Implementation of Ranking Rewards in ILV Token for Players

[foggy crystal]

The implementation of ranking rewards in ILV tokens aims to add an extra layer of motivation for players, fostering healthy competition and encouraging continuous participation. ILV tokens, as an intrinsic part of the gaming ecosystem, can be distributed to players based on their performance and ranking within the gaming platform.

Pros:

Increased Competition: Introducing ILV token rewards for rankings will create a more competitive environment as players strive to improve their positions and earn more rewards.

Enhanced Player Engagement: With the allure of ILV tokens, players are likely to spend more time on the platform, leading to increased engagement and a more vibrant gaming community.

Attractive Incentive: ILV tokens, being a valuable digital asset, serve as a tangible and attractive incentive for players. This can significantly boost player retention and attract new users.

Cons:

Complex Implementation: Integrating a new rewards system requires careful planning and execution. It may demand resources, time, and technical expertise to ensure a smooth transition without disrupting the existing gaming experience.

User Education: Players may need education on how to use and manage ILV tokens. Lack of understanding could lead to frustration and a negative user experience.

Regulatory Compliance: Cryptocurrencies are subject to various regulations globally. Ensuring compliance with relevant laws and regulations is crucial to avoid legal issues.

**Conclusion: **
Overall, I believe the introduction of ranking rewards in ILV tokens presents a promising opportunity to elevate the gaming platform. While there are potential challenges, careful planning, strategic implementation, and proactive management can mitigate risks and maximize the positive impact on player engagement, competition, and retention. A well-executed token reward system has the potential to redefine the gaming experience and contribute to the overall success of the platform.

Maybe the rewards could be expressed with a smaller coin "backed" by ILV. Just as Satoshis are to BTC.

Anyway, I would love to know your opinion.

Maybe the DAO is already considering this.

Please feel free to express your opinion 🙂

[sleek moss]

I'm pretty sure this was the idea from the very beginning. That's why we have 1 mil tokens for in-game rewards in the token allocation plan.

[foggy crystal]

Nice, and these tokens will get refilled with part of revdis?

[rose bane]

Effectively DAO decides in the end what to do woth rev dis tokens/team treasury in the long and as a result when and how many tokens to set aside say on a year to year basis for prizes

[sleek moss]

I think I heard earlier that the 1 mil tokens were meant to be given out in the first 3 years. Not sure if this is still the case or changed. Once these run out, the DAO will likely give out part of rev dis for rewards to keep things going.

[foggy crystal]

Brilliant. Thank you guys for your input.

I wonder if @sterile jasper would be so kind to inform us about what is the intention for this 1M tokens moving forward. If it is confidential, we understand. But if the info can be disclosed, I would love to know what are the plans as I believe this would be a great incentive for players.

[terse sphinx]

The 3 years thing you probably heard for staking (yield is a 3 year program) - I'm not aware of plans to distribute all 1M ILV over the first 3 years.

[rose bane]

I assume it will partly depend on the price of illuvium. Huge difference in tokens needed for a $10 mil prize pool with token at $100 vs $1000

[terse sphinx]

As far as potential options go - Leaderboard rewards, tournament rewards (including tournament rewards for community run tournaments, per #1162859507853049866 ), possibly quests or collection rewards, and rewards for our other products (ex. Beyond Rewards).

I know some people have concerns about rewards for Illuvium's ranked leaderboards, including the possibility of people utilizing multiple accounts. With tournaments, due to the concurrent nature of matches, it would be substantially more difficult to exploit.

[foggy crystal]

We could explore a DIDs system implementation to ensure that individuals don't have multiple accounts.

[terse sphinx]

Yeah, the marketability of tournament rewards in particular improves a LOT as ILV's price increases. Consider that 1 month ago, we had ~40M of rewards we could use as prizes. Today, we have around $100M. If ILV is $1000/token, we have $1B. There's definitely consideration that should be given to starting with smaller prize pools until we iron out what's working and evaluate the performance of those rewards.

We're in a position where we could genuinely be holding the biggest prize pool e-Sports events ever, if we execute properly.

[rose bane]

You also don’t need as many ILV tokens up for grabs if you do paid entry tournaments which I know I’ve beaten said idea like a dead horse already but it can work and on a fundamental level I think has plenty if advantages over just doing free entry/ tournaments for top rankers

[terse sphinx]

You're referring to decentralized identiers here?

[rose bane]

Using rankings at end of each month to set up brackets for a tournament that determines monthly rewards for top players based on how they place would help too to make sure people don’t get multiple entries or can ‘game’ their way above better players.

End of month tournaments would make things more exciting too for players and streaming event opportunities not to mention sponsorship aspect

Also with paid tournaments especially they can set up a system for people to just go and create their own tournaments, set up buy in price and rules and DAO gets say 10-20%

Lots of possibilities that we will hopefully see fleshed out and implemented in the next year

[foggy crystal]

Yes sir!

[foggy crystal]

I mean if we can manager to implement a system that allows us to control multiple accounts on a same individual (IP tracking or DIDs systems or others) we would have that issue out of the way.

Next thing would be to define an amount dedicated for ranking rewards. I.E. 2% of revdis go allocated on the top 50% players following an exponential distribution so that player 50% gets 10$ worth of ILV, players 75% gets 100$ worth of ILV and player 100% (top1) gets 1000$ worth of ILV with all players inbetween discretized.

[terse sphinx]

Yeah, working out distribution is pretty much trivial, there are tons of successful models for reward distribution. I'll think more on DIDs systems, I don't think IP tracking is sufficient. If you were to put forward a hypothetical DIDs system that you think would work, what would it involve? I'm having a hard time seeing anything other than some level of KYC being mandatory - Someone still has to verify that the DID is linked to a specific person.

[rose bane]

KYC on game account but not the specific wallet typically or exclusively associated with said acct itself? Not sure what level of privacy people really desire for making money on a game but if restricted to illuvium team database and beyond that up to the player it might strike a decent middle ground.

[foggy crystal]

Hey @terse sphinx!

Check Kilt Protocol if you haven't heard ot it yet.

or a harsh account verification with strong KYC.

Finally, although it might be overkill due to its costs, using IA to detect behavioral patterns to detect doppelganger accounts.

[terse sphinx]

Fundamentally, is what KILT is doing different than someone just using a wallet as their identity? It looks like you just pay $4 and you then have a DID through them.

That financial cost is a comparable level to protection to what we have, as an example, with requiring ILV to be staked to vote. It doesn't verify personhood, it just verifies that you have $4 (or gas to transfer ILV to a wallet and stake it, in our case).

KYC is absolutely more robust, but it would be a pretty major change to start requiring KYC to play Illuvium (even if it's just to be able to win rewards, and not something general).

The high level question here is: Do we get more value out of having leaderboard rewards that are amply protected via KYC, or do we get more value out of creating systems that don't require personal information?

It's also possible I'm missing something here - Let me know if that's the case. If a given DID is an identity you use to engage, play games or transact, and comes without KYC or proof of personhood, does it really do anything more than utilizing a wallet address for the same purpose? It would be redundant without extra verification.

[foggy crystal]

I mean myself as a player I wouldn't mind having to KYC if that would enable rewards. It is quite a cost effective solution.

Maybe soon enough we will have a technology that will smoothen this proces through blockchain. But in the meantime for me it's definitely a good idea to give players the option to KYC to earn ranking rewards. I am sure that the bast majority of competitive players would want that.

[foggy crystal]

Kilt implies KYC all the way. The advantage of KILT is that once you have onboarded with your DID, you can use it for w/e without having to KYC here and there. It's like your digital DNI, and you show it everywhere and it works, and there's only one per person.

It's an advantage for the users mainly, but at it's turn it's an advantage for ILV because further in time DIDs will be broadly adopted and this will be a day to day matter 🙂

[terse sphinx]

KYC can be so messy, in so many ways. I'd be interested to hear if others feel the same about the possibility of doing KYC for there to be rewards specifically for leaderboards to protect the integrity of the process. I'd honestly be pretty surprised if most gamers were ok providing personal information in exchange for the integrity of leaderboard rewards and rankings.

[rose bane]

I mean if you enter any standard tournament at least irl you have to give info and sign waivers and stuff to varying extents so just saying this is who I am and I am not playing multiple accts in this tournament /prize winning ranked mode shouldn’t be too crazy but everyone still wants and thinks crypto is super private when most people have already given their information out in some form. People that want their main wallets private can just use a separate one for illuvium/ their gaming interests anyways.

[foggy crystal]

Indeed!

You want rewards? --> KYC

You rather privacy? --> NOT KYC

Simple as that

[vestal prairie]

I think its smart

just like CEXs give limited features without KYC

You can play the game without KYC

but if you want rewards KYC

[foggy crystal]

Exactly

[rose bane]

And again, just cuz you kyc doesn’t mean your opponents and people watching livestream automatically know who you are or anything

[vestal prairie]

yeah its just a system to get paid ILV

not public in anyway

maybe you get a verified badge like on twitter or something

you've KYC'd and are eligible for rewrads

that keeps people from account spoofing

[rose bane]

If people really want to still make money they can sell illuvials, play ilv zero, or paid entry tournaments should be fine too with the make it and people join system.

Though doing kyc in general for tourneys of any kind helps with legalities too most likely

Also steak ilv lol how could i forget

[rose bane]

Suddenly thousands of teenagers are going to their local IT guy to get fake identities on government databases so they can run 5 accounts for the Illuvifest Grand Finals Tournament.

[dense patio]

What about a subscription of $10 or so per month for users if they want to receive a reward in the future?
That way, if we have more users, we can pay them more.
If you don't want the rewards, you can play for free, just as you do now.
Is it possible to do some KYC by limiting the payment method to credit card only if it is a subscription?
We will not accept credit cards from people who are in contact with the laws of the country.

[rose bane]

It's a thought like, illuvium will host x tournaments a month that you are free to join if you pay for the pass otw you pay on an individual basis though there are several other methods that could work. Idk how effective credit/debit card system is though for kyc

[rose bane]

As far as higher percentage rewards back to users that can also just be do you want to join this $20 or $100 entry fee tournament and higher fee tournament the DAO takes a smaller percentage so more goes back to the winners

I wonder if reaction would be better overall if kyc was effectively done through epic games or not.. Basically the value of their rep and peoples trust in them vs. a new web3 studio

[granite spear]

Good ideas here,
But i would catch the rewards system from much more a gaming perspective, rather than financial motivation only.
Come check my thread, just posted.
Maybe they should merge the 2 and get the perfect combo 🙂

[foggy crystal]

I like this idea.

Something like a "Ranking pass" that acts as a monthly subscription and not only allows you to receive ranking rewards, but also allows you to participate in average tier tournaments for free.

High tier tournaments should be payant for everyone despite the "Ranking pass".

This generates additional revenue that could be used to increase ranking rewards and suck out less revenue from revdis.

[sick storm]

Does KYC really solve the problem from people having multiple accounts for grinding rewards in leaderboard?
I'm not really a social person, and i could easely pull 10 people setting up accounts for me which i could play afterwards.
I feel it doesn't really solve the problem except from people not be able to have hundreds of accounts, which is very unlikely anyways due to a player can only play 24h a day.

[terse sphinx]

Your people are more trusting than mine maybe, I don't think anyone I know would want me to use their information for creating and playing accounts. In the scenario you're describing, the problem isn't solved, but the person utilizing those accounts is also clearly in the wrong by doing so.

I do still think that designing systems that are compatible with decentralized access makes the most sense to me.

[sleek moss]

I'll join Dr.Spoon in questioning the effectiveness of KYC in preventing multiple accounts. Back in the day I used to have 5 computers each with it's own persona and separate internet access for farming casino bonuses. Worked like a charm.

A well thought-out reward system could incentivise people to grind one account, imo. The game looks great, we should attract a decent size pool of talented people, so no easy grinding to the top levels on multiple accounts. We all have just 24 hours in a day. And if the rewards are top heavy (as they usually are), spiced up with unique NFT rewards for each season (we are in the perfect position to offer these), it would make more sense for a good enough player to multi account to focus on grinding his/her one account higher in order to score the rarer rewards.

Lastly, is KYC even available in all countries? I don't know, maybe it is, but if it's not, we surely would not want players from poorer countries not being able to get prizes due to lack of KYC support for them.

[mortal barn]

I heard you can buy ID from palau

if a top players really want to game the system, im sure the person can buy IDs

It may affect US citizen too

[foggy crystal]

I agree with this entire post.

[rose bane]

Maybe just have a clause that says if you are found to run multiple accounts in a tournament ‘assuming we don’t want double, triple, etc entries’ as hard as that could honestly be to do already, you forfeit all rights to prize money and depending on findings may be subject to repossession of former prize winnings.

As said for general ranking ladder from seasonal/weekly etc pvp if the game is popular enough it will be extremely hard for one individual to get multiple accounts in top rankings and really if they are willing to put that much effort in then more power to em and thanks for buying multiple peoples worth of illuvials… Hypothetically if needed you can add a system that restricts illuvials transferred or sold even within say the last hour to be used right away on a new account for pvp and tournaments. Basically to help enforce that they are at least capturing illuvials enough for two players at which point they’ve supported the DAO enough to maybe cut some slack. Maybe…

Just a little scare tactic to keep everyone honest and help ensure prizes are getting spread out to more players that have earned it.

[terse sphinx]

There's no way to repossess winnings, and it would be disingenuous to imply that there is. We can do better than trying to scare people into behaving in a convenient way.

[rose bane]

Then this seems like a mute point really and we should just let players do as they please unless they find a way to actually cheat in the game. That outcomes fine with me too

[rose bane]

Legally there is always a way but I agree that it leaves a bad taste in the mouth to do so.

[terse sphinx]

More about efficacy and morality than legality. What are we going to do, use someone's wallet address to track them down and start a lawsuit against them for breaking T&C? That seems like a lot of effort, cost and bad PR when compared to just designing systems that make sense when people can have multiple wallets.

[rose bane]

Realistically speaking, depending on what we have set up or not for verifying that someone isn’t playing multiple accts there are only so many options that have harsh enough consequences to keep people from doing it. For little prize money it might not matter to anyone much at all but larger scales could potentially ruffle feathers if a couple people are taking multiple top spots in rankings and somehow official big tournaments.

Again don’t really mind if they do or not, just depends on what the DAO wants. You could certainly attempt to ban their acct, ip, wallet from entering the game for a year or so though as mentioned they might still get in again regardless using various methods.

It really does feel like a lot of hassle though so not entirely worth the effort to go hardcore anti multi accting. Restricted illuvial use on transfers would be plenty if needed at all

[slow gale]

No

This will cloud the metrics and mess with the development of the game. Before throwing gasoline on the fire you need to be sure the fire is well made

[foggy crystal]

No.

[slow gale]

Not that it doesn’t have a place - just premature-to-the-point-of-being-destructive imo

[foggy crystal]

Got it sir, thanks for the clarification. You could be right 👍🏻

[mortal stirrup]

I wonder if light kyc, like phone number attached to account. Or small hurdles like voting currently, must be ilv staked to participate in rewards.

Or as stated above illuvials are not allowed to compete in the same tournament/event with a different user (maybe a badge could be attached to each illuvial for each season for the marketplace)

I feel the DAO should go light handed or manual verification for larger tournaments at first and develop or partner into a more robust decentralized DID/KYC

I always hoped the DAO could lead the way and perhaps fund such projects in the future as need arises. Take the Valve route started out as a successful game studio and created steam when the identified a need in the market.

[rose bane]

This is actually interesting and just popped a thought in my head... You literally register your illuvials for your team to your acct/wallet when entering a tournament so they can't be used by someone else until it ends. Boom now even if you run multiple accts you can't just swap back and forth and have to capture enough illuvials to make your teams so if you want to use the same team for whatever reason you have to have enough copies. This can work for regular season rankings too potentially and just like you said mark it on the marketplace that the illuvial is already bound to an acct for the season or even don't let them sell it on the marketplace if that is possible/necessary... At a minimum set the marketplace to automatically filter out bound illuvials by default so nobody who wants to use the illuvial for the arena/tournament right away gets one that can't be used... @vestal prairie What are your thoughts on doing something like this? I feel like it's a pretty solid idea that at a minimum ensures people aren't just sending their teams from one acct/wallet to the next. Would increase total overworld travels and captures at the very least if they go for it.

[sleek moss]

"Small hurdles like voting or staked ILV"?? We want mass adoption ser, for most people those are no small hurdles at all...

[thorn summit]

1 miillion is egual with 100 million today's price

[foggy crystal]

I like this 💯🤝🏻 it might need a bit of refinement, but the core idea is very interesting

[shrewd abyss]

If they are willing to have leaderboard and rewards for Beyond, i'm almost certain they will already have plans to implement the same in Arena.
Either way, I 100% support the proposal for that to be the case.

[rose bane]

it's already been confirmed coming, just how is the question

[shrewd abyss]

Good stuff! 👍

[frozen fossil]

How and when.