fuel prices being too low? or?

[acoustic jewel]

'' An automated balancing system based on recent market evaluation (i.e. supply, demand, price volatility) will be modeled internally in parallel to the live manual adjustments beginning at open beta launch. After evaluating and improving the model, when sufficient robustness and stress testing of the model has been completed, at the discretion of the team and council, it will be moved into usage in a future ICCP.''

Can someone explain this a little deeper and simply for me. I don't really understand what it means.

[acoustic jewel]

I guess it's not really a concern, more of an observation. I guess it's the balance. Production vs price point perhaps. Is there a too low for the team and council?

[lofty bone]

Basically a model for a "self balancing" system (similar to Nijafe's proposal) will be made by the team prior to launch

This model will not be used to balance anything, we will just analyse how the market acts and how it would have acted if the model was in place to decide whether or not implementing a self balancing mechanism onto the suppy of Fuel is or is not required to be implemented in future

Its basically something we'll be analysing behind the scenes without affecting anything and if the analysis is positive it may be a system we end up implementing in future

[acoustic jewel]

Time it takes to produce vs value received and ability for people to easily play.
I want to play, so low is better. Yet too low may feel like it's not worth having land and ILV labs just sells fuel?

[acoustic jewel]

Okay. Thank you.

I do like the idea of land being able to build up first.

[lofty bone]

too low as far as land owners revenue is concerned is just a matter of how successful this project is, the more revenue the project makes the higher the revenue per time spent is for each land player

[acoustic jewel]

I understand this line of thinking. I think I will just need more information and to see other opinions.

So I'm clear. I'm understanding this proposal to be in conjunction with Aaron's. Is that correct?

[marsh trellis]

Do you mean this one? https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1138461435995901995

[acoustic jewel]

Yeah. Although I thought it was mentioned he would be doing another one? Or is it only this proposal that's different?

[grave brook]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/791148476218081321/1131056693254565978/ezgif.com-add-text.gif

[marsh trellis]

My understanding is that this proposal is the one being put forward as an amalgamation of all the discussion and proposals regarding fuel in the last month or two.

I’m not aware of Aaron making his own.

[acoustic jewel]

So the one Aaron did will go to vote and this is a separate one?

[round zodiac]

A good consolidation of the previous ideas discussed in the recent town hall, with room to adapt and implement the UI cheat for “fixed” pricing at the top 👍. Whilst I see feedback on it still not being a free market, I believe we need decent price predictability to onboard the majority of players.

[round zodiac]

The buy/sell order book is separate to this.

[marsh trellis]

I see. It looks like Aaron’s proposal is going through the votes first. And this proposal would be a follow up to that one. #1142663360853319740 message

[acoustic jewel]

Thanks

[round zodiac]

Council has started voting on it already IIP-37

[lofty bone]

Yes we in SSC have all upvoted Aarons proposal and IMC will more than likely also vote it in soon

This proposal builds on top of Aarons proposal correct

I am unaware of Aaron creating any other proposals currently on the topics of land and fuel

[acoustic jewel]

Thanks. I didn't see the other channel that stated it went through. Apologies.

[lofty bone]

Indeed.

and imo Seatins UI idea is genius, really glad it came forward, very excited!

[hoary sonnet]

I hope this system will be a more streamlined and simple to understand way of dealing with fuel humps and hollows. Onboarding new players will be complex as it is.

[lofty bone]

imo its the best that can be accomplished within a fluctuating system that still wants to allow as much freedom to players choices as possible

[hoary sonnet]

I agree. As close to best of both worlds

[acoustic jewel]

When you say UI here, what do you mean? Like user interface? The buy now button? The rails?

[lofty bone]

This is basically Seatin's UI idea

UI = User Interface

[round zodiac]

My take is rather than price being shown in the UI (user interface) as variable to players, there is a fixed price (the top rail price) that you pay but sometimes it’s available for a discount - when there is more fuel being produced and sold lower.

[acoustic jewel]

Ah got you.

Thanks for clarifying.

[lofty bone]

lets say the top rail is at $1

and the current market price is $0.70

You want to buy $10 of fuel, the UI will display it as $10 for 10 Fuel + 4.28 bonus fuel (for example)

alternatively the UI could display it as a discount instead of as a bonus, depends what is decided upon later as we havent clarified that here

[acoustic jewel]

Well I guess it can't hurt to have it up for consideration and voted on.
How is the time frame going to get these proposals looked at voted on and implemented?

[round zodiac]

True - either more fuel or discount. Thanks. Happy for this mechanic this to evolve depending on what players respond to, as part of marketing analytics.

[lofty bone]

the systems that this proposal refers to havent been built yet, so implementation may not happen immediately after its voted on (whenever the team get to it basically)

this will be quite quick to get voted on however as most of the aspects to this proposal have already been discussed in the community and most have even already been upvoted before...

(this entire proposal is strongly based on the feedback we received from the community during the previous fuel discussions)

[acoustic jewel]

I see how people will be keen for a bonus.

[acoustic jewel]

Great, thank you.

[nocturne gyro]

One of the core reasonings why guardrails are in place is because theres a real possibility that there wont be enough fuel supply to cater to the overworld player market in the first few months of open beta. As with any market, when you have very limited supply the prices will sky-rocket and in turn have an effect in lower playerbase for OW. This does not benefit the DAO at all

[lofty bone]

Well Said!

[daring mesa]

I don't think you give landowners enough credit. I'm pretty sure most of us are smart enough to realize that if we price players out of the game we destroy our future market.🙂

[nocturne gyro]

And I think youre giving land owners too much credit 😄 But its neither here nor there. The iccp allows for a guard rail but doesnt set it. Thats going to be subject of a separate proposal. Whether or not the guard rail's price needs to be high enough or low enough thats for a separate discussion altogether 🙂

[hoary sonnet]

Choosing any pricing will be tricky, even just upper and lower rails. Will most likely require a fair bit of fine tuning

[lofty bone]

no lower rail has been proposed as of yet and imo most are against a hard lower rail altogether as it brings a lot of complications w it

as for determining the price of an upper rail, thats just a matter of deciding what the highest possible price to play our game should be, and I suspect it wont require much or any tuning (how much fuel land plots produce, now that will likely require endless tuning as demand changes over time)

[daring mesa]

I am not even going to wade further into the rails debate. 😂

I am thumbs downing for two reasons:

I am not sold on the idea of releasing only small batches of land. I don't know all the land plans for the future but Aaron has hinted in the past about cities being involved in things like building spaceships etc. Cities will be harder to build under this plan and as much as I would love to see my city go up in value, I don't think it is a good idea to make it hard for new people coming in to build up a city of their own.

I don't think a minimum of 4 months is long enough.
I appreciate the difficulties the DAO faces with trying to keep everyone happy, but land owners were told more than once before and after land sale that no more land would be sold until there were a lot of players and a real demand for it. We have waited over a year to be able to play our land and make a little money on fuel, it is far too early to think of another land sale in light of that. Give the original investors some more time please.

In August Aaron stated in a post "for a long time we will be able to keep up with demand." I agree with him and I don't think 4 months after launch is a "long time".

I have to say I am really happy to see that the plan is still there to launch IZ earlier than OW. We definitely need to be given time to build fuel resources, especially as many of us will be attempting to do blueprints too. We don't want a shortage of fuel from landowners when players need it.

[lofty bone]

Small batches of land
the release of small batches of land wouldnt be us effectively slowing down the release of new plots or slowing down the onboarding of new IZ players, more than anything its just making the addition of new plots more gradual with small batches being released fairly often rather than a large number at once diluting previous land owners. (gradual expansion of land plots also means that fuel production increases gradually rather than suddenly via this mechanic also)

4 months
I personally agree that 4 months is not long enough, as do others in the council tbh, we put 4 months as a minimum but by no means do we think at that point we should immediately start selling plots necessarily (if anything we placed a minimum to assure land owners that at least 4 months would pass post launch before any further land is sold, this was written in purely as an assurance as no previous assurances have been made in writing to land owners)

it is still very much the case that no new land would be sold if there wasnt enough demand for it, this proposal in no way changes that

[daring mesa]

Fair enough but I can only vote on it as it is written and I don't think 4 months is a long enough minimum.

What do you think the smaller more gradual batches will mean for future city building though? Maybe the better question I should be asking to be more clear on that part of it is, what do you guys consider "smaller", how many plots are you thinking?

I do appreciate that you are all taking into consideration what future land sales will mean to current land holders though.🙂

[hoary sonnet]

I feel land sales time frame should be a completely separate debate.

[lofty bone]

I mean, we did discuss setting a higher minimum and the reason we settled at 4 months is that a higher minimum actually wouldnt pass through the council because it limits future choice for the DAO.

example: we do a gradual sale of land plots in smaller bundles (as in the proposal) and we started those lets say 6 months post launch, and by 1 year post launch we have sold an additional 10k plots total,
if we compare that to 9 months after launch to sell 10k plots all at once.
both scenarios are comparable, gradual imo is much better, the increase in fuel production in the ecosystem will be very gradual as will be the dilution of already existing land owners...
but it also may mean starting to sell land slightly sooner than if we were doing larger land sales

(this is obvi just an example, new plots shouldnt be sold unless demand calls for it as well)

as far as future city building I dont really understand the concern, as in the example i have given, whether we release plots gradually or all at once, the same amount over time would still end up released in both mechanisms, so I dont understand how city building would be affected exactly? (perhaps if theres a plot you really want that isnt for sale yet you can setup a email or text alert for it if its going to be coming on the market soon and that would solve that concern?)

as for how many plots per batch, we havent decided an exact number yet (a future proposal will be discussing the sizing of sed batches so if your disagreement is specifically with sizing then hold that disagreement for that future ICCP)

[hoary sonnet]

Fuel pricing and supply is more important to get right then see how zero keeps up

I’m not in favour of selling more land until zero investors have returns on their investment

[daring mesa]

I used 3 different wallets to discourage sniping. Those who tried to build using one wallet were often sniped on their last plot. With gradual releases someone who is trying to get a city together will either get sniped or will have to store their land on different wallets to hide the fact that they are building which is a pain and may be an issue depending on what is planned for moving resources between plots that you own. I guess you could release them more as bunches and that would help alleviate that a bit. I just feel it was easier for me to get my city purchased the way the last sale was than it would be this way. Original investor advantage I guess, if this passes.

Thanks for the explanation Vetemor, appreciate it as always

[lofty bone]

Fuel pricing will be important to get right 100%

Once launch comes ensuring we have sufficient supply will be important, upper rail guarantees that this will be the case as well as price accessibility

as for selling more zero lands, that will come much later and this proposal in no way intends to push for the sale of land anytime soon (rather since this is a proposal regarding balancing mechanics of Fuel and the sale of land is a lever that will adjust the supply of fuel, we therefore wrote it in so that it is there even if we dont intend to use it anytime soon)

[lofty bone]

I think the point you make is valid.

The benefits of selling new plots in smaller chunks rather than larger chunks are quite substantial with so far the only potential downside being that city building becomes a little harder potentially.

The solution may just have to be storing plots intended for a city in multiple wallets unfortunately.
Once you have a City you no longer have to hide it and can group them onto one wallet I guess, that might be the only "safe" way to hunt cities
(likely its the only "safe" way to hunt cities in either system though)

Not sure if it exists yet but there should probably also be a way to list multiple land plots for sale as a bundle so that ways of selling mega-cities trustlessly exist also

(as for the advantage in city building for those in the first sale, that would have been the case in either system anywho i think we can agree)

.
imo the main difference gradual makes to city builders is that city builders might have to hunt for a city over a long stretch of time rather than just jumping into a massive sale for 3 days and getting it all done in those 72hrs, planning decisions over longer time spans is certainly more challenging

[hoary sonnet]

Don’t forget that those who did secure cities did so at great expense.

[lofty bone]

100%

not sure how much of an early comer advantage it is when I know how much people overpayed for plots to build cities, city benefits may even not be as high as the premium people paid to aquire cities, we dont know

[hoary sonnet]

That’s my concern

[lofty bone]

a fair concern tbh, but also outside of the scope of this specific proposal entirely

[hoary sonnet]

I agree. The megacity and future land sales should be kept separate

[lofty bone]

glad we considered it here with torial but overall I agree that the conclusion we came to is that the megacity argument isnt that relevant to whether we do small of large batch sales of land when we do have sales

[hoary sonnet]

I think there is merit for sure in discussing it. The iip needs is better to focus on the core points about rails imo.

[nocturne gyro]

Though I recognize the intetion of this statement, this is something we cannot put in the proposal as this is basically guaranteeing a return on investment which makes the NFTs a security. So there is a regulatory consideration.

The workaround is provided in the proposal: 1) minimum period before next sale (doesnt mean it happens right after period lapse); and 2) demand for fuel necessitates the need for more land to produce fuel - This metric can be tracked based on daily active paying users for overworld

[daring mesa]

I don't have enough info to really know just how relevant it is tbh. I don't know what the council/team has decided for the movement of resources between plots of land that are not cities but are either in the same wallet and/or beside each other. I feel that is often an issue with these discussions. It's like being shown a painting except much of it is covered . We see one area and we are asked if we like it, yes or no. It can be hard to tell without knowing the big picture.

Anyhow, I will leave you in peace now for sure. It is almost 1 AM and 6 AM comes early so I need to stop focusing on Illuvium and go to bed.🙂

[hoary sonnet]

Thanks for bringing this up. It’s important for those of us who don’t understand the ever changing landscape of regulation and compliance.

[neon knoll]

My problem will be the decision price for Fuel Guardrail . Finally give a fixed price it will come back to the same thing ?

[elfin turtle]

"However, an automated system has a higher risk of working effectively compared to adjustments by the development team until the economic system is in equilibrium and the automated fuel balancing model has time to mature."

Is it just me or is the wording off on this sentence. I can't quite understand if this is a positive thing or not.

higher risk of working effectively

isn't it the intention that something is to work efficiently?

[lofty bone]

yes that is the intention lol

its saying that an automated system may not work effectively in the short term (which is why at launch it will not be active) but in the long term it could be an improvement (which is why in the short term the automatic model will be modeled and analysed to be possibly implemented down the line in future)

I personally do not think we need an automated system as was proposed by Nijafe previously, I have a lot of issues w a system like that,
but if there was an automated system that above x price causes y adjustment in supply that land produces, or below z price causes v adjustment on fuel production of land then I wouldnt be against something like that

TLDR

• no automated system will be LIVE at launch
• 1 or more automated models will exist on launch that will be internally running parralel with the economy and will be analysed to see how they would react to the economy and analysed whether or not they are needed and if they are what we want (will not go live without another proposal down the line for sure)

[elfin turtle]

right, thanks for clearing that up

follow up question:
Isn't an automated system as described here entierly unneccesary while there's also a guardrail?

If the guardrail is hit that is an indication that more fuel is needed, thus another landsale should be considered. This needs to be manually handled anyway with announcements and setting up/managing the sale anyways.
So until we hit the maximum of 100k plots, there's no need for automation in this regard.

On the other hand, if fuel output on plots are to be variable based on calculations of the automated system, isn't another landsale unneccesary?

Seems to me these two aspects are conflicting with each other.

[lofty bone]

short term we will need to manually adjust how much fuel is produced by plots (selling new plots isnt an option so soon)

mid-term there may still be a need for some adjustments alongside landsales

long term even before all 100k plots are sold occasional adjustments may still be required (time will tell, but imo its very likely that occasional balancing may be required) and if those adjustments can be automated rather than done manually that is a good thing as then those adjustments become clearer to the community and the mechanics will be publicly understood...

but then again, maybe theyre just totally not needed in that long term prior to selling out of land scenario, in which case they just wont be deployed, we're just putting all the cards on the table, giving ourselves as many tools as we can get in our chest so that whatever happens were prepared for any possibility 👌

[elfin turtle]

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the quick replies.

[lofty bone]

here to help x

[indigo terrace]

I was pushing for separating this topic out of the fuel balancing proposal

[indigo terrace]

Where the guardrails sit and how they function will be included in a future ICCP. I’m in favor of having they set high so that they are only used as a backstop if there is a sudden surge in demand.
I support a free market and don’t want to see prices sitting at a predetermined guardrail.
I’m glad we didn’t include specific details in this ICCP because the SSC is not perfectly in alignment on this topic.

[indigo terrace]

There are other ways to solve this issue without hard set guardrails. We can adjust the rate of supply or the OW pricing until most land hits its maturity. We will be discussing how the rails system will work later this epoch with another ICCP.

[stone thicket]

This proposal is very well thought out and addresses the concerns I expected to have before reading it, great job team! It's especially good to see the amount of control left in the hands of the Illuvium core team. I do have a few questions/comments mostly for clarification:

1. "in parallel to the live manual adjustments beginning at open beta launch" - I take this to mean ILZ gameplay adjustments that will impact fuel supply, is this correct or are there more options for manual adjustment?

2. "Enables players to set unlimited buy orders for Fuel at a fixed price (top guardrail)" - Can't players put in unlimited buy orders at any price (they just may never be fulfilled if too low)? I think what this is actually saying is that the DAO will fulfill unlimited buy orders at the top guardrail if player supply is lacking, using fuel that is in addition to the 1:19 production ratio, right?

3. Land Plot Sales - Seems to be intentionally vague. There will be decision points on increasing the land fuel production vs selling more land, but we're kicking this can down the road. This is a good thing IMO, but foresee some pretty heated debates in our future if people begin pushing for new land sales too soon.

4. Launch Timing - Shouldn't we be able to quantify this better by now? I'm not sure "allowing a steady fuel supply from landowners within weeks after Overworld launches" is accurate at all if we're talking about 3 weeks, but could be more-so around 6-8? High-end structures take a ton of fuel to build. Shouldn't we know within a fairly accurate range how long it takes to fully develop a plot of each tier if played optimally and without paid speed-ups so we could quantify this?

5. The rationale section includes "An automated system for future land sales..." but this was not mentioned in the overview. The land plot sales section says "The specific mechanics to determine if sufficient demand has been achieved to trigger land plot sales will be decided in a future ICCP." Are these contradicting each other?

6. "A top guardrail will be used to position the actual price of fuel produced by the DAO" and "By structuring player-generated fuel as a discount compared to the top guardrail price" - For every 1 fuel produced and sold by a land owner, the DAO will still produce and sell 19 at the same price, correct? I think these could be worded more clearly.

7. "for the first weeks or months after Overworld launch, the price of fuel will stay at or just under the top guardrail" - This is my biggest concern. Is there not a better way to manage the first demand peak in early days, until that subsides? Something that can be done in-game to increase fuel supply temporarily perhaps? The challenge is to do this without also skewing game mechanics...

Sorry, that was longer than I originally intended 😊

[neon knoll]

I'm just afraid that people will decide the guardrail price, Without knowing the true value.

[lofty bone]

1. adjustments to the amount of Fuel that IZ plots produce is main lever in either manuel or automatic adjustments
   more on automatic adjustments: #1148000637997555842 message

2. Technically players can put any amount of buy orders at any price, only at top guardrail are they guaranteed to fill immediately, yes using fuel produced in addition to 1:19 fuel as that has been bought out (as long as 1:19 fuel exists on the market it will always be sold first)

3. main reason this can needs pushing down the road is that the data that will be available several months post launch would be required to make any decision here. as for concerns surrounding selling land too early, I am confident that whether it is myself or others in this position at that time that they will value the community and early investors enough to not make such a foolish mistake.

4. The team does have that information (how long it should take for different sized plots) and yes 8 weeks would be optimal for sure, however delivering IZ with blockchain connections and everything 8 weeks in advance to open beta launch may not be an achievable deadline (believe me we have asked and pretty much all feel 8 weeks would be superior)

5. both statements are accurate. the specific details of the automated system for selling future plots of land will be decided in a future ICCP and an automated system for future land sales is preferable to a manual one long term...

6. For every 1 fuel produced and sold by a land owner, the DAO will still produce and sell 19 at the same price = YES

7. increasing the production of land temporarily for lets say a month only to decrease it massively a month later is not an experience people will enjoy imo

having the guardrail at a still accessible price and actually using it intentionally as a sort of buffer for the initial period may be the only solution available to providing enough supply of fuel to meet demand for OW and Arena players in the first month or so (unless we can pull off launching IZ 2 months prior to open beta which currently seems highly unlikely)

[lofty bone]

The guardrail price will be determined certainly alongside the team, it will not be decided arbitrarily, this much I can promise

[stone thicket]

Perfect, thanks!

[swift wave]

All those mechanisms make sense, but they are just that, mechanisms in a toolbox.

They can be useful tools in an Illuvium economy, but need to be seen in the greater context of the complete economy about which we don't know much yet.

We should not optimize for accessibility (price wise) for a specific game, but create a sustainable economy for the long run and all games.

This could mean just a few thousand players of Overworld in the beginning, but millions of Arena players. But again, I don't know much about the overall plan for the economy and its ramp up.

Designing all aspects of such an economy is a daunting task and should be done by one or two bright minds.

If we design it by committee (or by dozens of IIPs) we will end up with a huge incoherent mess.

All we can do is give some additional input or feedback and in this sense the IIP is good.

[lofty bone]

much of what you said, I agree with,

but "We should not optimize for accessibility (price wise) for a specific game"

why shouldnt we?

Shouldnt all games we release have prices that are optimised to be accessible to that games target audience?

also optimising for accessibility does not prevent a sustainable economy, in fact it helps in achieving sustainability...

[grave brook]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/791148476218081321/1131056693254565978/ezgif.com-add-text.gif

[swift wave]

I am talking about the inter-game economic aspects of the Illuvium economy.

Let's say we set a relatively low price for Overworld fuel and thereby attract millions of players in a short time frame.

This is good for the DAO revenue wise and early players, but will result in a sudden influx of Illuvials on the market.

Then for some reason Arena isn't played by as many people as envisioned, which further increases the inflation of Illuvials due to low demand.

Suddenly we need to find new sinks for Illuvials, but developing new games takes time. In the meantime the value of Illuvials drops.

Our games are not the usual games that try to extract money from players in return for play time, but economic interactions with all consequences, because players pay in return for digital items.

I am not saying I have the solutions, just that I don't see the INTER-game economic aspects in the strategy sub-council description being taken seriously enough.

I would go so far as to renaming the strategy sub-council to game-economy council to stress the importance of the economy.

[uncut fulcrum]

@night python @lofty bone Since the proposal mentions fuel production, speed, etc., is it within the scope of this proposal to identify target ranges or ratios of fuel production for each land tier?

This has been discussed/debated several times in the ILZ channel, and seems like something that should be addressed prior to game launch. Future game changes may affect the balance of the game and fuel production of each tier, and it seems necessary to establish targets and rough expectations. For example, with the implementation of converters to allow T1's to progress faster, it has also effectively created a loophole of sorts where a T1 player can spam mass converters for their passive fuel generation (which various players have done) to boost a T1’s fuel production to nearly match a T2 in end-game scenarios.

If this is outside the scope, I know there are many players/land owners interested in this conversation and maybe we can have a separate conversation that leads to a proposal to address this closer to game launch.

[night python]

This ICCP specifies that a final ICCP should be drafted and approved prior to game launch that specify the interconnected items around the connection to the real-world economy and cross-title economic impacts (i.e. cost of fuel for Overworld activities vs. fuel production in Zero). This topic is in the scope of the Strategy sub-council. We don't have in-game balancing in Zero such as converter strength, default production values for an extractor or similar topics as those are too nuanced for an ICCP.

I fully agree with your sentiment on the general in-game changes and also the specific sentiment about T1s in the current structure being stronger than they should be relative to higher tier land plots. I fully support a discussion with <@&1107754494466469919> on this point and if needed an ICCP being raised. In some cases the topics might already be in the works with the team being addressed but if not then it's important to have transparency. I know @vestal hare is active in Illuvium Zero and may have some thoughts on this too. The question of how to handle balance changes (which I believe your point is around) is one that the Game Subcouncil is working on now. This is needed not just for Arena but also for Overworld and Zero. I'd ask that the discussion probably take place in the ILV:Zero channel or feel free to submit it as an idea https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1020759212172775464. I'm happy to review any ideas if it's helpful or needed but would start by defering to the team.

[uncut fulcrum]

Makes sense, thanks for the thoughtful reply @night python. Yes, my point was mainly about game balancing with converters as an example of a reasonable solution to a real problem for T1's that came with unexpected side effects. Since the team has hinted at a plethora of other features/changes and future mechanics for ILZ, I think it makes sense to have some sense of established expectations around fuel production ratios at each tier, so they can easily be referred to when any change is made that heavily skews the balance of those ratios or ranges.

[lofty bone]

The primary utility for Illuvials is for use in Arena, if arena isn’t played much its very unlikely that OW would then be played a lot, why would it?

Which inter-game economic aspects specifically are SSC not taking seriously enough?

Everything we’re doing considers the economy of ALL our games and how future games may also be impacted, I can assure you that there is no need to rename our entire sub-council just to remind us, we are very much aware

[swift wave]

They could speculate on the future value of rare Illuvials and sell them before these buyers realize there is no future value.

But there could also be a scenario in which OW becomes so popular because of its graphics, sound and game play and for the Illuvials collection aspect alone and we don't even need a sink for Illuvials.

But this gets us into deep discussions about specific inter-game economics.

I just wanted to make sure that the strategy council also considers the impact on other games when optimizing one game and most importantly is ready for sudden changes.

I am playing Yuga HV-MTL forge as we speak and I am impressed how fast they react to feedback and change game mechanics and economics every 3 weeks. It is a true web/web3 online game.

What you wrote here got me thinking, as there is no mentioning of other games, just accessibility to OW.

The purpose of having an upper guardrail is to keep the game accessible even if demand for our game rises massively, (we dont want our game to get hugely more expensive to play if it got popular, we would instead want to absorb and cater to all of those new players)

But maybe I misunderstood you.

[lofty bone]

"What you wrote here got me thinking, as there is no mentioning of other games, just accessibility to OW. "

The upper guardrail allows us to balance and make accessible both OW and any and all future games we make (for the audiences that those games target)

The upper guardrail is the maximum price that Fuel will be

for us to then ensure that OW is accessible for its target audience its just a matter of deciding what the maximum price to fully enjoy the base game should be and then pricing travel the appropriate amounts of Fuel...

if a new game came out in future, we would just do the same evaluation for that game and give things within that game the appropriate prices in Fuel

in 1 game something could cost 1 fuel and something else could cost 3 fuel and in another game you can buy something costing 10 fuel, guardrails do not prevent us from making future games accessible, they provide the tool to guarantee accessibility for all games...

this is a good thing as it positions us for mass adoption and allows us to absorb infinite demand for any of our games whether OW or a future game...

hope that makes sense

(The main reason that we havent mentioned future games in this proposal is because these systems do not cause any issues for the integration and addition of future games)

[swift wave]

Hm, how would you define inter-game economics in your own words?

I have a feeling we are talking about different things.

[lofty bone]

Inter-game economics in illuvium I would put into 2 categories:

1. Fuel - this will be the in-game currency for all illuvium games, supply from IZ affects all other games, demand from 1 game affects price of fuel for all other games, I have mostly been speaking about this category as it is the only inter-game economics directly relevant to this proposal really

2. Secondary Market Assets - as some assets in the illuvium ecosystem will be usable in multiple illuvium games, there are cross-game supply/demand of these assets that will also be at play once other games arise (and will already be present at launch w OW assets usable in Arena)

The 2nd category just isn't really that relevant to this proposal

response to @broken parcel's Question in #💬〕general #💬〕general message

there are a few different ways that this can be executed

the way that seatin suggested when he shared this idea is as follows:

lets say top rail is set at $1

in the UI it is presented as if $1 per fuel is the "normal" price for fuel and any lower price is providing you bonus fuel for the same price

so if the current price is $0.50 and I want to buy $10 worth of fuel it would be presented as "for $10 you can buy 10 Fuel + 10 bonus Fuel"

the discount from the top rail essentially being presented as a bonus

this way we "anchor" the rail in consumers minds and any lower price from the rail is a bonus, so even if prices increase, all the consumer sees is less of a bonus than before but its still a bonus...

[swift wave]

What are the reasons for the price of secondary market assets being isolated from the price of fuel and the number of gamers who play for these assets in the OW?

[lofty bone]

the secondary market for assets is a totally free market that I dont think we should be making adjustments to (players are free to buy and sell any asset at any price)

I'm not saying that secondary market assets arent important, im saying we shouldnt mess with them in a centralised way, that economy is balanced by the players themselves 100% of the time (players determine supply and demand)

Fuel however needs to be able to be consumed by infinite demand (if it isnt then we're limiting the amount of players that can play our game which doesnt make any sense)

Fuel has a limited supply as its produced by limited plots of land, for this reason the amount of fuel produced by land will have to be occasionally adjusted based on the demand for fuel (for example if were hitting the higher rail we should increase the rate of fuel production so that were not hitting the rail anymore, because whilst the rail is being hit landowners incentive is to just sell all fuel and the fuel trading metagame becomes temporarily negated essentially)

[swift wave]

But what are the reasons for the price of secondary market assets being isolated from the price of fuel and the number of gamers who play for these assets in the OW?

[lofty bone]

i mean they arent isolated, they are still connected, i dont understand the question tbh?

if the price of fuel is higher it will cost more to get assets so they will probably sell for more on secondary for example, they are for sure interconnected

also not sure what your question is regarding number of gamers who play for these assets in OW?

do you have a specific example/scenario/concern to help illustrate what u mean

[swift wave]

You just said this:

Secondary Market Assets - as some assets in the illuvium ecosystem will be usable in multiple illuvium games, there are cross-game supply/demand of these assets that will also be at play once other games arise (and will already be present at launch w OW assets usable in Arena)

The 2nd category just isn't really that relevant to this proposal

Which contradicts your statement from above that they are for sure interconnected.

You can not open the spigots on OW and then assume it doesn't have an effect on the value of Illuvials on the secondary market.

Which means this UNLIMITED FUEL FOR A FIXED PRICE MECHANIC HAS AN ALMOST DIRECT EFFECT on the whole Illuvium economy.

[lofty bone]

The price of Fuel and the prices of assets on the secondary are connected

The price of assets on the secondary market is not directly relevant to this proposal because this is a proposal about balancing fuel, the secondary will be balanced naturally by player behaviour...

I havent contradicted myself, just both are true

open the spigots on OW? what do u mean, what specifically are you concerned could happen?

unlimited fuel for a fixed price (upper rail) does have a direct effect on the illuvium ecosystem, that direct effect happens to be guaranteeing that our ecosystem is accessible for the players it targets and that there is no limit to the amount of players that can participate in our ecosystem, these are good things...

I'm not understanding what the concern is, do you have a specific scenario that you fear?

[swift wave]

It costs 1$ to find Illuvials worth 100$ on secondary.

This will bring in lots of players who want to make a quick buck and once all Illuvials are found and sold for a 99$ profit they stop farming.

The DAO has made $1, the early birds 99$.

Even if you can tell me that this scenario is highly unlikely and the DAO will find the right price through "market research" there are many more scenarios because everything is connected in IBG games as it should be.

[acoustic jewel]

Would this be a reason to have the market work freely to come to it's own balance, also allowing ebb and flow.

[lofty bone]

this is up to players of OW and Arena to balance (and future games)

if illuvials are selling too high compared to what they cost to catch then more Arena players that just want to play arena will just choose to play OW to catch their illuvials rather than an over priced secondary

the secondary is a free economy, it will balance itself

it makes no sense for why illuvials that cost x to catch would sell for 100x on secondary, players would arbitrage that 100x in a heartbeat and the price difference is more likely to be 10-20% more than it costs to catch something (because it also takes time to get it in OW)

and if too many players are playing OW compared to those buying illuvials for Arena or for collection or whatever, then prices would fall and approach the same cost as to catch and less people would play OW with the sole intention to catch and sell

self balancing ecosystem...

[acoustic jewel]

I think after I leveled my gear, maybe 1 months or so. Since the new beta I have captured over 200 illuvials. I know it will be different due to them becoming scarce. Yet by how much.

[lofty bone]

not by that much

each illuvial will have its own rarity curve, each curve starts at 1 and tends towards 0.5

illuvials that people prioritise more than others will therefore be slightly rarer naturally, kinda a genius system to balance the rarity of illuvials by their demand

so at most an illuvials will be double as hard to find when compared to at launch

the supply of illuvials is infinite while the set is still live, when the set ends those illuvials can only be obtained on the secondary market

[swift wave]

I am glad that we have gone from "there is no connection between fuel and secondary market" to "there is a connection, but there is a free market somewhere and players will stop playing Arena if prices are too high".

But it also tells me that you are ok with pricing out Arena players and telling them to play a game, they might not want to play in the first place, while trying to ensure that prices for Overworld are fixed.

Are you going to play Overworld or Arena? What type of player are you? Do you own land?

We won't find a solution for the right inter-game economy here in Discord. I just wanted to make sure that you are aware that it is more difficult than fixing a price and printing unlimited OW money (fuel).

[lofty bone]

I didn't once say that there is no connection between fuel and secondary but ok

I am personally going to play Arena more than any other game, I will also play some OW just for the fun and to collect some of my illuvials, I do own Land

I am not OK with pricing out Arena players, this proposal does not price Arena players out...

The ecosystem will balance itself,
If secondary prices are even 1.5x the prices it costs to obtain in OW then there will be people who will be able to make enough from that arbitrage to be willing to spend the time grinding OW to sell and repeat...

I am not trying to ensure that prices for OW are fixed, I do want the prices to have a maximum so that our game is accessible, this will in turn make Arena also accessible as it uses OW assets to be played

[wooden island]

Upvoted. Overall, it's a good progress and compromise.
There are things that need to be revised, e.g. "Free Market"
thanks @mellow breach for contributing. seriously guys, hire the man.

[swift wave]

But why would the DAO in its own interest set a maximum price for OW, if people were willing to pay even more?

Why the focus on accessibility for many?

I mean, maybe that is the right way, but where does this conviction come from?

What if the team wants an economy with fewer players, but high roller type, at least in the beginning and turn on the mass market switch later on?

In that case it doesn't make any sense to set a fixed price and unlimited fuel to bring in the masses.

I am not against the mechanism itself, but I personally have not enough knowledge about the teams plan for our economy to advocate the use of such a tool.

I am neither voting up nor down. The mechanisms are ok, but I don't want them to be voted in for actual use right now.

[lofty bone]

To be clear, the conviction that "accessibility for the many" is necessary to illuviums success is a personal conviction

This proposal specifically isnt really about accessibility at all

This proposal could be voted in and then that top rail could be decided to be placed quite high in a place that wouldnt be accessible to many if that price was hit, that is outside of this specific proposal...

[wooden island]

im for "free market", but
there will be excess demand at launch, and volume will die down to about 50% or less.
fuel price and common illuvials price should bottom out few months post launch
we won't be worried about excess demand, we will be lucky to retain 50% of players

as for IZ, they can't maximize profit during the excess demand because full price is capped. that's the compromise

just maximize fuel production and sell all of your fuel within 2 weeks of launch

[lofty bone]

Why is accessibility important in my view?

• because those high roller types that we most certainly want to attract as well, they like flexing on people, if its a niche game thats super expensive to play and only rich people are playing then you're not flexing on anyone, you're just flexing on eachother, that doesnt attract high roller types
• if our game does get popular, the more popular it gets the more money we make, this is good
• if demand for our game increases massively and that causes the prices to play our game to suddenly become inaccessible (which is possible if we have no rail) then that flow of oncoming players is actually given a constantly increasing barrier to entry until no one wants to enter and the hype dies down and the price dumps, this is what happened in axie, why would we want our game to be similar to axie in any way...
• this is a game, I know that we often can overlook that with all the economics, tokenomics and crypto side to it all, but at the end of the day this is a game and it should be not only fun but fun that can be enjoyed by as many as possible
• the more people that get immersed in our ecosystem, in our IP and in our game, the more network effect that generates and the more our IP becomes globally recognised and the closer we get to realising the dream of Illuvium becoming one of the largest and most successful gaming studios on the globe 🔥 🚀

[swift wave]

There is nothing wrong with your points, I would just like to add to #3:

You will be surprised that I am actually in favor of managing the heat of the economy and make it accessible to as many players/owners as possible over time.

I am just hesitant that an upper rail, once implemented, gets misused by whoever decides about the price and that it gets set too low.

We are now deep into economic design discussions, which I wanted to avoid, but we can treat it as a thought experiment:

What if we don't let the DAO set the upper rail price, but let it come down like in a reverse auction.

This would mean a free market in the beginning, which is ok for our current target audience, which is mainly web3.

There will be price swings and speculation, but we are here for the long term and can accept it.

You accept the free market price and have a higher chance of finding these rare Illuvials or wait (many days or weeks) until the upper rail comes down and gives you the unlimited fuel for a fixed price option at a price you like.

Along with the upper rail price curve coming down, there would be the fuel production curve going up. Both make it easier to pay for the Overworld as time progresses.

Until the market price reaches a point when you play Overworld almost purely for fun, because it has become so cheap, but you still have a (small) chance to find that rare Illuvial and get rich.

This would be like the land sale reverse auction, except that you wouldn't mint the land as soon as you accepted the price, but would get the chance to play the OW.

Again, not a fully designed economy, just a suggestion for setting the upper rail.

[lofty bone]

"I am just hesitant that an upper rail, once implemented, gets misused by whoever decides about the price and that it gets set too low."

The price of the rail will be set in a future IIP, I'm sure there will be views on both sides of the isle, we''ll likely do a town hall as well on that topic

I have to say I am not a fan of having huge economic volatility at launch, a launch is a very important and key time in the launch of any game...
Launch won't just be experienced by our currently small loyal and active community but by many many others, this launch will be the first impression we leave on the world and I'd prefer it be as polished as possible

as it stands, looks like we wont be able to have IZ live more than a month prior to launch at most

1 month or less is not going to be enough fuel supply to meet the demand of launch,

plots are just nowhere near max production a month in...

without a low enough rail we'll have artificially high prices because we just dont have enough supply
that would just hurt momentum from a successful launch big time, imo its a v bad idea,

anyone thats against rails or prefers a high rail I would ask you to strongly consider supporting accessibly priced rails at least in the short term post launch if not long-term (and look forward to those discussions in that future IIP)

scrub put it well here: #1148000637997555842 message

[swift wave]

Is a public beta really a launch?

Do we know what the team wants to be tested in a public beta?

Maybe they want to test the economy?

Will we even be able to catch all Illuvials in the OW or just a restricted set?

I do hope that the public beta has some restrictions. Starting the full economy in a few months is IMO impossible or at least an insane risk to take.

Just look at all the issues with Illuvitars. Do we want to go public to the masses with such bugs?

Our games have to be like bank apps.

[lofty bone]

Open Beta Launch is a Launch

all set 1 illuvials will be available on this launch

in-game asset ownership will begin on this launch

The plan for some time of both the Team and the Council has been post launch to analyse the way the economy runs and to make adjustments if needed, this proposal specifically is the toolkit that will be available if adjustments are deemed necessary

But if we want to test the entire economy and play with it, we make models beforehand, we dont do it with the money of our players, so we do our best on launch to ensure a good user experience for our players, especially during a launch that will be many players first impressions of illuvium

The full and entire economy will be active on launch, the economy and assets ownership needs to be as safe and full proof as possible on launch.

"open beta" in gaming generally is a game thats finished but is not fully polished and bug proof and thats exactly what this is, everything will be there on launch, but there will be illuvial balancing that we need to do post-launch as well as some bug fixing that will need doing, followed by adding additional content and quality of life improvements that community feedback shows is needed.

This has always been the plan.

In regards to the illuvitars bugs, we've discussed these with the team also and we have also discussed the minimum requirements that must be met for us to be able to launch, not sure how much I can share but what I can say is that the game will not launch unless there is very high confidence in security.

100% agree that bugs like that need to be sorted out before we do an open beta launch.
100% agree that our games need to be as secure as a bank app.

[swift wave]

Is this your opinion or did the team state this somewhere or told you?

[lofty bone]

the last message I sent is not my opinion, it is THE PLAN

and has been for years frankly

[swift wave]

I only see a roadmap graphic that says "Open Beta Launch".

Where is the document that explains the details of an open beta?

[lofty bone]

I am glad we've had this dialogue even if it isnt completely relevant to this proposal.

Glad to share a birds eye overview of where were heading and the greater context for all of this

[lofty bone]

I'm not sure if it has been documented

Its been spoken about publicly in AMAs for over a year and I have had countless discussions about it both publicly in the community since I joined as well as privately in council meetings in the 12 months that I have been a council member, its not a secret

I honestly thought this was common knowledge

[swift wave]

Yes, people always have assumptions and hopes and interpret certain things the way they want.

And I would like to have all of this in a few months.

But the only thing I have is a roadmap graphic.

[lofty bone]

whether or not this can be achieved by Q4 end is another question entirely, time will tell

[stone thicket]

Found a comment from Aaron on "Open Beta": #💖〕positive-vibes message

[swift wave]

Thanks for looking that up. This makes sense. We play open beta, test and try things and get some cool prizes along the way, but keep the main prizes for full launch when we know what works and doesn’t. Anything else would have been a surprise to me.

[stone thicket]

Yeah, there are probably some better descriptions out there, but it's decent. Open Beta is definitely the real launch though, where assets are on the blockchain. #💬〕general message

[wooden island]

there is no full launch. its a perpetual beta

[swift wave]

Yes, that is what I would also expect. We need to test all of this. But the scope of the assets will be restricted, but might have lots of value in the future. Kind of alpha Illuvials even if they are just T0s

[swift wave]

True

[stoic oyster]

No. All the illuvials will be released

[swift wave]

Okay, do you have that from Aaron?

[stoic oyster]

Don't need to

[swift wave]

What is your source?

[stoic oyster]

Knowing how the game works?

[stone thicket]

It will definitely be all illuvials, not all regions right at launch/open beta though so some may be very hard to find

[stoic oyster]

Yes more regions will be added as they are ready with as high quality as the first ones

[swift wave]

Okay, they could release all of them, but make most of them so hard to find that we don’t give them away too easily should there still be bugs or issues with the economy. We will see what the team has planned.

[stoic oyster]

No. The Illuvials should all be accessible in their normal drop rates.

[swift wave]

Okay, so why is it called beta? What is different from normal?

[stoic oyster]

Hmm I take it you aren't too familiar with games. Beta is just a word companies like to use

Some games stay in Beta for years and years

[swift wave]

Why?

[ripe root]

Is this whole beta semantic discussions relevant to the iip ? Maybe worth parking that for now and refocus ?

[stone thicket]

Another from Johnny: #🎮〕illuvium-zero message

[swift wave]

It is a bit old, though.

[swift wave]

It i s relevant in the sense that everything in this IIP is about mass adoption. And I don't see mass adoption coming with open beta.

This is what Aaron said in May:

The way we see it is the passionate Open Beta people will be 'first' and get some cool stuff that nobody else does. And then when the game is feature complete the masses will come, and you guys will have been rewarded for being early.

If this is still true, then open beta - while on the blockchain - will still not be ready for the masses and that means to me that we won't give away all Illuvials (quantity and quality wise) because they have always said that Illuvium would be different and not give Illuvial NFTs to insiders and let others fight for the rest.

[stoic oyster]

If it is Open Beta then it is not giving any special stuff to insiders

You cant release without all the Illuvials

[stone thicket]

Products often have 'early adopters' that are on the cutting/bleeding edge of technology, seems like a good comparison. First players aren't because it's exclusive, but the product won't have all the features yet and all kinks worked out. They will have some benefits of being here through those growing pains though.

Doesn't mean it can't explode week 1 with the right publicity

[swift wave]

I on't know, I just can't imagine that we are going full scale in a few months with just some visual bugs left.

And any other real bug with money involved will be a death sentence for Illuvium.

I don't even want it to explode 1 week later. This is what happened to Axie and then they were struggling to keep the systems running and din't even have time to work on new games or features.

Imagine the support calls and emails when someone doesn't get what they paid for.

As soon as we leave web3 and go to the masses we are judged by the service levels of normal companies ( I know, some of them are bad).

[stone thicket]

Completely agree, if you look closely I believe we already see the team trying to balance existing bug fixes with getting Open Beta out the door.

This is important for any new product development, but in this case has potential to get out of hand if there are serious issues on release with a small team. To me, this is the biggest risk of the project, going to open beta too soon and finding major bugs after release.

[swift wave]

Yes, web3 already has a bad taste, imaging the uproar when a web2 gamer looses money because of bugs.

[small rose]

using open beta/early access label usually gives legal advantages

[swift wave]

Interesting.

[neon knoll]

I vote for you !!

[swift wave]

Oh my god, I haven’t even considered nomination. I guess I just have a good sense for inconsistencies in arguments and solutions and feel a need to point them out. I want Illuvium to be based on simple rules and mechanisms at its core. We can combine these basic elements into more complex solutions e.g. fixed price fuel on top of an order book system, when we see a need and when the basics are robust and well tested. An order book system is already complicated enough, combining it with an upper rail unlimited fuel system doesn’t make it easier. But I am also not insulted if proven wrong. I have been proven wrong more than I wished for.

[lofty bone]

great quote from aaron

everything is connected to blockchain on open beta launch, core mechanics are there

post launch beyond illuvial balancing and bug fixing there will be 4 additional regions that will be rolled out as well as countless other features (including tournaments) that will be built and rolled out, the game may take a year, 2 or more post launch to reach its final form, it may never have a final form as it continues improving

but on launch, the features that matter most will be live, ownership of assets will be live

[lofty bone]

when aaron says " the passionate Open Beta people will be 'first'" this doesnt mean that some masses will not come during open beta, the 2 are not mutually exclusive,

once its open, its open to all nonetheless and many will still come, that may grow over time but on open beta launch the game is very much "ready" for the masses if they were to come

were not giving any exclusive assets to insiders, those that are already here just happen to already know whats going down, but once it goes down it is open for all to jump into

the view of "mass adoption will come over time and not straight away" is purely an opinion, we just dont know until we see how it goes down (and on launch we will certainly be marketing the game to the best of our ability for maximum adoption regardless)

[lofty bone]

its not really relevant, but I'm glad it happened as it is informative for anyone that wasnt aware of the bigger picture rollout plan for illuvium, its useful context for any and all proposals

we used to discuss this stuff all the time and we've taken that knownledge for granted and havent seen it discussed publicly in a while, always good to reiterate for anyone that missed it or wasnt aware

[swift wave]

If I were the team, I would of course release an Open Beta as planned, but restrict the initial number of paying players and slowly increase it, by controlling the amount of fuel available on the market.

The mechanism for this already exists, which is the fuel production ramp up time of IL:Z lands.

If you want to play OW (paid tiers) as one of the first you either have to buy land and produce your own fuel or wait for land owners to sell it to you on the open market.

In the meantime everyone can play OW (and all other games) for free as often as they want and train for their first paid run.

As some have pointed out, we will probably be able to find all Illuvials of the 2 released regions. That keeps enough Illuvials available for latecomers and for public launch.

There will most likely be a disclaimer that all sorts of re-balancing and changes to the economy should be expected, but ownership of assets is a given.

IMO this addresses all needs of the web3 audience and even the web2 audience should be happy, because they can play all our games for free and forever.

And by initially restricting the paid versions to existing hard core web3 people (or whoever wants to become a web3 gamer) the team doesn't have to deal with potentially frustrated web2 gamers, while we are still in beta.

[swift wave]

Oh, I forgot to mention something really important:

As soon as we have an upper rail parameter, there will be candidates running for council and promising their voters a lower rail.

Basically buying votes for cheap fuel.

We will end up with politicians, whose only interest is their own, not the DAO's.

And the councils will be full of those politicians, who have the most followers on social media.

Just like the real world.

And of course they will say they do it for the good of everyone ...

After I have come to this conclusion I will vote this IIP down, even if there are parts that might make sense in the future.

[small rose]

you could argue the current system already has those politics issues and people are currently thinking/supposed to figure out ways of how to reduce the exposure to it

[swift wave]

Yes, but it is much harder now, with a parameter a simple IICP is enough.

Even with mitigations like multiple votes from multiple council seasons, parameters are much easier to change than implementing new features.

There are just not enough fair and honest people in this world, that I would simply trust nice words.

We have Bitcoin and Ethereum, because people didn't trust fiat money, unlimited money printing and wanted unchangeable rules.

Now we have people advocating for unlimited money printing in the form of fuel on rails and with a straight face they say this is for the good of the DAO and the poor web2 kids, who can not deal with fluctuating prices.

I doesn't take a genius to invent unlimited money printing.

I have not heard anyone say: I want an upper rail, because I want cheap fuel for my own and my friends OW runs. Is everyone altruistic these days?

My internal warning system always turns on, when I see people putting much effort into certain topics. Then I start to look for their motivations ...

Rant off...

[small rose]

I don´t disagree with anything you say, I´d certainly hope we can have a setup that would mitigate or reduce this risk to 0

[heady sequoia]

Fuel Guardrail
Enables players to set unlimited buy orders for Fuel at a fixed price (top guardrail). Players can specify the amount of fuel they wish to purchase at a price pre-defined by the council and team. To maintain the revenue sharing model with landowners, 5% of this fuel sales revenue will be distributed to landowners proportionally based on their weekly fuel sales

should it be all the fule revenue goes to landowners?

Why it is 5%?

[heady sequoia]

Totally agree with you, the rail system is not for WEB3, DAO should not step in to change back and forth. The demand/supply should be finished on a weekly base instead of monthly base. Nike's proposal is much automatic, it can be further optimized to mitigate the fluctuation.

[stone thicket]

5% fuel sale revenue is what land owners have always been promised. You do raise a decent point though that in this case maybe worth at least considering increasing that % for guardrail sales as part of the compromise.

[lofty bone]

I dont see why we would raise the % in guardrail circumstances when land owners arent actually losing any $ value

its arguable infact that they make more at guardrail than if there was no guardrail anyway

[wooden island]

they dont make more if its capped in the bull

[swift wave]

Prove

[stoic oyster]

You can't definitnitely prove either side. That's why he said it's arguable

[wooden island]

capped fuel price in the bull is going to drive illuvials price, which will benefit token holder more due to tx fee

[wooden island]

he sounds so certain that land owners arent losing value and infact make more

high demand meets capped fuel price.
more illuvials farmed = more illuvial supply = lower illuvial price

people stop farming, then buy cheap illuvial. illuvial price rise, fuel fall

just imagine if the price of energy is capped

fuel price is ceilling is going to put a ceilling on illuvial price. Common illuvials, less on rare illuvials

in an up market

[lofty bone]

Yes, leading to a larger potential playerbase (accessibility to enter our ecosystem guaranteed) and leading to less of a “dump” or “crash” if demand for our game later decreases

This is objectively a better experience for players than an inflating price due to arbitrary artificial scarcity of a product that is free to produce.

[lofty bone]

Yh I am certain that the better experience for players will benefit us all financially in the Long-Term more than a chaotic axie like system with artificial scarcity

If we hit the rail past like 2 months into launch we’ll just be increasing the supply of fuel generated by land, long-term even in a bull the price of fuel should never be touching the rail for extended amounts of time

We’re managing supply to meet demand, the upper bound is there to provide accessibility so that increased demand is met with increased supply instead of being met with increased barrier to entry

Why would you ever want to meet higher demand with more barrier to entry when you can meet that demand at the same price for no extra cost to the DAO and absorb more demand which is more players immersed into our ecosystem, which is greater network effect and adoption

I am confident that a rail increases the likelihood of mass adoption which in turn increases total revenue for both IZ owners and ILV stakers alike Long-Term

[swift wave]

What are you talking about? Arbitrary artificial scarcity of a product that is free to produce? The team has been working years on Illuvials. Massive amounts of money and time. And you want to inflate the number of Illuvials by printing free money?

[indigo terrace]

I don’t agree with a fixed priced cap for a top rail. This is not set in stone yet. There needs to be an additional ICCP that clarified how rails would function.
Personally, I’m against using rails in that way and believe they should just be used as a backstop in the case of extreme short term volatility.

[swift wave]

We can have this discussion a few months after public beta. It is pure insanity to talk about mass public marketing when we haven’t even delivered a beta.

[stoic oyster]

We've been in a beta for over a year

Multiples in fact!

[swift wave]

You know exactly what I mean.

[wooden island]

sure it will attract more players. benefit token holders. but it will discourage illuvials trader because the price of illuvials are capped.

[lofty bone]

Fuel costs us nothing additional to produce

Whether we have 10k active players or a million that doesnt costs us anything more except in server costs which are more than covered by the playerbase

I dont want to inflate the number of illuvials, I want to inflate the number of players… which is obviously desirable lol

[swift wave]

Do you not understand the simple fact that people pay for OW runs in order to catch Illuvials? Lol

[lofty bone]

Attract more players is most important, there will still be illuvial trading and illuvials get upto 2x rarer as a set progresses which naturally holds and grows value, once a set ends they hold even more value due to no more production

Thats fine

[lofty bone]

I do understand that.

I’m not saying they should run for free, im saying they shouldnt run for 5x the price if we have 5x the playerbase because thats stupid, if we have 5x the playerbase running at the same price thats more revenue…

[lofty bone]

The team has been working years on illuvials and these games and we dont want as many people as possible to enjoy and experience the teams hard work?

[swift wave]

Then you don’t understand the simple fact that the first time we have a public beta on blockchain with real money at stake a public mass marketing with millions of players is an insane risk. People can play for free. Why do you not answer to this fact?

[stoic oyster]

People who play for free wont do too well

You're gonna need to catch real illuvials to climb high on the leaderboard

[swift wave]

You are not answering to the risk of opening up the first public beta to the masses.

[wooden island]

5x price with 5x playerbase is 25x revenue.
while 1x price with 5x playerbase is 5x revenue

[swift wave]

It is not all about numbers of players and money made in the first few months. It is about the long term success of Illuvium.

[stoic oyster]

Thats up to the team to deliver

If they don't think it is stable then it wont be released

[wooden island]

one thing you need to consider, in the bull market price can go insane. in nft market more expensive nft looks better. people are more interested in axie when it was $600.
but i do agree a cap will lessen the fall

[swift wave]

A beta is never stable enough for it to be released to the public.

[wooden island]

it is better for LT i agree

[stoic oyster]

You dont understand what the word beta means though so ....

[swift wave]

Then tell me

[stoic oyster]

We already have man.

Feel free to scroll up

[wooden island]

illuvitor appreciate u, but we can focus on fuel here

[swift wave]

Tell me again. I forgot.

[wooden island]

half of your posting is unrelated

[swift wave]

The argument brought for is we need rails because we need the masses.

And I say, a beta with blockchain does not want masses.

[wooden island]

i oppose price fix, but looking at the market condition, it has to be done. getting more players is the most important now

[stoic oyster]

Whoa. Even Jag has seen the light

[wooden island]

market is so ded rn

[wooden island]

yea ive been accumulating mwahahaha

[swift wave]

The team is still developing, they can’t even show PVP. And you are seriously talking about millions of paying players on a beta who have never used blockchain and have all sorts of bad feelings against it?

[wooden island]

not millions, maybe more than 8k existing holders

[swift wave]

That is fine.

But for them we don’t rails.

[stoic oyster]

Nah we gonna rails

[swift wave]

Yes,, because you want cheap Illuvials.

[stoic oyster]

Yes

[swift wave]

And hate all other games.

Okay, at least you are honest.

[wooden island]

i have a joke about rails but i got warned last time

[stoic oyster]

I don't think anyone has been dishonest. Rails keep the price from going out of control

We want people to play the game

[swift wave]

The prices can not go out of control, because they will stop buying fuel when it gets too expensive.

[wooden island]

upper rail only matter in the bull

[swift wave]

We want to test a beta.

[stoic oyster]

Once again. Please learn what Open Beta means. Because you currently have no idea

[elfin turtle]

What's the benefit of not having rails then?
How is a wildly fluctuating price to play the game going to be good for the game?

[swift wave]

I know what it means. Because I look at Illuvitars that aren’t even in beta and I see all sorts of bugs.

It is not about playing the game like any other game, it is about catching loot. Who knows if it will be wildly fluctuating. We need to test this. This is what a beta is for.

We are not releasing in Q4. Just read what Aaron said. The masses are a long time away.

[wooden island]

wht did he say

[swift wave]

#1148000637997555842 message

[stoic oyster]

The roadmap still says we are releasing in Q4

[lofty bone]

Mass Marketing on launch is already planned by the team, everything you are saying is your own personal view.

Many do not expect insane adoption to start with, but you’re the first person I’ve heard who would actually intentionally turn it down

On launch if millions of players do come, we will serve them all

If you think this is a risk then you should be proposing a delay to the project to be filled with further beta and stress testing of systems

[swift wave]

A BETA.

BETA

[stoic oyster]

OK well you're just refusing to listen or understand at this point

[lofty bone]

The first public beta will be open to the masses, thats a fact, thats what public means, if you personally believe its too risky propose delay + more testing

[wooden island]

have fun sjud and vete

[swift wave]

It is, but the amount of fuel and the price will naturally gate the number of paying players. And you want to turn that off.

[wooden island]

im out

[indigo terrace]

You can limit the volatility of the prices without have rails at a fixed price by balancing rate of fuel production.

[stoic oyster]

Yah I'm out too. He won't listen and it's off topic

[lofty bone]

Great Question, yet to see a coherent answer that explains how it makes the game more enjoyable of an experience

[swift wave]

Yes, there are many solutions. But as SJUD openly stated. He wants cheap Illuvials.

[indigo terrace]

I think there can be a good balance. By increasing production with demand illuvial prices will still be lower, but still allow for the market to determine the price instead of a council.

[elfin turtle]

Wouldn't that potentially cause more issues for the landholders?
Say there becomes a need for production that overflows the majority of the currently built storage on the plots. Then you'd also need to tweak storage numbers as well, which wouldn't be advisable in case of a drop later that would lower the numbers. See where I'm going with this?

[indigo terrace]

Storage would need to adjust with the production as well.
IMO having more storage than you need is not a bad problem to have.

[swift wave]

I state it again. If we don’t fight fixed price solutions now, we will end up with a public competition driving prices lower and lower. Who does not want lower prices?

[lofty bone]

Nothing apart from rails can guarantee price accessibility for players, even if price is volatile but within accessible bounds thats better for players still

[swift wave]

The argument will always be: We get more players with lower prices and I can also get cheaper Illuvials that way.

[stoic oyster]

You figured it out!

[swift wave]

And you are happy with that scenario?

[stoic oyster]

Of course

[indigo terrace]

In the short term rails can be used for extreme volatility. Overtime rate of production can certainly keep prices accessible.

[stoic oyster]

I want there to be tons of players

[elfin turtle]

Then what happens if my storage is full, and demand for production goes down?
Storage maximum would be adjusted down, and I would either lose the overflow, or not be able to produce anything more until I sell what I have.
This would cause IZ to become a very unstable game from a player's perspective.
Basically by trying to limit the fluctuation in prices for fuel, you're destabilizing core functions of the game.
I don't think that's a good plan.

[lofty bone]

Prices wont be decided on publicly, they will be decided mostly by the team with feedback from council.

What we saw with illuvitar wave 2 pricing debate was not productive for the project and lessons have been learned from it

[swift wave]

How low do you want it to go?

[lofty bone]

Weird that thats a controversial take

[stoic oyster]

Pretty damn low

[lofty bone]

If the game costs a few hundred to play at most without cosmetics thats great

We want a somewhat accessible game comparable to irl TCGs with depth for whales to whale in holos, dark holos and high stat illuvials for leviathen

[indigo terrace]

Regardless of rails rate of production will be adjusted as a balancing mechanic. I’m just saying it can be used in a way to reduce the need for rails.

And there are ways to avoid those problems you mention.
One could be not lowering storage capacity. Another could be allowing a player to hold an overloaded storage until they decide to sell. When they sell down to under the adjusted capacity they can add more to it again.

[lofty bone]

Idk man, simple solutions are better than complex ones

[elfin turtle]

Well, an option would be to adjust the fuel costs paid to play overworld. It would have the same effect as adjusting the production values, but without making changes to numbers within IZ.

[indigo terrace]

I disagree. I think the best solutions are still the best regardless of complexity.

[indigo terrace]

I’ve suggested this and a lot of other have a problem with it.

[lofty bone]

When a rail can solve it all with occasional supply adjustments, with no issues, why make vastly more complex solutions for either the same outcome or similar outcome but with potential issues created that need managing

[indigo terrace]

What are the potential issues created that need managing?

[lofty bone]

Yh defo not gamer friendly of a solution, we want as little as possible to be adjusted from gamers perspective, simplicity and reliability is optimal

[lofty bone]

“allowing a player to hold an overloaded storage until they decide to sell. When they sell down to under the adjusted capacity they can add more to it again.”

Things like this are so jank and unnecessary for no reason

Anyways, im out for now, out for wifes bday and this debate is wildly off topic anywho

[elfin turtle]

Also, while you're overloaded, you can't produce

So it causes another issue there

[swift wave]

What relaxes me a bit, is the fact that whatever this IIP proposes, it is up to the team to decide if and when they can implement this.

It might take a year to implement fuel on rails and then we know if it is needed or not.

[indigo terrace]

But where does this create issues that need to be a managed?

You have 100/100 in your storage and the storage goes down to 90. So now you have 100/90. You sell 20 and now you’re at 80/90.

It’s really not that complicated.

[heady sequoia]

No, I think this proposal mistakenly put it 5% fuel sale, it should be 5% in-game purchase revenue Illuvium promised to the landowners. The fuel sale revenue should be 100% go back to landowners. The proposal author should distinguish these terms. It is totally different.

[elfin turtle]

Yes, but there's no telling when those 20 will sell. And considering a downwards adjustment means there's less sales of fuel you might get stuck for days, or your prices may get undercut over and over and you never sell.

If production and storage numbers are fixed, you may still see similar issues when demand goes up or down, but at least you can plan for it since numbers are always consistent within the game.

[indigo terrace]

In theory all in-game purchases should be in fuel.
But I agree it’s 5% of all in-game purchases. (Aside from purchases made with silv2, which is burned)

[heady sequoia]

Nike had a viz, sharing the exact idea, I fully support this. Cuase it will make the land production stable, the price for every travel is fixed, the amount of cyptons may change depending on the demand.

[indigo terrace]

You just sell at market value. If you can’t do that it means there are literally no players playing the game.

[heady sequoia]

Yup, I do read all the disscussion recently. I baredly step in this kind of things, I just hold my ILV/SILV/lands. but this is really a VERY important issue as to make Illuvium success or fail. Among all the proposals, I do think yours is the most balanced one, just don't know if the DAO team can move to your side, or at least intergate some of your great ideas into Arons...

[indigo terrace]

In addition you should be able to send your fuel to your own wallet to be used in other parts of the game. If you have too much fuel that you can’t or don’t want to see just send it to your wallet.

[elfin turtle]

That's a good point.
But then there will be some players who only want to sell fuel and not play the other games...

[elfin turtle]

And how is the market value decided?

[indigo terrace]

Thank you. I haven’t been shy proposing my ideas with the strategy sub council. There’s are some things I’ll have to compromise on, but other things I will be pushing very hard.

[heady sequoia]

Yup, it should have an in-game wallet, another account wallet, the storage discussion is kind of off too much. You can't simply limit the storage, then push people to sell or buy, it is not free market. Any attemp to manipulate the price will fail, we never ever have sth like Illuvium, no one know how to manually fix stuff...

[indigo terrace]

Just like the value or a stock or a token. You can either set a buy/sell limit at a certain price or just buy/sell at the current market price.

[heady sequoia]

Man, the tricky things is that ppl don't have any real original problem-killing capacity make loud noise. Great ideas should be pushed forwards, though sometimes it is hard.

[indigo terrace]

True, but I feel like there will be arbitrage opportunities for those people. And something I would like to push if the ability to not only send to your own wallet, but to other wallets.

If you have a friend, child, or scholar that you can send that fuel to for a share of the returns they get with it.

[indigo terrace]

The problem is everyone thinks there idea is the best idea. Haha.
I think my ideas are good, but other like their own better.

[heady sequoia]

For sure, it should be by default. No idea why secondary market of fuel trading is banned. It will not be banned, technically it is hard, you can ban the free trading in IMX, you can't ban the trading in layer 1. It is lazy idea to propose this, rude and lazy, instead of a smart/self-adapting strategy... It still needs to be carefully considered...

[indigo terrace]

Yeah. I’m a proponent for the freedom to do what you want with your crypto and NFTs. True ownership means you can do that.
I think we’ll agree with a lot due to BTC being in your name haha

[heady sequoia]

I have been in this industry for three years, fully dedicated to some very promising projects including the OpenDAO, the issue is always the ppl issue, ppl are aragant, ppl are too confidicent about their proposal. Ppl simply forget maybe they are lacking the fundamental knowleage. In-game econmy is not some easy math problem anyone can solve. It requires deep understandings. Your are the best among all others, some of the others are just jokes. I also noticed that, some KOL, just make loud noise, no solid experience, no deep understanding of the in-game econmy.

[heady sequoia]

No,no,no, don't judge my idea based on the name. Just share ideas, good ones are good ones. Your ideas, proposals are very much into the in-game economy, totally matched with the WEB3 spirit. I also don't think DAO-manipulated in-game can last longer, it will not predict all the comlicated cases moving forward. A automatically self-adapted/adjusted system can reduce the wild fluctuation. In the real world, sth like this needs a team of 20ish PhDs with solid professional experience to propose model, to change parameters. Even by doing so, more often than not, they messed up a lot of things, a perfect example is the FED mess during the great inflation time we are facing right now. They messed up, even though the team is the most talented guys you can ever find.

[swift wave]

I like what both of you say.

[indigo terrace]

Thank you. I appreciate it. I don’t pretend to have all of the answers, but I don’t push an idea unless I have a solid argument for it.
Sometimes I’m not sure if others choose not to understand points or if it’s me that’s not explaining them well enough.

I feel like I have the most experience actually participating in these web3 economies and I’ve seen how they’ve been handled, how the community reacts, and how most of them failed when the markets turned bearish.

I don’t want the same mistakes to be made with Illuvium. What’s sounds good on paper isn’t always what will work best in practice.

[heady sequoia]

Yup, that is exaxt reason why I spent some serious time to dig into the details. I spend serious money on this project, from the very begining, when ILV as high as 600, 1000 ish, as low as 30ish, I kept buying, never sell any of my bag. I want to see it to be a big success. The problem is this is not a easy issue. A lot of ppl don't understand how complicated the in-game economy is. Yours are not the perfect, but the best balanced on among all the others I have been walking through. Again, it is the ppl issue. Some projects failed, also because of ppl. Ppl with kind of titles. Some just simply said, sorry, we fuxx up. some just rugged. I do see the potential of illuvium. You are contributing sth serious, hopefully the DAO team can seriouly take your ideas into considerations.

[swift wave]

Illuvium is very exciting, but also very risky, because we want to build a new world.

But I am in there for the journey, I love to be involved in something that gets created and has a chance to fix problems we have in the real world.

This is the reason I am so emotional about certain topics. I don't have the right solutions, but I am always wary about those who claim to have them and push them with arrogance.

I hope the team can just pick the ideas they deem good and important and we have time to test them out.

[lofty bone]

Landowners were never promised revenue from anything other than fuel, and of fuel they produce they keep 100% of the revenue, but the fuel that landowners produce is only 5% of the total supply, so they have 5% of total fuel revenue overall, this has always been the case

[stoic oyster]

It is certainly not up to the team to choose. If this proposal gets voted in WE WILL have those rails

The team works for us

[ripe root]

You can set a upper rail and attractive price to attract people to play.

Then it’s all about tuning the drop rate of the illuvials and items.

Like a claw machine.. cheap to try, lot people play, few win…

Like a lot of mobile games…. Like F2P games…

Doing both, no upper rail and free market and high entry price to the game, add layer of limitation on top of layer of limitation.

Not sure why people take it has mutually exclusive.

But it raise the question about what’s the team and council official definitive strategy for adoption of the game. Do we target web3 rich people hoping to capture a few high value, or we target mass adoption and target to capture a lot low value. Or do we try anything in between.

What’s. The. Strategy?

[stoic oyster]

Like a lot of games I think the strategy is essentially "both"

You want the mass adoption for the Ascendant Arena so making that affordable is the goal.

Whales have the Leviathan Arena to whale out on with all their high stat illuvials as well as the Holo/Dark holo collection aspect for them

[ripe root]

Both means travel prices can’t be high and need rails. Also high rarity illuvials that retain super high value.

Would be good though to make that fully officia like that people stop playing the immature game of pulling the cover on their side « I want expensive » « I want cheap » « I want my mom to play »

[stoic oyster]

I think you nailed it. You can have cheap travel prices so that people can afford to build decks for the arena.
Then you have items inside the Overworld (high stats, holos, dark holos) that are rare enough to retain value and chase for whales

[ripe root]

Maybe the council should work quickly with the team on a clean document to explain the strategy and how to capture each population with each side of the game mechanics…

Like that it’s clear for everyone where things are headed and we don’t have pages and pages of « my opinion is better »

[stoic oyster]

I agree and I'm sure thatll be worked on after all of the fuel stuff is finished

[wooden island]

Yes, fuel price is only half of it. I am not sure if the team will make the drop rate known to the council or public.

[stone thicket]

Agreed. This was thought provoking to me and something I'm not sure was ever considered, but thought about it more throughout the day and I believe the 5% is still right to maintain. Guardrails or any mechanism should be established in a way that intends to be best for both land owners and the DAO/token so they aren't at odds and can maintain that same revenue split.

[swift wave]

I agree, we need that launch strategy, before we talk about fuel specifics. Let's wait for the public beta launch, give it a few weeks or months and see where we are and what else we need.

First I want to see what the team has developed, then we as the DAO can make recommendations and propose changes.

No point changing things you don't even know.

And even then it is not as easy as writing up a few lines of text and then saying "you work for us, go and implement".

Anyone who has worked in software development before (I have) will agree.

There might be gamers, who believe they have gained unlimited powers by being in a council, but I do hope that the rest of the council members are more thoughtful and less arrogant.

Trying to be first on a leaderboard by bending the game rules is not enough qualification for a council.

Games exist, because there are easy to understand rules, when followed, allow you to ascend.

Developing an entirely new game world/metaverse and coming up with these rules is something entirely different and takes more than a gamer mindset and I would leave that to the team for now.

[swift wave]

First strategy, then fuel etc. discussion. That’s the order any sensible person would follow.

[lofty bone]

This proposal provides tools that could be used in any strategy

Whether fuel would be fixed or fluctuating was important to know before we could go further into strategy

Fluctuating Fuel proposal from Aaron is already being voted on at IMC level, this proposal will be voted on at SSC level shortly

Next proposal will be the more strategic vision one, relating to where rail will be positioned and such

[lofty bone]

Coming up next…

[swift wave]

We will see, I trust the team to make the right decisions - whatever the councils dream up. We will all be surprised. They probably laugh at us right now. Their discussions are most likely a few levels above ours in quality and depth.

[wooden island]

"us" ?