#IIP - Illuvium PvP Tournament Fund

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

safe lintel
#

Summary

The IPTF will be created alongside the launch of the Arena PB3 PvP beta allowing up to 100 ILV each month to be given to other entities after an application process. Even though this will be on a case by case basis, the other organization or individual will typically use the ILV as prize money to host grassroots tournaments sanctioned by the DAO. This will stimulate the player economy, make Illuvium more relevant in the Web 3 space and give the DAO invaluable information leading up to the Open Beta launch of Illuvium. Beyond this, it will also allow the DAO to build stronger relationships with existing communities and forge new relationships as it prepares for the end of 2023.

Brief Outline

This proposal seeks to achieve a handful of things:

Improves the outcome of Beta testing
Stimulate the player economy
Begin constructing a competitive scene for Illuvium
Strengthen old partnerships and develop new ones
Grow reach in Web 3 circles

In short, the DAO will send 100 ILV to a special wallet every month which will then be distributed to applicants successful with their IPTF Grant application. Every applicant will be vetted by the MSC, whom will consult with the team. They will then package together an MSP (Marketing Spend Proposal) and the IMC will vote on the outcome on snapshot. If successful then these tournament organizers will be able to use this ILV for prize money in their competitions.

Myself, @minor notch, @slate quartz and @sly lily all worked on this proposal.
Sponsor: Scoriox

Please take a look at the full proposal below.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PE4mYND6zl-iDSIr7a0asN48AiYPg1RZC0qjg_9lr1k/edit?usp=sharing
_

podium.jpg
Google Docs
Illuvium PvP Tournament Fund Proposal V3

IIP-X Illuvium PvP Tournament fund Abstract To create an Illuvium PvP Tournament Fund (IPTF) that allows the DAO to sponsor up to 10 tournaments every month up to a total of 100 ILV in rewards and provide beta codes to participants. Summary The IPTF will be created alongside the launch of the...

coarse flicker
#

I support this message ❤️

safe lintel
minor notch
#

Very important proposal to start establishing a competitive community in Illuvium. This is something I have wanted to get done on the council and am glad I was able to work with Scoriox on it. He did a great job writing the bulk of this thing.

coarse flicker
keen garden
#

THANKS @safe lintel !!

tame knoll
#

👌🏻

keen garden
#

."If successful, I expect the DAO to increase the ILV quantity " yes 🐳 🙏

slender flame
#

Proposal looks like a step in the right direction for Illuvium DAO governance. 👍

thick ermine
#

Great Work!

slate quartz
safe lintel
safe lintel
dark vault
#

well done guyz

#

Nice work !

slender flame
forest turtle
#

I love this proposal. I think it may be a good idea to define how the prize money is to be distributed to winners. I believe more people will participate in the tournament if the rewards are distributed to a larger group of contestants.

safe lintel
safe lintel
minor notch
forest turtle
# minor notch That is up to the tournament host

My only worry is that the 100 ILV goes to one person many people will just bow out as they know they have little chance at any rewards. Just mandate must have at least 5 or 10 winners for example.

minor notch
#

That's what tournaments are. Not everyone gets a trophy
*For the record I'm generally opposed to winner take all formats

forest turtle
#

I just feel the end goal is to get more eyes and people interested in the game. Have more chances to win could help drive more people in.

safe lintel
#

A minimum of 3 winners is definitely a good statement I may be able to include.

elder helm
#

Brilliant work guys 🔥

chilly orbit
#

Down vote from me, I like the idea of constant 100 ILV tournaments, but not for Private Beta Game Modes.

I know we want to move the needle and spread the word out ASAP but I think tournament rewards should be saved for Public Beta Products.

sonic bison
#

I love this idea. One of the problems of the betas is that they're, well, not the real deal (no NFTs, etc...)

So giving players a small incentives to stick around will help get real serious data, constantly.

In the beta players will fool around, but with a little bit of money on the table it'll be way closer to real life testing.

  • it gives people that organize tournaments valuable experience to set up proper ones once opened beta is out.

At today's price that's roughly 4000$ that's nothing compared to what the Team and community get will get out of it.

  • tournament experience
  • close to real life stress testing as it gets
  • community coming together and getting rewarded for their time

I support this all the way. Good job guys 😁👍

safe lintel
chilly orbit
#

No, I read the full proposal and my problem with it is not the access to the beta for the tournaments but the mere fact that is an unfinished product and I don't think that official rewards tokens should be used for it.

I also don't like the optics of DAO backed tournaments with price money of closed beta testing products, feels a bit desperate and I don't see an exponential gain from it.

slate quartz
# chilly orbit Down vote from me, I like the idea of constant 100 ILV tournaments, but not for ...

Personally I think there’s TONS of value in building the foundation of the player base now before open beta. With previous releases there was like 2-4 weeks of hype and then it quickly died down. Now this is PvP so I don’t expect it to happen so quick but it would (especially before open beta) eventually become less active but this proposal should solve that imo. Even if it is just a bunch of players coming together on one day I’d say that’s actually even better.

minor notch
#

Illuvium has also given out 40k+ Beta codes already. It's not like its super closed
Like Scoriox said beta codes will also be provided

chilly orbit
slate quartz
chilly orbit
solemn plume
#

Can't wait to start earning ILV for winning tournaments 😀

stark mirage
#

Think this is great overall and could easily pass as is.

The only thing I'd like to see in the conclusion is increasing the ILV rewards from where they are now should come from somewhere other than the treasury.

That's nebulous and might be difficult, but think possible. basically, we should look to make tournaments sustainable by funding them with consistent revenue/profit streams.

I have some ideas (betting rev) but the topic is for a different chat.

red galleon
#

I like the general idea behind this but would like some clarifications on an area.

As this is being aimed at guilds I would hate to see each guild/project gating tournament entry to community members aka an Eth lizards or Xborg members or any other guild tournament.

Keep it open for all, and better yet once all tournaments are run, do a champion of champions between the winners of each tournament.

Otherwise it's great, I suck so don't expect me entering 😂.

slate quartz
red galleon
storm moss
# red galleon I like the general idea behind this but would like some clarifications on an are...

I agree and disagree

Illuvium will be funding and as such should not block access to these tournaments (open to all!)

But there are benefits to having them seperate to specific partnerships as a form or reward and allowing these members a chance to win 🏆 (for instance, how many Pudgy Penguins play Illuvium presently? How many would like getting destroyed by the best PVP players? 😉)

I will also advocate for random prizes drawn for anyone that enters - this way everyone has a a very small chance to get a "participation trophy/prize" just for entering, even though they are nowhere near the top of the leaderboard

midnight sedge
#

sounds amazing! the illuvium guild phantom has been wanting to do more successfull events after our last one but funding is the major issue that stands in the way of us and most other guilds at the moment.

how is the team's view on that? is it feasible in their opinion?

safe lintel
safe lintel
safe lintel
minor notch
bright narwhal
chilly orbit
safe lintel
safe lintel
#

I will tell you right now my experience with every single web 3 multiplayer game these past 2 years has been abysmal. Except for Gods Unchained they have had no playerbase for my aus timezone

minor notch
#

Not only is this better to test the actual PvP game but also to test different tournament formats and structures for when Open Beta does hit with a hopefully much larger playerbase

chilly orbit
ornate laurel
chilly orbit
safe lintel
stark mirage
# safe lintel This is from the game yield pool, which I understand gets revdis. So technically...

My view is a cautious one.

Revdis is awesome but represents a cost hurdle that most gaming studios do not have to overcome from launch. Our operating budget is and will continue to be razor-thin. Even at 8 million total tokens, the 1.5 million treasury is only ~19%. Most studios we seek to emulate had an operating margin above 30% in the early years, which fueled growth.

Realistically, we will not be able to achieve that because of the ~80% off the top to stakers, but our incentive flywheel fueled by a fun game should be a substitute. Our devs build a fun game, that drives demand for the in-game economy, which drives revenue, revenue drives token price, and token price helps the devs stay motivated.

We primarily need more fun content to keep this going, so core games dev.

If we find the next bear, or honestly, regardless, that we need to meaningfully increase the budget to grow, the only lever we will have is allocating the in-game tokens to the primary treasury. So I say we should take any opportunity to keep that token balance as high as possible.

#

again this is a relatively minor thing - we could be having a completely different conversation in 6 months if things go really well

safe lintel
# stark mirage My view is a cautious one. Revdis is awesome but represents a cost hurdle that ...

An interesting thought process. I agree being conservative is important. Ideally I'd be actually reducing the illuvium beyond rewards pool by 25% and putting that here instead as more of a reallocation.

Also the treasuries % is relative to the overall stakers. Although we cannot predict this, currently I suspect it's much closer to that 30%.

But yeah this 100 ilv a month is 1200 ilv a year. The game yield pool started with 1m tokens.

So it would take 833 years to deplete those tokens if u took this 100 ilv in a vacuum. Or 100+ years if u include it with the illuvium beyond rewards

#

I genuinely believe an initiative like this will do a lot to benefit the game in more ways than 1, most importantly improving the overall quality of the feedback to the team and consequently making the game better. By extension this theoretically increases revenue. Ultimately a small price to pay for a better game

stark mirage
#

I agree we should do it; we have to press forward and honestly, maybe this isn't enough.

All I'm saying is if there is an opp to minimize the depletion of treasury tokens we should take it and put the extra effor in to do that.

But on the math, just note we will not be anywhere near the 30% (probably) bc of the rev off the top to stakers.

Even at 60% off the top of all rev to stakers plus normal production costs, it's going to be hard to just cover our nut

quasi musk
#

TL;DR: Won't affect margins or proportion of revenue received by Treasury in any major or impactful way.

safe lintel
#

In the name of fairness to tournament competitors, the DAO will not be liable to send the ILV if the Tournament organizer did not meet all of the following requirements:

A minimum of 3 competitors must win ILV as a part of the tournament's outcome.
This cannot be less than 10% of the IPTF Grant per person.
The tournament must have had a minimum of 32 participants to be eligible.
The tournament's rule structure cannot give a discernible advantage to any group of competitors, at minimum the rule structure should be disclosed to competitors with enough notice for them to prepare.
Tournament organizers must use a provably fair RNG method to decide on the bracket order and round 1 byes (if applicable). Recording this process is preferable to ensure high standards of fairness.

Entities are welcome to ask the MSC questions at any time during the process for assistance and clarification.

#

I have now added this into the proposal. Please all feedback is welcome. In particular @bright narwhal and @storm moss since this addresses their concerns

bright narwhal
safe lintel
#

But any tournament organiser needs to give the MSC a report following the tournament afterwards anyways. And if the community brings foul play to the MSC's attention then they will investigate where necessary

#

What this does do is increase the risk to any tournament hosts and makes it harder for them to do things in bad faith easily at the very least

#

And incentivises them to be as transparent as possible

stark mirage
# quasi musk TL;DR: Won't affect margins or proportion of revenue received by Treasury in any...

Okay - that is what I thought originally.

Again, to put this simply.

Other studios: all revenue minus all cost to build game 1 = increase in budget to grow.

ILV: all revenue minus ~80% to stakers minus cost to build game one = increased budget to grow.

We are playing a long game that if we pull off will be insane - we know this.

But we don’t know how long the road is to get there and it’s gonna be tight cost wise to get there.

Until, we are on a very meaningful path where the core team can grow from the treasury’s 1.5 mil tokens, I see a real possibility we need to add to the 1.5 mill bc it is low considering the overhead cost structures (rev dis).

I’m not saying stop or doing something different.

Just hey our tokens are valuable. We might need them. If there are ways to minimize the net decrease from the in game pool we should do that. (100 per month with 50 from the in game pool and 50 from betting. As an example.) idk think this is prudent atm.

true stag
# stark mirage Okay - that is what I thought originally. Again, to put this simply. Other s...

It makes month that i am asking myself this question. Our ILV token from reward pool are precious and limited atm.
We need this rewards token to promote the competitive scene for all the futur games of the IP. That's why I never understood why this share of "Token Reward" wasn't eligible for revdis. If we would be able to use a little portion at the start to bring mainstream, and then use only the revenue from stacked token rewards to be used, the Rewards would automatically vary depending the income and success of the project.
So for the moment, I'm not really scared to allow some tokens to be used to launch the mainstream, but theses questions will need to be answered soon enough for long term.

I support this IIP that give the opportunity to others entity that gonna host thoses tournaments to prepare themself for a bigger launch with better quality, in the same time as giving more interest of people to already join the competition.

sonic bison
safe lintel
quasi musk
# stark mirage Okay - that is what I thought originally. Again, to put this simply. Other s...

I completely agree with a conservative approach, but this is certainly conservative. We could maintain this program until the 2800's with this emission rate.

Moving In-Game Rewards to the Treasury to be eligible for revdis is certainly something we can evaluate independently of this proposal, but even with the 100 ILV/month for tournaments, it's absolutely negligible how much an impact this proposal would have on the Treasury's portion of revdis.

Like anything, this will need to be monitored and evaluated to determine how much benefit the DAO is getting. If we can get the right organizations applying for ILV to host tournaments, we're putting our product in front of thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of eyes. It's a relatively organic way to market Illuvium - Through gameplay. That's always been what is needed to start bringing web3 adverse or NFT adverse gamers into our ecosystem. That's the potential benefit of getting this set up and live.

On the flip side, if we find that we're just churning a bit of ILV into web3 organizations and unable to reach new demographics, after say, 12 months or 18 months, the In-Game Rewards pool is out ~1000-~2000 ILV, which is 0.1%-0.2% of in-game rewards, but we will have a much better handle on what tournament formats work and what formats don't work.

sonic bison
safe lintel
quartz shadow
#

I support this idea.
Same opinion as posted here.

And from another point of view
This will be a necessary marketing expense to expand the user base
If you were an investor, would you choose a game with a user base of 50 or 1,000?
DAO needs at least one more round of funding, and if the ILV price is lower than now or there is no user base, it will be much harder to raise funding.
If you use 330,000 ILV and can only raise 8m$ next time it will be a loss of 2m$
Even if this idea fails, that's only 1,200 ILV per year.
I think 100 ILV per month is a very good start, but I would like to have the option to use 200-300 ILV in the MSC decision if it is a good idea
This idea is important for the council as well, and I think it's great that they have the funds to use on their own as a direction.
They'll have more responsibilities than they do now, but I hope they'll work with the guild to come up with some good ideas.
The idea is not to get tens of thousands of users right away, but if we can get more than 1,000 players by the time of the OpenBeta release, I think it will be a success!
Especially since it is a PVP game, you need a user base!
If you can gather more than 1,000 users, I think it would be a good idea to collect data using 200-300 ILV with a goal of 2,000 users.
It will be an important point to determine the game rewards at the start of OpenBeta!

sonic bison
safe lintel
white furnace
#

Feels like progress, good job team word_lfg

stark mirage
minor echo
#

nice

#

can we do wager on the tournaments?

stark mirage
#

engagement and prize pool goes burrrr? 😄

safe lintel
quasi musk
#

Just wanted to keep everyone up to date - IMC voted for revisions on this proposal, specifically to determine who is responsible for what elements under the proposed Gov V3 structure. This was primarily to prevent needing an additional proposal to amend the IPTF.

This paragraph has been added. @safe lintel if you're able to confirm you're ok with the revision, we can move ahead with a vote on the revised proposal.

image.png