Silv2 removal and swap facility

[open valve]

Hey all,

I look at the supply of SILV2 circa 70k and worry that will all this game credit, unless we are hyper successful with player counts and spending we will struggle to turn a profit enough to cover overheads long enough at our current burn rate and runway to onboard the number of users nessesary to make it work.

The issue is SILV2's value scales with the tokens success so although at current pricing that 70k is around 7.7million of sales, if we had a token price of 1k it's 70million.

That's a lot of revenue for us to miss either side of the pricing and in between.

I think we need to have a serious talk as a DAO about this issue and how to tackle it.

I think having a swap facility back into ILV 1:1 with a vested lock would work.

Many reasons for how and why it can be done that way.

I think of this as an opportunity for us to eliminate that scalable debt now before we launch and the issue gets bigger and bigger.

I personally stacked SILV2 between 20-30 and 40 in the view of never spending ETH

As is our right, however if the game and project is to succeed we should not be selfish and ultimately do what is in the best interest of the project as a whole.

I understand completely this will be an emotional topic, I am internally conflicted about this also as I planned well and want to use the credit. However my decisions impact the health of the project and I am happy to fall on my sword for the project to have the best chance of success.

I am open to everyone's opinions as always pros and cons.

As above I am merely suggesting a swap line. Not eliminating SILV2 completely. However that possibility should also be discussed.

[night magnet]

Wouldnt that introduce a big dump on ILV short/medium term? People buying silv2 for a discount, swapping for ilv, selling ilv, buying silv2 etc etc

[lilac spruce]

The ILV tokens would be locked for a period of time. Ideally 6+ months

[night magnet]

Either way if that is introduced, im selling all my ilv, buying silv2 and swapping back to ilv, thats the steps right. I guess low liquidity on the pair is a gatelock

[lilac spruce]

Yah the liquidity issues on SILV2 blocks it

[open valve]

For sure the liqudity in the pool is a hurdle, one that would need to be explored.

[muted wind]

This is such a great point, I wish I could be more helpful in the discussion but I do worry about this. Especially if these are the numbers we are talking. I hope the SILV2 gets burned up fast.

[open valve]

Please leave a thumbs up/down ❤️

[slim oyster]

There's no liquidity in the pool atm. Currently if you try buy 1000 usdc of SILV2 you only get 11 or so silv2.

[quartz smelt]

That's a lot of revenue loss.
Is there a way people could get extra rewards for swapping and staking for the sacrifice?
Could more than 6months be an option?

[inland yarrow]

There even is 6m worth of sILV2 in the IMX wallet already

[dark grove]

I'd like to put a light on another problem. sILV2 is requiring developer attention. It's costing money to have it. And in time as supply goes lower and lower it'll be less and less feasible to spend the development time to support it. And if we're going to drop it eventually, why not drop it sooner and save the work?

[weak pagoda]

Burn the sILV2

[quartz smelt]

Can someone explain what the point of SILV2 was/is and what is the benefit of having it versus not.
Does it only the revenue it affects?

[slim oyster]

I am a big fan of this proposal even as someone who has been stacking SILV2 in preperation for the game. Silv2 poses too much of a risk of lost revenue for the DAO to keep the game running. If the token price rises and say we had a 200-300 ilv price, with just 2-3 silv2 you could pretty much play the game for free/no revenue gain for the DAO. A 1:1 token swap would elimate this, and if there was some form of lock up (e.g. 6 months to a year) then that would elimate some short term self pressure (although again i don't see this as an issue, a low token price on OB launch means for more ILV disturbed to the dao and stakers.)

However I do not think this ILV should come from the treasury. What i'd like to know from the team is how much effort this could be. Can we just turn off silv2 claim buttom and use on the dex and do we have access to the ilv in the "burn" wallet to "unburn" it and use for the swap? Wishful thinking it'd be that easy but would be great for the team to elaborate

[dark grove]

A huge concern is that yield is ending in June and I think it will be impossible to implement this before that.

[inland yarrow]

Plan was to launch the game after 1 year. So all staked tokens would still be locked.
You could claim sILV2 to use in-game instead of ETH and lower the potential max supply of ILV.

[muted wind]

I forgot about that

[sudden citrus]

Im in favor of the proposal. Waiting to know the feasibility of un-burning ILV tokens.

[muted wind]

Oh shit. No way.

[quartz smelt]

Lol okay. It's still above my head. Does that mean there was more Silv distribution than was planned?
To check I understand, In regards to the proposal it benefits illuvium in general, as it takes away the risk of lost revenue, yet may be difficult for those who have a lot and were going to use it in the game?

[muted wind]

Part of me feels like the silv2 will get chewed through super fast in the first few weeks after launch

[weak pagoda]

How about we do a burn 🔥

[nimble crest]

Isn’t this proposal only for people with a lot of sILV that want it be worth a bit more? I don’t see the other side.

I don’t get what is so bad about sILV?

[inland yarrow]

Would love to hear @untold marlin his opinion on this. He did mention in the past he would like to get rid of sILV2

[quartz smelt]

I remember that too.

[tribal anchor]

This means the ILV holders missout on would be revenue

The revenue missed is directly proportional to the ILV value

[quartz smelt]

@open valve
I'm all for it, if it equates to the viability of the game.

I wish I understood the token stuff more yet I need the dumb downed version.

[open valve]

Silv2 value scales with ILVs value as game credit. For every silv2 spent it's missed revenue for the project. The issue is small the cheaper the token, the higher the token gets the bigger the issue.

[weak pagoda]

I am against a swap if the concern is sILV2 taking revenue away. Burn 🔥 the rest of the supply outside of the holders.
This will push the price of sILV2 up close to ILV as it will become very limited supply

Holders will get the upside and the total circulation will drop

I am for doing something rather than nothing

[tribal anchor]

ILV token vs. Revenue basically
Personally I still think I'm leaning token value accrual instead of revenue optimization

[open valve]

In my opinion silv2 as an idea was built around an earlier game launch. I don't think we ever planned on having such a large supply ahead of game launch.

[tribal anchor]

Game launch may bleed silv2 a lot as players try to get ahead first

[quartz smelt]

Can you explain what you mean by token value accrual, as opposed to revenue distribution?

[tribal anchor]

Converting silv2 back to ILV technically dilutes ILV

[quartz smelt]

Is that the revenue loss Josh is talking about?

[lilac spruce]

With Josh's proposal ilv token would drop in price

[quartz smelt]

So if I understand right, it's adding more tokens?

[open valve]

How so? You can't sell the ILV swapped.

[lilac spruce]

You can eventually

[quartz smelt]

I'm guessing that would only be temporary. What is the estimated increase in supply?

[inland yarrow]

Something big to keep in mind is how long this would take the blockchain team to build this

[open valve]

Yeah eventually but that doesn't equate to a drop in price. Those tokens could be locked for rev dis or held.

[tribal anchor]

It's a little more complicated than just a direct relationship to my understanding, but basically the ILV token price would go down, but the revenue from ILV as a whole would be higher because of this.

[quartz smelt]

Thank you.

[open valve]

Higher revenue, more buybacks, higher token price.

[slim oyster]

Probably be outweighed though by the extra revenue / purchasing pressure from eth -> ilv

[quartz smelt]

Thanks Josh.

[tribal anchor]

This is only for silv2 in, circulation though

[echo herald]

The current status is that sILV2 is a token that is practically worthless because the pool is so small that it can’t really be sold.

Later on, sILV2 will be able to be used to purchase fuel, but that is maybe 4 months away.

When Open Beta launches some people will have more free fuel than they could use in a lifetime, but no way of selling the sILV2 or the surplus fuel? (Not certain about this point).

If the above is true, the impact on the future revenue is significantly overstated. A large part of the sILV2 is held by traders who thought that they could make a big profit buying cheap sILV2 and now realise that there is a big flaw in the plan. The sILV2 owned by those traders will just sit in their wallets inert. Not affecting much.

If fuel can’t be sold on a market and if the sILV2 pool doesn’t revive itself.

If all of the above is correct, do nothing.

The traders took a risk and their gamble failed. That’s just bad luck.

[quartz smelt]

Yes it would be good to get an understanding of that as soon as possible.

[tribal anchor]

You're probrably not wrong there, but it does require user action, and I think this favors more sophisticated investors (you might be a little biased 😉)

[night magnet]

Also where will the ILV that is swapped for silv2 come from? Unburned? From the treasury?

[lilac spruce]

This is a big point.

[tribal anchor]

I'm still a little confliced on this

[inland yarrow]

There is also sILV2 on L1 and L2, where do you build this

[lilac spruce]

Its something where I would want to see exact numbers and ideas rather than something vague before making a decision

[quartz smelt]

So are you saying the amount of game time they can play for 'free' won't equate to much and that the swap will be more of a benefit to the those receiving ILV, kind of like extra tokens than they would have gotten if they chose ilv instead of silv? Then this being more of a benefit to the holder rather than the revenue loss for illuvium? As the ilv token is worth more and has higher tradability?

[night magnet]

I think keep everything as is, people will make a lot of unprofitable decisions early on, and waste a lot of silv2 for travelling, and losing a lot of value on their unoptimized actions, especially if it's "free" money. With eth ppl would be more cautious

[echo herald]

There are a few assumptions in my post that would need to be confirmed.

But yes.

I don’t see why we should help sILV2 traders out of their own bad trade by giving them money.

[quartz smelt]

Okay thanks.

I think I would like to see this go to the next stage.

[lilac spruce]

There are also other ways for the team to generate more runway to offset the loss of revenue from SILV2 travel purchases

[night magnet]

How about introduce silv2 tournaments, ppl chip in silv2, lets say 0.5 silv2 per entry, winners get 90%, 10% burned

[echo herald]

The big thing is

1. Confirming that fuel will not be tradable on an open market.
2. That the sILV2 pool won’t or can’t be revived.

[night magnet]

no cost to the DAO, effective silv2 burning, an event for willing community participants to engange in the game

[kindred lark]

I like this idea. No dev cost or time.

[oblique vapor]

I don't think sILV2 should have ever existed. Adding another layer of complexity on top of an already weird unnecessary thing is a no go IMO.

[tribal anchor]

Should revenue become an issue we could limit the discound from sliv2. Perhaps you can only use a percentage of silv2, so now it costs less ETH.

I think it's really import to remember that in-game value will be relevant, and silv2 is just a way for ILV stakers to gain some sort of small advantage in game, which is heavily incentivised early-on.

[quartz smelt]

So your saying just leave it?

[oblique vapor]

Yeah, the damage is already done.

[open valve]

Not really mate the damage would be 10-70m of credit in the market the project somehow needs to absorb.

[echo herald]

Or it would be 10 - 70m of credit concentrated in a few wallets, where the owners of those wallets effectively get a lifetime supply of free fuel.

I don’t mind if 100 or however many big sILV2 traders there are, get to do as many Overworld runs as they like.

[oblique vapor]

So making another pivot would be better? If I was a new person and I came in here and saw sILV, then a hack, then a sILV2, then a card "game" cash grab, a marketing vendor email hack, then finally a sILV2->ILV pivot I would say to myself wtf are these people doing.

[open valve]

Possibly. However likely it will be used by the majority of the people who are aware of silv2 and it's use within the project aka us. Myself included in one wallet I have like 100k worth of silv2 I wouldn't spend a penny on the game if this is the case. Many would only need like 4 silv2 if the token price moves up and pricing for fuel is as cheap as discussions want.

[echo herald]

How would those majority of people buy sILV2 without a pool?

If you have spent $100k on fuel credits, I think everybody is fine with you having a lifetime free overworld runs.
You can’t sell your sILV2 so it’s the least we can do to thank a big donor. 😉

If we think there is an issue here.

1 Make sure that the sILV2 pool stays dead.
2 Make sure fuel is ‘soul bound’.

[oblique vapor]

Don't you feel that's justified being a huge early supporter and going through 2 years of delays, a email hack, a silv hack etc?

[open valve]

I don't think we are entitled to anything. Sometimes hard decisions need to be made for the health and prosperity of the project. If we are reimbursed via ILV 1:1 then I don't lose but the project wins.

[echo herald]

You win massively,

[open valve]

You claimed an silv2 instead of an ILV. Doing the reverse process nets me nothing more than the alternative asset.

[echo herald]

I’m not saying you are trying to pull a fast one. This is a well intentioned proposal.

I just think you have significantly underestimated how screwed large sILV2 holders might be.

[open valve]

It does however give the potential for more revenue.

[lilac spruce]

I agree that getting more revenue might be necessary for the teams runway. But there are also other options if people don't approve of this.

[echo herald]

Go ahead and sell your sILV2 on the market right now.

I’m pretty sure you won’t get anything like the equivalent value of 1:1 ILV price.

Would you even get 40%?

[lilac spruce]

I'm sure he could make deals to sell batches

[echo herald]

But who would buy an asset that doesn’t have a market?

[open valve]

Nothing stops me selling OTC to a guild or larger player with the intention of running scholarships. These silv2 tokens still get absorbed at a big cost to revenue

[echo herald]

That is true.

[open valve]

Likewise I could run my own pool and offer people discount credit for profit.

[twilit lake]

Thank you Josh for this proposal. Once again you bring impact to the DAO in a positive way.

My summarized opinion is that this move is clearly worth it on the mid-long run as sILV is a nuisance that will get bigger as we grow.

Better to deal with it now to get rid of it at a lower cost than to kick it down the road and pay sILV maintenance cost & a higher tax later when ILV token price is much higher.

As to the "shorterm" downward pressure. This can easily be dealt with 1-year vesting. Additionally, bear in mind that sILV liquidity is so low that it's PA will very rapidly equate to ILV token levels. So not much speculation will happen since the prices will equilibrate super fast.

[polar oak]

This seems like a proposal without any downside if the lock is same as current staking. Only thing might be work, but that would be a consideration for a later stage I would say.

[twilit lake]

Additionally, getting rid of sILV will increase the revdis power. So for those looking solely on their own interest, deleting sILV is a good move.

Either for the DAO's success or individual investor's success. This seems a good move.

I also would love to know founders opinion on this matter as it is significantly relevant @untold marlin @fickle flicker @scenic rover

[echo herald]

Valid alternatives but I assume neither would result in a 1:1 trade, and both would require some amount of time and effort to achieve.

However if it ends up coming down to haggling about the sILV2 to ILV conversion rate, then that is something that is best left to the council to discuss.

[open valve]

Like I said in the proposal the mechanics on how it can be done need thinking about, but even if this is not THE solution. I hope we can see the potential revenue issue this causes and find a way to minimize this.

[tender reef]

Thanks for the idea Josh.

There are a few things about sILV2:

1. sILV2 is the alternative staking reward to a 12-months vesting ILV token.
   I personally claim sILV2 as an exit liquidity. e.g. Claim sILV2 -> mint plots -> sell for ETH.

2. sILV2 is never intended to be traded. The sILV2/ETH pool on uniswap is not official.

3. By my calculation, assuming I claim staking reward quarterly, the effective apr is 63% of the displayed apr. To me, sILV2 should be priced at 63% ratio to ILV price.

4. I do agree with Josh that sILV2 is to be treated as accounts payable. The Team has already provided 3 ways to use sILV2, they are IZ mint, D1sk mint and ingame use.

[slim oyster]

Can you elaborate on point 3 a bit more? Seems those who claimed silv2 to use in game over claiming ilv then are at a 33% loss with that ratio

[tender reef]

The value of sILV2 is always 1:1, but the market price of sILV2 may or may not be 1:1.

[weak pagoda]

The market price is lower

[tender reef]

Taking cosideration 12-months vesting period for claiming ILV reward

[weak pagoda]

lets just burn 🔥 all remaining sILV2 that the treasury' holds

This will float all boats

[open valve]

Issue isn't quite the silv2 yet to be claimed more the massive amount already in circulation.

[weak pagoda]

What's the numbers idk

[open valve]

Circa 70k I think

[weak pagoda]

And the treasury holds

[echo herald]

Converting sILV2 back into ILV at a ratio of something like 1 : 0.7 would give the sILV2 traders a bit of profit, without feeling excessive, but as I noted above, the exact ratio is something probably best left to the council to discuss.

I would be very against a 1:1 conversion.

Although to be honest, if I was sitting on a big pile of sILV2 right now, shouting at myself for being such an idiot, I would be a massive supporter of this proposal. 😏

[open valve]

I spoke to @dense vapor and @lyric nest a couple of days ago beforehand. I think it will be discussed at least.

[tender reef]

We can always sell more jpegs

[open valve]

The JPEGs have been a ridiculously genius product to absorb supply. I can't imagine what the supply would of been like without it.

[tender reef]

imagine 300K of sILV2 still in circulation, land owners gonna have to hold on to their fuels for awhile

[quartz smelt]

I see it that, large SILV2 holders would now have to spend in order to get the higher tier illuvials, which will be in demand when the game comes out. I've thought about the demographics a lot and I think the time period of high spending on this game is limited. Once we transition to a wider audience outside of crypto natives, the whole game will change. Like in 2 + 3 years after launch.
I think it's okay for whales to gain from their investments. Making sure the token is locked avoids potential abuse.
So maybe the middle ground is 1 year staking minimum.

[tender reef]

I can imagine how large sILV2 holders are going to have an issue. i don't believe they are going to play OW that much. the sILV2/ETH pool has very low liquidity.

we do have a plan to sell more plots

[tiny bison]

Its an interesting proposal. One thing you haven't taken into consideration is the psychology of it all. If silv2 wasn't included then do you think illuvium would have sold 70m worth of land in a sale? Definitely not.

Because of the way it is earned many see it as 'monopoly money' in a certain sense. What this could actually do is stimulate the initial spend into playing the game and make sure we don't alienate the early supporters and get a large initial playerbase, then keeping those that enjoy the game as they eventually spend eth.

Ultimately I see this a bit differently. People have 3 reasons to claim silv2.

1. They don't want to wait for lock
2. They want to play the game
3. They think it'll increase in price

In my experience very few people will even know they can use silv2 within the ecosystem and it'll only be used by the stakers.

Although I'm not sure burning or removing silv2 would be the right answer I don't mind the idea of a swap option but it definitely shouldn't be 1:1. I have spent 3 years claiming ilv because silv2 has no guarantee of giving me my value back, I'd be pretty ribbed if that was changed and I locked tokens for no reason.

A 0.9:1 or worse could be good.

[open valve]

I'd say we could use examples of disk sales and probably up the expected usage of silv2. Use that as a base for confluence.

[tender reef]

Christmas skins for sILV2 only

[tiny bison]

The only other thing is we don't have the full details of how silv2 will be used in the game. You cannot use silv2 to buy fuel at all. Whether or not that still prevents specific ingame actions is anyone's guess. Without that information I would be nervous to vote on this

[open valve]

Not opposed to silv2 only sales for sure. But I doubt sales can absorb that much supply pre launch.

[open valve]

Hopefully some of the team can answer some of those questions. Excuse the random tag gents.

@untold marlin @fickle flicker @scenic rover @final oxide

[tender reef]

it is highly likely going to be used as an alternative to fuel. just like how we use them as an alternative to ETH in the land sale

[tiny bison]

No my understanding is quite different. Eg u can buy shards for silv2 directly. Whereas you'd be crafting them using fuel normally. So the dao is sort of like a special silv2 vendor.

But things like illuvial fusion may use fuel. U cannot substitute an action like that can u?

[tender reef]

it's just replacing fuel use. but ill read the IIP again

[bronze jolt]

1. Indeed there will be much less revenue at the start because of silv2 this is also a concern of mine this also means no RD and no buying pressure.

2. Illuviums OW assets will quickly drop in value because of this as @tender reef said people will also use this as exit liquidity if they can get a bit more money than simply sell silv2.

3. Silv2 will explode in price once the game is out and we have no more staking rewards.

I can t see a benefit with converting silv2 to ILV with a lock. People who wanted to ILV took the rewards as ILV.

Also we should stop making decisions which can hurt and upset investors and buyers (beyond reference) which planned to spend silv2 in the game. But as I understood @open valve only wants to make a coversion to ILV possible. But 1:1 is not possible even with a lock in my opinion we would all use this to empty the liquidity pool and get those sweet ILV.

I think we better concentrate to finalize the game asap and burn these silv2 asap and make the team additional work which in the end will just move RD to selling pressure later.

[tiny bison]

But you all know me. I don't like going back on existing promises. I know this could be impactful on the DAO. But these contracts are binding and changing them halfway through to try fix your other mistakes is a bad look. At some point people lose trust in the decentralisation altogether

[open valve]

I'm in the same boat however, like I said I doubt when they introduced SILV the plan was to launch so late.

Now silv2 is a headache it was never meant to be.

[tiny bison]

I guess the other thing is u r essentially unburning ilv. Which isn't great

[slim oyster]

Just btw the liquidity pool is already pretty much unusable due to low liquidity.

[tiny bison]

As I said. It's Monopoly money. Because liquidity is so small it's only real usecase is to spend in the game.

So what happens when u play monopoly, u don't bank Ur money, u dump it on Mayfair. We literally saw T4 lands fly off the shelf. A token with a single usecase gets spent very quickly imo.

[open valve]

I just know this scalable debt hanging over us and our prospects in revenue is a real problem.

[tiny bison]

Let me phrase it this way. Even if u use silv2 as a proxy to obtain a lot of illuvials etc. That just incentivises more trading volume which is more eth royalties. I feel like it all balances out

[open valve]

You'd still net those royalties sure but the missed revenue from the use of silv2 highly doubtful.

Maybe they put a use by date on silv2 so it's used early and not held until token has reached Valhalla.

However than would amplify the short term issue and you'd need to swallow that in the short term revenue is lower but as the games success rises in players supply of silv2 isn't as much an issue and revenue higher.

[bronze jolt]

Hopefully not devaluing land befor it s needed. Another land sale would upset me as a land holder a lot. The Beyond decrease in price and the new extension already devalued many of our assets. If problems will always be solved with milking our little community this would lead to many of us and especially the whales spending significantly less.

[tender reef]

NFTs dillution is a problem too

[echo herald]

If the proposal was changed to a 1 : 0.7 ratio I could support it, but not at 1:1.

Tbh it’s not clear that doing something about the reduction in fuel sales is worth all the issues that changing the tokenomics again, could cause.

[open valve]

The technicals are completely up for discussion mate. I think you could do 1:1 with a long lock but if you want a 6 month vest or lower then less ILV per SILV2.

[tender reef]

Josh can I suggest presenting this idea with some calculation.
Maybe make assumptions of sILV2 value vs estimated revenue.
e.g. revenue is forecasted to be $10m/month, with ILV price at $xxxx, the dao could potentially missing ?? months of revenue

and how it can affect runway

[quartz smelt]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, yet wasn't the idea for silv to disappear eventually anyway?

[echo herald]

If implementing this idea causes Open Beta to be further delayed, that itself could have a negative impact on revenue, as other games launch and take market share.

[open valve]

Beta should for sure not be delayed by anything.

[tender reef]

maybe they can use framework's contract, it was locked for 2 years without revdis

[untold marlin]

Where actions cost fuel, there will be the option to spend sILV2 instead.

I’m against this proposal, for what it is worth. I don’t think this is awful or anything. I just don’t think it solves anything. Giving people the option to dilute ILV with the upside of more revdis is zero sum. The revdis in the long run won’t change.

Also we can’t force people to do this.

We just need to have a cut off at some point where sILV2 will no longer be possible to use as fuel. This needs to be done carefully, we don’t want to stop the utility of sILV2. The whole point of it was to reduce ILV supply. But in some medium term with a long warning we would (as a DAO) say that sILV2 won’t be useful any more.

I’m just one person though. I’ve said I’m happy to hear other ideas on this. I could be wrong.

[open valve]

Firstly thanks for checking it out and giving some feedback. If you are to put a cut off point for sILV2 usage for fuel should we not get the ball rolling, discussion wise at least now priror to the game launch when people may of positioned or claimed sILV2 with the intention of running a larger operation i.e a guild.

[untold marlin]

The idea would be it can’t be super early. People should be able to use sIlv2 for a reasonable amount of time. It’s just a matter of what is reasonable. I think most that have sILV2 will want to use it early anyway, so it shouldn’t be too contentious.

[open valve]

I mean I think that would be best, likely the value of the sILV2 would be lower the earlier it's used.

If this is the direction you want to go with it then perhaps we can use this thread also to hash this out and get some feedback on what reasonable is.

[untold marlin]

As I said I’m happy to hear ideas. There’s nothing that says I’m right about this. But if others agree then sure, talking about a reasonable cutoff would be productive.

[open valve]

I would say I agree you can't force it, however if you implemented a cut off time and also had the swap line in place it would likely pull some of the excess oversupply in the market back into ILV at a locked vest.

I can't see how that wouldn't result in higher potential revenue, you directly eliminate supply.

Less possible sILV2 used,more ETH used, higher real revenue,revdis etc.

You could have the locked tokens swapped exempt from rev dis.

I think a combined solution would work well just my thoughts.

[untold marlin]

Eventually those tokens need to be able to be staked. Which means that rev dis is diluted. It’s zero sum.

And it’s a decent chunk of work. I would just say I don’t feel that work is going to be worth it.

[night magnet]

#1183341350624702525 message some variation of this is probably the best to passively burn silv2 and increase engagement in the game, no?

[open valve]

Yes but at that point, revenue and player base will have likely matured to the point of sustainability.

With the current runway and oversupply of sILV2 we can't really afford a least in my view to absorb so much zero sum revenue (ofc I could be wrong, I would love that)

I just feel like we will be fighting big headwinds after going live, yeah we have the tailwind of the game actually being live but met with sILV2 headwind. Revenue will be much lower than it could be.

Sure those tokens get staked eventually but you've successfully kicked the can down the road to a point in which we can handle that IMO.

I wouldn't know how much work it is to get something in place, both cost and time.

If this method is not feasible due to that fact, then I'm eager to look for alternatives that are not just sell more stuff.

[valid pier]

@open valve wow an idea to remove SILV2 --- wonder if anyone has thought of that before ----
#1042292304028897321 message

You can see how well that idea went over-- but then it could have just been because it was suggested by me

@inland yarrow violin emoji really?

[vast fjord]

I think it all depends on how much players we manage to gain during first six months. If the playerbase grows to a healthy number, combined with the early rush to catch illuvials, that should get rid of most of the silv2 supply way before token price reaches 1k, limiting the net zero sum to 10-15 mil.

Furthermore chances of new players not knowing or caring for silv2 are also there. It all depends how fast we grow.

I'm not sure about the swapping. It's like a band aid to fix a short term problem by lowering long term efficiency.

I like the idea of silv2 tournaments, should be done early. Maybe some other silv burning mechanisms like d1sks, emotes etc that are sold strictly with silv and will be kind of limited.

If we get successful launch it will mostly solve by itself rather fast. If not it will be nice to have some back up strategy already in place.

[open valve]

Although Christmas skins for sILV2 is a banger who doesn't love CHRISTMAS ⛄

[vast fjord]

I'm a big fan of introducing skins but team not so much

Xmas battleboard skin would be fire tho

[deep willow]

I don’t see how either of these can be true. They are all going to be erc20 tokens. It may not be easy or profitable but it’s definitely possible.

[deep willow]

Land owners will learn to hate sILV2

[deep willow]

Treasury holds no sILV2. All the sILV2 that was paid to illuvium will be burnt. There’s no recirculation.

[deep willow]

This is made by the team. sILV2 replaced fuels.

[deep willow]

You are always a man ahead of your time.

ideas bloom too soon,
lonely visionary's quest,
tomorrow's echoes

[eager ridge]

I am thoroughly against this idea for several reasons

1. this will take a bunch of extra backend dev time that we cannot afford right now tbh

2. this will be bad optics imo

3. its not as big a deal as its being made out to be, everyone holding sILV2 either is holding it with the intention to spend it in-game or to speculate on its re-sale value, that is their prerogative, adding the option to lock sILV2 for a year to turn it into ILV is wholly unnecessary, even if ILV is at $1k and thats 70 mil in-game that isn’t a serious issue as we do not advertise sILV2 or its secondary market and new players will be funnelled into spending ETH or USDC or such, if we ONLY have players wishing to spend sILV2 and no one spending actual cash then that is a massive failure of our marketing efforts and is a massive sign that no one outside of our investor community is actually interested in our game, and if thats the case we’re screwed even if there was no sILV2… so imo lets work on having a quality product that is well marketed rather than messing with a token thats been long ago instantiated…

4. even if we add this option I believe that almost no one would use it, once the game comes out the price of sILV2 will tend towards that of ILV once more (as occured when illuvitars first launched) so anyone locking their sILV2 to turn it into ILV would be complete and utter chumps when instead they could just hold their sILV2 until game launch and then sell it for near ILV price and exchange it for already unlocked ILV if that is their wish…

5. if you do create this option there will still be those who are interested in taking it, those who currently hold sILV2 gain this benefit immediately if they wish to use it and those who find out about it first before sILV2 price rises to account for this new option will also benefit initially, idk to me that whole thing is kinda messy

6. this proposal slightly screws over ILV stakers who will have their revdis eligibility slightly diluted by those staking sILV2 to turn it into ILV, this is a minor issue but also a real one since it genuinely undermines our tokenomics and investor expectations

Info
sILV2 price rn = $65
ILV price rn = $107
sILV2 is 60% of ILV price currently

(Also sILV2 is highly illiquid currently)

[deep willow]

While I do like the idea of a sILV2 to ILV conversion, this is probably not the best idea that we can find to implement. The blockchain dev work and the change to tokenomics being the most significant factors for me. More sinks is the way to go. It seems best if these sinks have as little impact to the game economy as possible (jpgs, cosmetics, etc.)

[eager ridge]

I mean Illuvium Beyond is exactly that, as was the land sale and as will be future land sales (bet loads of that sILV2 is waiting for land sale 2.0 as well)

[eager ridge]

I do get where this proposal is coming from though
it gives those wanting to turn their sILV2 back into ILV a way to do so, which removes sILV2 from existence meaning it cant be spent in-game and instead ETH will have to be spent which increases revenue we earn from game and therefore runway so that this project has longer legs and more chance of long term success

Its just an option you want to add, you’re not changing the utility of sILV2 for those wishing to keep it in that form of course

So I defo get where this proposal is coming from and why someone might support it

I’m just personally against it for the reasons I’ve stated above

[deep willow]

More things that will add to the success of the already available sinks. ||Slipping in the idea of spending stable coin is noticed. 😄||

I can’t wrap my mind around how the increase in ILV staked would be a wash revenue wise. In my head the numbers don’t make sense.

I guess part of the reality is that much of the sILV2 that has been spent and will be spent would not necessarily be replaced as eth spent if that sILV2 was unusable.

[eager ridge]

If we don’t accept stable coin and only accept ETH then we’re making a massive mistake especially when IMX still doesnt have a built in DEX and the fastest way to swap your tokens that are on IMX involve 24hr withdrawals and a ton of heart ache lol

[open valve]

10s of millions of revenue that the DAO doesnt see is a big issue, specially if fuel prices and deck prices are to be targeted for the low end for mainstream appeal. If a deck is to cost 200-500 in USD terms thats an insane amount of revenue and player base needed to absorb it. sILV2 price is pegged against ILV anyway and what the swap nets you is a return of 1 ILV locked. The market finds the appropriate discount for the swap and vest offered.

[deep willow]

I know your feelings on this. Was just a fun little poke. No worries. There is actually now a thing called immutableswap. But I’ve not used it yet. This reminds me to go ask about it.

[wise totem]

If you switch sILV2 for ILV it's not going to act as a 1:1 neutral exchange it will drive down the price of ILV because you have increased supply in circulation even if they are locked. So your future expectations are for more supply.

I have to thumbs down. It sucks, but we have to pay the piper eventually, better to do it now. Having players able to play more inexpensively using sILV2 may increase l-t player retention and build initial player base. It's the same idea as hooking people with F2P.

[open valve]

Depends on where the ILV comes from. Supply side could be unchanged, also rather added sell pressure potential on the token 12 months later when we can sustain it, the other option is potentially not enough revenue to cover costs and we are forced into a situation of raising again as the sILV2 headwind is making real revenue an issue.

Here's the issue, game goes live. Lower player base circa 50k all spending this 50 a month so 2.5m in revenue after you then do rev dis and then you then add in sILV2 usage even at these levels you really don't do very well.

[kind bison]

This could be added to the automated tournament idea as an alternative entry fee though i think this whole discussion is overstating the value of silv2, an excuse for bad decisions to try and get ilv tokens in exchange, and honestly just people deciding they don’t think ilv will be successful if 7 million is enough to snuff us out.

[open valve]

Its not 7m it scales the higher the token price.

[kind bison]

And you know for certain that ilv will be 500, 700, $1k on launch? If we’re that high the team will be doing/have done a raise already and it won’t matter

[open valve]

For sure not but any amount above and beyond current ILV price yields a higher sILV2 value.

[wise totem]

@open valve I do understand the concern. I just don't think kicking the can down the road in hopes that the economy will be able to handle it later is the best solution.
I would like to see us more creatively burn sILV2 than have it just impacting fuel.
Land owners hold a lot of sILV2 and we should encourage them to use it up - things like being able to speed up production with sILV2 or even aesthetics.
Emote packs purchasable only with sILV2.
sILV2 battleboard skin, purchasable only with sILV2. That would be a real OG collectible to hang on to for the future.
Going along with Shabim's idea, we could do tournaments that cost sILV2 to enter, the winner could get a D1skplate as well as everyone entered into a draw and another random winner getting one.
Yes, these are all costs to the DAO and take time for the team but they would lessen the impact.

[kind bison]

If anything let’s just end the ability to get silv2 as a reward immediately. Don’t let people swap what already exists for ilv, just stop producing more

Simply removing the button from the site would be enough to get most to take ILV

[open valve]

Mate for sure, I am not saying this is THE solution but that was the only way I could think it COULD work. However I am really looking for feedback and other ways we can do something, if the end result of this thread is a solution with a solid plan/answers. Then great we know where we stand, Aaron mentioned above that a timed window of redemption was his idea but what is a fair window is open to discussion.

[wise totem]

Timed window of redemption sounds good at the first read but then you start thinking on it and yeah, what is fair? Especially since from the beginning we were told it could be used in game. It's hard to now say, well, only for a limited time. These things are always complex and I am glad you brought it up.

[tender reef]

it's a great discussion

[deep willow]

Y’all should get ready for sILV2 to die around the end of yield farming. Maybe end of 2024. And I’d think June 30, 2025 at the latest.

These are the three dates that make the most sense to me at first glance.

Just putting it out there to think about.

[quartz smelt]

I support the idea of SILV ending, for some reason I always thought it would. Web3 and decentralization can't keep being a rich person's playground, if you really want mass adoption, and that's how people will see it, that if you have enough capital you can be rewarded for having capital and not have to keep spending the same as others.

I like the dates @deep willow mentioned as ( I imagine) that window will be the time frame the most capital can be gained before the game organically becomes popular ( hopefully) to a mainstream audience. I think it's understandable to think marketing would gain mass adoption before then, yet I don't see any campaign no matter how fabulous, having extreme success.
It takes time for peoples perceptions and attitudes to change.
I do see our main audience as those already native to web3 and those curious, with a slow to fast organic change around if the economy and the game are successful.

[junior seal]

Conflicted to weight in on this one because I'm usually against force changing parameters that were agreed on from the start but the facts remain that we agreed on it under the assumption that the game was going to be released 2 years ago.

Personally I like the idea and change them within a window of time. The problem with this is that I know from past experience that some people are going to miss that window and be affected by it. I give this a 👍to keep the conversation going but this needs a lot more thought and a more specific l possible course of action. I'll give it more thought to see if I can have something more specific

[kind bison]

I don’t really see the few people who have silv2 even knowing what to do with thousands or more dollars worth of in game currency tbh.

It’s going to take an eternity to begin with to burn through all that currency and lots of owners will either sit on it or spread it out to new players one way or another.

If anything it will end up getting more players in through sponsorships or whatever helping to spread word of mouth and getting that axie effect at the start. Cheap advertising ultimately.

The fact you have to play overworld might be the biggest counter to one single individual having all this ‘free’ money as compared to just pulling card packs in one quick go

[quartz smelt]

People can make deals with players to play for them.
The same as land.

[kind bison]

Exactly, get more players through one means or another. More word of mouth, more money flows in

Free currency is a common strategy for mobile games to get initial player counts up and clearly works. You don’t get anywhere fast without sacrificing profits at some level.

[quartz smelt]

Perhaps, yet you would have be Interested or know about the game first.
Untill there is an official scholarship program like the one ploemos has, they're won't be huge advertising.
You also have to take into account how someone not native to this arena would navigate such a thing. You need a wallet and it's based on trust the person you made the deal with will follow through. Unless its an official illuvium scholarship program. Even then o don't see that being super attractive to people who don't already have some idea about web3 games.
Yet I do see how it will gain some traction through word of mouth.

[kind bison]

Well in that regard again it just means silv2 wont be consumed very quickly and shouldn’t have a big impact on sales since so few people have it.

Game success really isn’t dependent on how we handle silv2 so much as getting the masses interested in the game whether they’re already playing web3 games or not. It’s not like ilv investors which hold most the silv2 will empty their pockets en mass to support the game regardless. Just doesn’t make sense to spend a ton of money on a product you hope to see make you money instead, barring the high level players and some game enthusiasts.

So my point is success still relies on people not holding ilv or silv2, if that made any sense. I’m struggling to write this tbh.

[quartz smelt]

A numbers breakdown would be good.

[quartz smelt]

I have a limit in my understanding of investor use for silv. Like it will be sold, or used or useless.
I get the scholarship stuff because I have actively participated in both a no custodial rental program ( from ploemos ) and worked other peoples lands in iz. Trust.
Which a lot of people brought using silv.

I would hope there are people that want to spend. Otherwise from what you say, it makes me think once the silv is gone so are the high spenders.

[final oxide]

Do we think there is a reasonable appetite for a booster packs type of product that costs 2-3x what it would typically cost a player who's actively playing Overworld?

If you've seen those slots games that allow the player to buy features?

[kind bison]

Booster pack appetite for sure but i instantly dont like upselling so much. Bad optics. I also dont know exactly what you refer to off the top of my head

[quartz smelt]

Do you mean illuvials and resources?

Like a crate system you see mmorpgs? Sorry I'm a bit thrown off by the slots analogy.

[deep willow]

Such Booster packs would bypass the play part of overworld and would be just the pay part of overworld. Illuvial, augment, weapon, and armor Drop rates of Booster packs would likely directly influence the prices of the nfts being sold by overworld grinders/players. If the price were not 2x-3x I’d be very concerned about the idea of the value of time and skill being wasted.

Someone would be willing to try their luck. Much like how things work with #🎮〕illuvium-beyond right now.

[kind bison]

I’m only referring to the current pool of investors.

[quartz smelt]

What if any illuvials could only be used for skins, so they would have to be burnt?

[kind bison]

This would make more sense to me if we were a web2 game without a secondary marketplace though i do understand at the same time a pay to advance faster system. So it could work hypothetically though once the market matures i don’t see people buying them much at all

[quartz smelt]

That's what I'm worried about.

[deep willow]

Oh I don’t think I like it. But it does not much matter what I like. I’m not the sort of player that illuvium will be making revenue from. (Not until arena or overworld is in mobile)

[kind bison]

If you think the current pool of investors is our playerbase then it’s as good as saying success is not in our future imo. We either get a lot more players or we have some hard times ahead.

[quartz smelt]

No I don't think they are the player base, I'm referring to them being whales, so maybe some numbers on what whales intend on doing would make it easier to form an opinion. Are you saying whales won't participate in the game economy?

[quartz smelt]

I'm not going to be a big spender myself.

[kind bison]

I’m confused tbh. Whales will participate if they like the game and earning opportunities, I just assume many investors are just that, investors and not players. It’s easier to just invest in a good game that other people spend money on than invest and also play the game risking your money.

[final oxide]

Such a thing would definitely be a premium, yep.

[kind bison]

In your opinion how long do you think it would take for secondary marketplace to make paying such a premium out of the question for almost everyone. The best benefit I see to it is the instant gratification of getting a high iv illuvial or even a holo/dark holo, simply by spending money like any other gacha system and as intended, not having to do overworld runs and beat the illuvials as well as the chance of failing to catch them regardless. So it can work, just have to be careful on pricing it right with sufficiently low yet reasonable odds to entice players while also making sure they are aware of the option to do overworld runs or use secondary market instead.

My thoughts shifted as i wrote that as you may have noticed

[quartz smelt]

Got you. I know a couple that are just investors only.

[kind bison]

I’ll add that my original thoughts way back in time were booster packs/gacha system were a perfectly reasonable system to use since people can spend money faster and it might be less frustrating. However, i gave up on promoting it with how overworld has been set up.

[quartz smelt]

I'm not keen on it, yet if it could be made in a way that produces a positive and it's generally liked I could bend.

[kind bison]

Maybe limit 1 per day or week though my biggest sticking point is not screwing people too hard on pricing. Since you have to pay either way this generation of gamers will probably naturally be drawn to a gacha system more-so than having to labor in the overworld themselves so it will probably work out fine. It wouldn’t be half bad to be able to more or less buy a starting team right at launch and progress faster to get those rare illuvials…. Seeing the scales bouncing back and forth in my head between greed/dao making money faster and players complaining about paying to win/progress.

I’d say in general after thinking it over the general idea is perfectly agreeable to me largely because it’s the standard of today. Make sure those loot tables and drop rates are displayed so the anti loot box association doesn’t get on our asses too much

[final oxide]

I personally am in favor of the idea, I think there is a non-insignificant population of time-poor players that could absolutely pay a premium (these weightings would come from Perry, I won't speculate on multipliers or anything of that nature).

Personally I'd probably do abit of both, play Overworld when time allows but also buy some packs and roll the dice occasionally.

[kind bison]

Agreed, maybe slightly dodging my concerns on secondary market but the sales at launch and every new set would be there without a doubt

Speaking of, I wonder if consistently introducing a couple new illuvials and occasionally a larger batch would be better than always waiting to launch a larger batch. Unless we really do get our Pokemon like story modes and do the updates with each new installment i see no reason to have excessive drouts in additions to roster. It should also make balancing smoother @final oxide

It will also keep spending on travels more consistent

Or our booster packs

[final oxide]

Yeah I like that

Also, I'd think that the 'Booster Pack' feature would be dropped 1-2+ weeks after launch

To maintain that initial gameplay experience

anywho, just ideas

[kind bison]

That’s fine with me and honestly i do see people wanting to skip out on overworld runs after awhile since its whole point rn is just farming resources and catching illuvials. People will spend more time in overworld in general once story and more PvE modes/events get added.

[kind bison]

Get that iip written stat :p

[tiny bison]

Less possible sILV2 used does not equal more ETH used. That's the problem. It actually means net less spending overall. And since there's more tokens staked it probbaly means less revdis per individual and the DAO overall as well. The psychology of it definitely doesn't line up 1:1

[tiny bison]

If this were added I would leave the project and sell 99% of my tokens

[tiny bison]

I'd probably leave, it'd defeat the purpose of the entire experience lol

[kind bison]

I think that’s a bit harsh tbh. It’s going to get repetitive in a not so great way after a while for a reasonable number of players so letting people get what they need for arena or other modes/events could be beneficial without being forced intoconsuming endless time on an experience they may not enjoy anymore which isn’t very productive either. I do agree though that secondary may make booster boxes null to begin with except for people that effectively are addicted to the standard gacha experience. I also have hesitancy towards overpricing it even with consideration for time saved and skill not needed.

Overworld will hopefully in time be more than a glorified gacha is my point to why booster boxes don’t really deter from it that much.

Also Josh is probably wondering when this thread became about something other than silv2 lol

[tiny bison]

Its not harsh, my personal position is I would no longer have any interest in playing Illuvium. But that's my personal position. If you would want to stay then thats cool too. It just eliminates 90% of the reason I dedicated 3 years of my life to this project 🙂

If you want to make Illuvium just like every other game in existence thats what you prefer and thats fine

[kind bison]

Well i guess that’s fair since it’s your opinion.

[open valve]

https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1055081063644397629

This proposal had an element of that.

I actually think some way to obtain illuvials and materials should be available outside overworld.

Balance it price and time wise how you wish.

Everyone comments are our individual opinions, I am glad we've had a lot of back and forth + feedback this is how solutions are found.

[kind bison]

It’s not like overworld disappears as a glorified gacha though. We’re just discussing QoL options for players who don’t play this game for a living or in general dedicate all their free time to it. Or for those not interested in OW at all just like some people aren’t interested in pvp

[quartz smelt]

I guess for me, the players that don't have time spend their money on the market from illuvials others have collected.
Making the purpose and ideation of the economy work.
If on the off chance a pack set occured, could it be made from the illuvials and items people capture.
Like the DAO buys items from players willing to sell for packs, maybe it's slightly less or more than market, or a set price, that bit I have no idea of, then it's sold at a profit, the DAO wins the player that grinds and captures wins, the rate of illuvials stay the same.

Would something like that work?

[kind bison]

That sounds too complicated to me personally. Needs to be guaranteed to make a profit so most likely just leaving it to secondary is the best choice.

[quartz smelt]

I'd be okay with it if the items inside were purchased from players.

How I don't know. Yet I don't see it being more complicated than fuel.

Part of the mechanics of stopping prices going to nothing with resources and illuvials is the reduction of supply.
Would packs increase the supply?
Or would they come from the existing supply?

[coral lava]

Real world missed revenue due to sILV2 would be on the lower end of the spectrum, nothing close to 70mil. There is a long way from $100 to $1000 in token price.

Also, we can 't be worrying about lots of missed revenue due to high token price and low token price due to less ETH revenue/lower rev dis at the same time. It's one or the other (or something in between) but not both.

Getting illuvials from gatcha would kill the soul of this project. It would also directly contradict the base promise of the game, mentioned by the founders in several interviews during the last 2-3 years. Getting gear, shards with higher capture chances, augments would be more palatable.

[kind bison]

It’s too complicated in the sense of reacting to secondary market prices. DAO could buy and then watch prices fall to where there is no profit to be had. Could go other way too though it’s not really worth the risk.

[quartz smelt]

Then I guess I'd lean to no.

However I am seeing the packs always being sold at a profit. If a player purchases a pack and the contents go down in value. That's the risk of not buying from the market.

[dense vapor]

70k extra staked ILV is basically insignificant when looking at revdis per token, and that's assuming ALL sILV2 is swapped. That shouldn't be a factor when evaluating this idea. We're talking about something on the order of a 1-2% impact. For example, instead of $1 per token, $0.99 or $0.98 per token.

Having too much circulating sILV2 is kind of scary. It can scale up in the extreme case to a massive amount of outstanding value, blunting ETH revenue and potentially impacting runway. This is a factor in why we moved Wave 2 ahead as soon as we did. Maintaining opportunities to spend sILV2 are important.

I'd be for allowing sILV2 -> ILV swaps, given that they would be subject to a lockup period. I think 12 months would be fair. It would create a cheaper way for people to get an entry, and further dry up the supply of sILV2. The sooner we can be done with sILV2 entirely, the better. We don't want 100's of thousands of circulating sILV2 if or when ILV gets to 4 digit numbers. Reducing the circulating supply means we can eliminate sILV2 from the ecosystem sooner, and that should be our goal. It's genuinely undesirable to have game credit that scales in value the more successful the project is, and the extra complexity sILV2 introduces to the ecosystem isn't helpful to anyone, especially to new players.

I understand that doing more sales is appealing, but community sentiment around this has been pretty clear, people don't want a bunch of additional sales before Open Beta. I tend to agree with them. Partnerships are one thing, but selling packs of Illuvials isn't necessary, and I think it would be pretty undesirable to do so. Yes, it's a way for whales to whale. It's also a way to alienate non-whales, and particularly web2 players. Without the plankton, whales find better feeding grounds. We already have the secondary market for whales to engage with, I'd far prefer "boosted" runs that actually involve gameplay to card packs if we want to further target whales.

[tiny bison]

Thank you ❤️ you understand

[kind bison]

12 month lock is excessive considering how long people have had silv for and missed staking reward opportunities imo. If we abandon silv2 and swap it back to ilv 3 months would be plenty or no lock and just let people sell if they really want at these prices and let all those people hungry for more tokens get their discount before the game launches. Disclaimer i have zero silv effectively so this doesn’t benefit me one bit.

[tiny bison]

Im not too fussed on lock but I see more benefit in a longer lock. What happens is u sell off Ur ilv and buy up silv2 at like 5:6 or whatever then swap it in for the profit. A 3 month lock incentivises that way more than 12 is all

[kind bison]

You’re talking off the liquidity pool? A few people could benefit from it sure but it wont last long at all @tiny bison I’m thinking just being a little fair to going back on our words in this scenario and compromising since they took silv instead for one reason or another based on the rules set in advance.

[dense vapor]

It's not abandoning sILV2 to give people an option to swap it. What we don't want to do is create a scenario where unclaimed rewards are all taken as sILV2 and swapped to ILV as a more appealing alternative to just claiming ILV.

[kind bison]

I didn’t say anything about that yet so my bad but i was thinking on how you need to shut down silv2 claims /timestamp wallet holdings beforehand to dissuade from people taking advantage of such a loophole

It’s all a big headache one way or another

For example though it’s iffy. Before council did a vote to determine this ideas fate, shut down silv2 claims at least temporarily(idk exactly how they do this)

Or timestamp and any claims done after the results are out are forced into said 12 months swap lock

[tall geode]

FYI - 70k sILV2 available, but there are another 30-40k potential from unclaimed rewards (70k unclaimed but the missing reward can only be claimed in ILV).

Is doing the switch sILV2->ILV and locking as too complicate to setup on the contract in the next few weeks ?

Can we stop the silv2 claming/minting easily?

Can we release overworld urgently to not avoid more issue with sILV2 😂?

Can we limit how many silv2 can be use per month once the game are released? (like airlines do with miles on a flight)

---

People need to be more realistics and need to understand that, sometime, solutions create new problems. If those new problems are less important than the initial one, then it's maybe a good solution.

I don't see the lock as mandatory. So if the team can manually mint ILV to replace sILV2 then so be it. Just stop the claming/minting of sILV2 from the rewards. Yes, people will be able to buy silv2 at 60$ and get ILV valule of 110$. And what?

At least you close your problem related to revenues. And that's more imortant than locking ILV.

Locking is a very crypto stuff, it's not the solution to everything. Learn to let go and accept people will use this to their advantage. Good for them. But less sILV2 is a major help for when the project launch.

My 2 cents.

[tiny bison]

I guess u brought up an interesting problem. The team would need to then prove they can mint ILV out of thin air. Which is quite the scary prospect. I know its not so simple but you'd then have to see those implications

[tall geode]

Not sure it's applicable to ILV, but they did easily with sILV.

[kind bison]

Didn't they already kind of do that with the miscalculated staking rewards fix?

[tall geode]

Something that can be voted on in standalone is stoping sILV2 claim. ILV only.

Easy from the website. No idea for the contract.

But at least it's a big help for the project start.

I still think sILV2 have value for the future and should come back to burn ILV, but it's another question.

[tiny bison]

Not entirely sure on the technicals but you may be right

[wise totem]

Packs take away from secondary market sales. Which will take away from Overworld which will take away from fuel sales which takes away from Landowners.

[kind bison]

I'm leaning against packs again for various reasons however, there is no doubt in my mind that they would be appropriately priced in fuel or otw send 5% revenue to land owners

or well, set prices in usd for example yet use fuel to actually buy them as another possibility

gacha pulls still leave a bad taste in my mouth even after them being around for so many years, yet I can't deny how well they've done with taking advantage of the psychology of gambling

[tall geode]

I'm sorry but landowner don't matters when we talk about future and sustainability of the project.

Landowner will get nothing when sILV2 is used so in the end it's helping landowner anyway. And the team could reward landowner fuel pool with eth from the proceed of packs.

Though we should split the conversation here ?

Are we talking sILV2 lifecycle or pack sale ?

[kind bison]

pack sale haha, this deserves its own thread at this point, though i have no desire to birth it at this juncture

[wise totem]

Am I alone in the fact that for me the economy aspect IS the game? What got me interested at the beginning was the idea of players creating prices, doing trading, etc. To have that changed to pack openings, DAO providing stuff rather than players, just loses a lot of the "create a world" aspect for me.

[lilac spruce]

Thats just a marketplace. The Arena is the game.

[wise totem]

So why did we bother with land or Overworld? Why didn't we just sell packs and do an autobattle game?

[lilac spruce]

Land was due to hype and greed.
The Overworld is a pack opening. Just a gamified experience of one.

[tall geode]

Well, it's all beautiful flowery and with a nice sweet smell.

But if the project have difficulties to generate enough cash to sustain the operations, sounds a bit counterproductive isnt it ?

I mean "we want sILV2 to stay even if the project die"

I'm extreme, but come down to earth people XD

[wise totem]

So in other words, we shouldn't have bothered.

[lilac spruce]

With land yah
I still think the Overworld is a pretty great idea to replace a standard pack opening and over time can evolve to much more

[tall geode]

come back to topic guys

[kind bison]

Silv2 can go away and I’ll be fine with it, I don’t think it will be the life and death maker we seem to think it is though

[tall geode]

Well all depends the overall strategy taken

[lilac spruce]

Mostly agree with this. Of course losing the revenue will be bad at the early stages but thats why we need to launch with runway.
If there are runway problems then there are plenty of ways to solve that issue. The founders have quite a bit of tokens if we ever need money

[wise totem]

Not once did anyone say to keep sILV2 even if it means the project dies.

[kind bison]

I’ll go back to when we were discussing doing raises though and how everyone thought the moon was inbound and everything was roses and rainbows when really we should have done the raises then and there. This evokes the same feeling where we think silv2 isn’t anything to worry about and yet it could very well make or break the project. Not in the sense of 7 mil being a lot so much as in if we say had 7 mil in revenue at the start, it could help jumpstart rev dis and get the eyes on the project we want.

[tall geode]

Or unlock won't matters because we will have a lot of revenues streams and anyway the VC are in for the long term ?

[kind bison]

I chalk it up to teams inexperience at the time and understanding they’ve grown a lot since.

[tall geode]

Anyway need team feedback and opinion and councils members

[kind bison]

I’d like a broader public opinion if anything to see how much baccklash it could send our way though idk how many holders really pay attention to the ongoings here anymore

I would think it’s minimal if the terms were truly fair to current silv2 holders

[tall geode]

And how many would understand the scale and impact on the whole project .....

[kind bison]

If doing this delayed the team much at all though then just accept it as it is because having full launch ready asap is the most important thing rn

[tall geode]

That's why, stop sILV2 minting, and manual swap is an easy solution requiring time and orgnaization from the team, but no dev

Not perfect solution, but helping.

[kind bison]

Yea, shutting down silv2 minting is good stopgap

[valid adder]

Being an MMO/RPG and Card collector for 40 years... booster packs will make the every day player "give up" - what's the point in playing, farming, etc... when someone can just buy a booster pack. Everything as-is, and as-planned gives everyone and opportunity to at least feel like they're making money or that it's worth their time to play. I've seen booster packs ruin games. Sure the short-term revenue is amazing... but eventually it will bottom out as people lose interest when the next "booster pack game" is launched. I'm locked in and vested in Illuvium, I want to see it succeed long-term

[valid adder]

Nick, IMHO - I honestly think selling boosters would entirely negate everything Illuvium is as a gaming ecosystem. D1sks are already a type of booster pack. Just add some "random RNG stats" and make an MTG equivalent. Magic in proportion to rarity, tiers and stages. But yes, this is an entirely different conversation that intended. Ok /pack rant off

[coral lava]

Rofl. Overworld is the game. You Arena boys are just helping me build my collection profitably

[lilac spruce]

Unfortunately you don't understand things well then.

[coral lava]

Yeaaaaah. So do those millions of Pokemon collectors worldwide 🙂

It's obviously a personal choice for everyone. Just strange hearing from anyone that their preferred game choice IS the game, when it is clearly a network of games. A bit like Bitcoin maxies stating that it is the only crypto that matters

[tall geode]

SJUD is all about Arena, it's true that Arena is what will drive the game adoption.

I am more into collecting, but I know it's not what will spread this to the masses.

That said, not the topic here.

sILV2, it's impact on economy and launch, decision for the project runway, that's what need to be talked about

[lilac spruce]

Yup the Arena is where you get the game adoption and the demand for the OW supply. It's just how the economics of the current game loop works.

Based on the current feedback from this thread it looks like the SILV2 swap doesnt have the legs for an IIP.
Is there another proposal to lessen the impact of SILV2 to talk about?

[kind bison]

Cap silv2 value to a threshold or whatever ilv token price is on launch day :p

[acoustic flame]

Lot of good an interesting ideas.

Gut would lean to putting a spending deadline on silv plus things to spend on.

Eg. all sILV must be spend in 6months or it is no longer accepted.

——-

More of a minor update this way and less of a way for ppl to just arb ilv - silv

Pro is playing the game earns you the ‘arb’ of cheap silv to more illuvials. So secondary would be suppressed providing entry. Similar to the dynamic with beyond. Traders can still play the standard arb too.

Con is honestly land owners still get rekt more lol (as a land owner), what ever illuvitar waves get major dilution.

[tall geode]

Treasury $12,434,961
Safety fund $5,001,688
Revenues Wallet $11,233

Expenses 6m avg $1,169,345
Runway (months) 14.9
Runway w/o safety 10.6

sILV2 -> 156,551
sILV2 in IMX Wallet -> 87,470.66763339
sILV2 available -> 69k

Rewards pending claim -> 72,152
Missing rewards pending -> 175000 - 131412.12335871797 = 44k

Potential max sILV2: 113k
Value: 11.3M$

Every day that pass see addtionnal sILV2 that can be minted (until mid-Feb? 51200 + 12800 = 64k)

Source of sILV2 consumption until luanch: Illuvitars wave 2
Source of revenues until launch: Illuvitars wave 2, TL Illuvitars, market fees, merch
Pending: T5 sale

Monthly revenues for Illuvium sustainability $5,723,077

Assuming we have revenus of 6m$ per month

@100$ ILV @game luanch: 11.3/5.7 = 2 months without revenues
@200$ ILV @game luanch: 22.6/5.7 = 4 months without revenues
@400$ ILV @game luanch: 45.2/5.7 = 8 months without revenues

If game launch in February, runway will cover 8 months sILV2 only + ~4 months after launch

More realistic is 20% silv2 claim (today average is 14%), so 44k+64k = 110k*20% => 22k
That's 22k+69k=91k sILV2 by launch. So 30% difference with calcualtion above.

Lot of hypethetical stuff here, but that's the status

If Illuvium make 50m$ per month, we good.
If Illuvium make 6m$ per months, we in risk.
If Illuvium make 2m$ per month, we ....

If ILV goes up, risk goes up
If launch is delayed, risk goes up
More sILV2 by launch, risk goes up
If players goes into other games than Illuvium, risk goes up
If we've additionnal way to used sILV2, risk goes down
If people don't mint more sILV2, risk goes down

How much risk people are ready to take ?

[tender reef]

I personally will not farm OW. I prefer to buy directly from the marketplace or buy booster packs.
OW is a booster pack opening with extra steps. and running. and jumping.
Whales and NFT degens love gacha, they don't have time to farm OW.
Booster packs may make OW redundant, although pricing the booster packs highly at 2x-3x may be beneficial for OW farmers.

Did we just spend years and $millions on OW to end up selling booster packs?

[tall geode]

If you sell them at 3-4-5x the average price when playing OW, would it be THAT bad?

But is Arena ready to be used with real assets ? If not, no point, you're just selling more JPG. We said we won't do it, we did with land (no usage for 1,5 years) and in a less extend, Illuvitars.

[acoustic flame]

Wait will land owners be able to use silv?

[timid oriole]

what if we just stopped silv2 now as a staking reward option?
Seeming like the use case will be limited.. so might as well reduce the soon to be available amount so it all gets used up quicker..?

[acoustic flame]

Additionally we could put silv value in game on a decay curve.

Or lock it at $70 or some usd value in game

[tender reef]

It is hard to predict the effect of selling booster pack. If the booster pack is priced that high, it may increase the floor price of common illuvials. OR whales/degens are just going to dump the commons and undercut farmed illuvials. Typically with pfp NFTs, some degens like to gamble on pre reveal NFTs, dump the commons to buy rare NFTs.

I think we have passed that "no pre selling jpegs before launch"

[acoustic flame]

If ppl want ILV they need to buy it off the market.

[open valve]

Appreciate you putting the numbers out. That's the worry, hyper success great but I wouldn't want to bank on that as base case.

Whatever the way we reduce sILV2 supply further the better.

[tender reef]

this is what im looking for. great work once again lelahel. Much appreciated. how likely do you think we are going to see $6m/month revenue in Q2/Q3?

[tall geode]

Thanks

I'd like people to look at bit more at facts, than just dropping biased opinions

[tiny bison]

We should consider that if ILV is $400 which poses risk via silv2. It also makes the treasury quite large. Meaning the DAO could quite safely and with minimal impact sell some tokens. Its all in perfect harmony always 😛

In that event it would also devalue the buying power of sILV2 at the same time

[tall geode]

Treasury to sell more token ?
We need more revenues then...

@tender reef No idea revenues at launch, and if anyone come with some numbers, I'll disregard them.

[tiny bison]

@tall geode I do wonder, at $400 what does the treasury sit at? 400m?

I mean u could sell 14m of that and that'd be sub 3-4% of the treasury and give u a year

I am just saying there is a lot of cause and effect in both directions is all

[tender reef]

Raising more runway could take months, aren't we saving the treasury until at least 2025/26? not sure if it's financially sound if the treasury is less than ingame rewards. and we are spending the ingame token for incentives

[tall geode]

Treasury for is $. Because you can't pay people in ILV. You can't pay your house loan in ILV.

Treasury is 15m$.

What do you think will happen if the project before being live is supressing it's own price ? In a bull market ?

People will sell. ILV price will crash, and your ILV treasury will be worth nothing. Project is dead because you didn't had treasury in safe $.

Counting ILV as part of the treasaury is a mistake. Luna, FTX, did you learn from that ?

[tiny bison]

I was saying market sell, all I am saying is the token price going up isnt net negative, it has benefits too

[tender reef]

I don't think we will see market sell from treasury, i mean

[tiny bison]

I mean selling treasury tokens is always a last resort, but I am saying it becomes easier and easier to do so, the lower the totl % u need to sell. And this gets lower and lower the higher the token price. Do u think people would get super mad at selling 3-4% of the treasury?

[open valve]

It was always going to be a sensitive subject, I knew it would be a hard discussion and an emotional down vote for some.

[tall geode]

They can when ILV is 1000$ to saveguard some $. Not to do risk management. Not to get rid of the sILV2high probable issue.

If selling ILV, when ILV will be higer, is the risk management. Damn...

You do not do risk management with possibility. with ifs. Risk management is done with certainty.

Stopping sILV2 minting, have sure outcome. Best solution, no. Only solution, no. But outcomes is easy to understand.

[tiny bison]

I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

Token up = silv2 problem gets worse
token up = treasury gets thicker

Its not perfect but there is a balance

[tall geode]

I understand, that's why i ask: you'll want the DAO to sell it's revenue share for $ (= making it more difficult to sustain the project) AND supress ILV price, in the middle of a bull run. People will ran away into other token with x20-x50 upside.

If you sell for $, the only reason is to increase runway. This, can. Because there is not much pressure to do it. I said last bull run to do it when token was at 1500$ lol
But selling ILV to mitigate the sILV2 value ....

[wise totem]

I don't know. I am just suggesting allowing landowners to be able to use sILV2 on land activities as a way of reducing the amount of sILV2 out there.

[tall geode]

Good old time lol

[open valve]

Spend on speed up tokens etc I am guessing

[wise totem]

Yes, that would be the main one that I was thinking of.

[acoustic flame]

Ah yeah that would be great

[open valve]

They could sell a T5 land earlier than they wanted and allow sILV2 usage. Just a thought.

[tall geode]

I remember someone being super pissed because he bought and minted so much sILV2 for the T5 that in the end wasn't being sold .... damn that must have hurt

OK maybe not because in the end he certainly exited at high price lol, maybe a great mistake in the end 😂

[wise totem]

Yeah, was going to say, it didn't hurt as much as if he had bought it.

[tender reef]

this is a great idea for silv2 sink

[tall geode]

2 owners have 3k silv2, you'd limit the T5 land price at 300k $ maybe 500k $ if they add have any way to add more to their stack.

In ETH you've no limit ... And if bought in ETH then it's not helping the sILV2 possible issues.

[wind bridge]

Hi @tall geode 👋

[tall geode]

Damn you're fast

[tiny bison]

U have 3k silv2 @wind bridge ?? God damn

[wind bridge]

Sam has 5 sILV2 ☺️

[tiny bison]

Hahaha nice

[tiny bison]

Im not saying it's a good idea. All I'm saying is they r tied together. Low token price then no need to sell tokens cause silv2 isn't an issue. If it becomes a problem we also have a means albeit a sucky one to extend runway at minimal long term impact to future revenues

[deep willow]

Missing rewards are claimed in the same way pending rewards are. They vest for 12-months. They will only get minted by the staking contract when you withdraw.

[open valve]

Don't limit the t5s to only sILV2 but allow the use of it.

[deep willow]

There was once hope that people could use a mix of tokens to buy in the land sale. Some eth and some sILV2. I’m not sure why we thought that would be possible. But it would be nice

[open valve]

Perhaps it can be revisited with a fresh pair of eyes.

[sterile pebble]

My gut is thinking the same.
Stop minting of sILV2.
Put time limit on sILV2 spending.
Add more things to spend sILV2 on. (I like premium priced booster packs and speed up coins for Zero)

Possibly put a cap on the value of sILV2, or make it's value decay overtime.

[open valve]

I actually don't mind the value decay side, for X period it is full 1:1 value then after it's proposed expiry data its value decays.

[maiden iris]

Read through the many messages here and this would be my approach:

1. Stop the bleeding - pass a proposal to cease all minting of sILV2 by X date
2. Create more sILV2 sinks/use cases - we need to respect the current circulating sILV2 and allow the owners to redeem them
3. Time period - Pass a proposal that silv2 will be usable until Y date (limited time after launch)
4. (Optional) Redeem ILV from sILV2 - Though I admit this maybe something that would take too long to build or too much resources.

[tender reef]

my comments

1. some may prefer less ILV total supply, as how sILV2 was intended
2. Best way
3. This would be changing the terms after the fact and may give negative presedence on investing in ILV assets. i wouldnt treat this like frequent flyer miles

[maiden iris]

1. While this maybe true, we have to look at it in the lens of what is best for the DAO. If we dont stop minting sILV2 were not really solving the issue of its existence even if theres more use cases for it.
3. One can argue that there was no express statement that sILV2 would not have a precriptive period to be used or in the alternative there was no express statement that it was "imprescriptable" Even points or 'frequent flyer miles' have a period to be used otherwise its forfeited. Being a DAO, this is something we can pass and provide advance notice and publication for everyone before it happens.

[tender reef]

Of course as a DAO we can change any utility of our assets and we can change our tokenomics too

We have never really started discussing about sILV2 until after epic games numbers were published.

Coupled with the low liquidity of sILV2/ETH pool on uniswap

[weak pagoda]

@indigo geode voted 👎 and 👍

I voted 👎 thx for the idea 💡 all

[deep willow]

Old habit perhaps. Hold over from when Mods were the only ones that could react

[weak pagoda]

17 / 25

Very community minded cool 😎

[inland yarrow]

He put both when the post was created so people would remember to vote.

[indigo geode]

Yes forgot we changed it lol

[eager ridge]

Token Down = sILV2 Problem gets better
Token Down = The project is failing so the sILV2 problem isn't the biggest problem we have lol

[open valve]

We've had some good brainstorming thus far if someone wants to make a TDLR of what seemingly people think works. We can perhaps expand upon those points further and look to get something done.

[quartz smelt]

I'd like to give it a go if no one else does.
I can get to it later today.

[quartz smelt]

Done just waiting on your okay. check inbox 😁

[tiny bison]

Yeah as I said 😛 All in perfect balance 😛

[dark grove]

I think if we're not removing it and deciding to support development for the token, we should embrace it and allow people to claim sILV2 from revdis and put like a month vesting on ILV claiming.

[quartz smelt]

Hey all, @open valve hasn't seen this yet, I felt he probably doesn't have to quality check it anyway. Do you all think this is a fair summary? No offense taken if things need changing or this is off the mark.

Summary of the Discussion on sILV2 Token Use and Game Revenue:

The discussion revolves around concerns regarding the sILV2 token's impact on the game's economy and revenue. The author, JoshETH.ETH, expresses worry about the scalability of sILV2 and its potential impact on the project's profitability. The main concern is that sILV2's value is tied to the success of the game, and the current supply may pose challenges.

Several proposed solutions and considerations include:

1. Swap Facility: Proposes a 1:1 swap facility back into ILV with a vested lock as a potential solution to eliminate scalable debt before launch.

2. Booster Packs and Spending Deadline: Discusses the idea of introducing booster packs as a premium product and imposing a spending deadline on sILV2 to prevent a prolonged impact on the project.

3. Land Activities and Decay Curve: Suggests allowing landowners to use sILV2 on land activities, implementing a decay curve for sILV2 value, or setting a cap on its value.

4. Treasury Management: Discusses the idea of selling ILV from the treasury to address potential runway issues, with considerations for the balance between token price and sILV2 problems.

5. Ceasing sILV2 Minting: Proposes stopping the minting of sILV2 to control its supply and potentially reduce its impact on the project.

6. Spending Limit and Additional Use Cases: Discusses the possibility of putting a time limit on sILV2 spending and creating more use cases or sinks for sILV2.

7. Value Decay for sILV2: Explores the concept of a value decay mechanism for sILV2 over time.

8. Tokenomics and Changes: Considers potential changes to tokenomics, acknowledging the need for careful consideration due to the potential impact on ILV assets.

9. Discussion on sILV2 Discontinuation: Community members discuss the eventual discontinuation of sILV2 use, considering it as a way to manage its long-term impact and prevent unforeseen challenges.

[open valve]

I'd like to discuss option 2,3,5,7,9 in more detail as the original option 1 would be too much time and development after some team feedback.

I think all those points have merit and should be explored further.

[deep willow]

There’s some repetition of ideas in some of the numbers. But that’s ok.

[deep willow]

Thanks @quartz smelt

[acoustic flame]

Yeah it would act as a kickstarter to the economy bc ppl would cramp to spend/driving activity and learning. Secondary prices would find an absolute floor and then the market prices from that point forward.
——-

gg to Josh for once again thinking of shit we need to think about.

As of now I’m basically a fan of anything but the conversion. It’s just a free handout that adds nothing extra to the dao, think the other ideas drive adoption and activity and remove scaling debt.

[safe tiger]

Mostly whales claimed sILV2 for quick profit, everything around sILV2 was basically speculation, people tried to extract value from price difference. If there is an option to convert sILV2 back to ILV, it will once again provide opportunity for speculation and profit. It doesn't reward ILV holders, just more dilution. That is my opinion.

[tender reef]

well said

[safe tiger]

How many sILV2 holders will be playing game and how many of them are pure speculators. You don't have to worry about speculators crippling your revenue by spending sILV2 (most of them will not even play game and it is tiny group of people compared to actual future player base). And our target audience are web3 players anyway.. they have 0 idea about sILV2.

[tender reef]

sILV2 threat to initial revdis is real, however we need to understand the reasons why people claimed sILV2 and why people bought sILV2 from the unofficial pool.

web3 players can definitely find out about the pool. during the land sale, joe (comfy) advertised it on his twitter

[deep willow]

With cause

[safe tiger]

Look how many players played game so far? How many sILV2 holders are there compared to estimated future player base? If we don't get way more people onboard, sILV2 will not matter anyway.

Growing player base will be more important than initial revdis and if price tanks because of small revdis, smart investors will accumulate more if they see growing player base.

[deep willow]

Are these rhetorical questions or are you wanting some numbers?

[safe tiger]

I really don't see much of benefit here, rather than rewarding speculation and giving more arbitrage opportunity and exit liquidity to whales.

[deep willow]

That is the general sentiment it seems. Check the pinned summary of discussion.

[tender reef]

i can see the arbitrage potential, buy sILV2 at 0.6 of ILV to get 1:1 but locked

[safe tiger]

Because big sILV2 holders will not cripple revdis much. Ingame spending is limited by play time every day. So if somebody has tons of sILV2, impact will be still not noticable.. spending of one player (small $ amount a day no matter how many sILV you have).

[safe tiger]

Get locked ILV and sell your unlocked ILV.. easy money.

[deep willow]

Agreed. Some potential ways around this one-player spending limit is through a deeper liquidity pool as we’ve seen in the past or otc to guild sponsorship of players. Similar to how guilds may own numerous lands to help pay for their sponsored players’ overworld runs.

It’s also the reason why more wide open sILV2 sinks (similar to land and beyond) are likely the best solution.

[tall geode]

What if with the RevDis the treasury get, sell the ILV, and buy the sILV2 on the market if lower than ILV price?

sILV2 become much less interesting to use in-game, people will be more interested to replace their sILV2 by ILV

[tender reef]

but sILV2 is not meant to be traded

[deep willow]

Only helpful if sILV2 can’t be minted. But even then it’s actively giving liquidity to sILV2 holders. Seems counter productive

[tall geode]

Well isn't the main idea of this thread, to limit sILV2 usage to get a bigger revenues ?

sILV2 will get the same value in game anyway

In theory, the team can decide the replace their ILV as reward by sILV2, buy back sILV2 on the market and increase the value of the reward pool (just that it is an "in-game value increase" not a "market value increase")

Again, what's the most important issue we are trying to solve with this thread ?

[deep willow]

The ability to produce long-term DAO sustaining revenue

[tall geode]

then the least sILV2 in circulation, the better

200 ILV from the in-game rewards would buy 300 sILV2 from the market, and bring sILV2 to the price of ILV

The in-game rewards are now stashed until needed, maybe 2 years down the line. For sure ILV will be value much more, let's say 10000$ but the treasury has cut the ability for people to get cheap value in illuvium from the market

[deep willow]

But reducing the amount of ILV the DAO treasury holds reduces the value of that action. While I don’t think it completely negates the value of doing so it seems harder to love it.

[tall geode]

I replaced my idea of revdis receive by the treasury by the in-game rewards, in theory, doesn't change the capacity for the project to increase their revenues share, and in theory againm the rewards available increase

Doesn't solve all the sILV2 already in hand of people, but if now a big whal decide to dump 500sILV2, then treasury can do another round of buy back

slowly, in-game reward increase in value, treasury retain revenue share, sILV2 getting out of the market

(still need to stop the bleeding by cutting sILV2 minting)

Don't know, just an idea

[deep willow]

It’d be pretty difficult to convince most people of the value of reallocating ILV intended for in-game rewards to something as “complicated” as this. (Myself included 🤷)

[tall geode]

But tomorrow if you win a tournament, and you receive sILV2, would you feel the same as receiving an ILV ?

Value within Illuvium will be the same.
On the market we can bet silv2=ILV by then (Like with Illuvitars, when there is usage for sILV2 we quickly see it's price catchup on ILV)

PS:
"200 ILV from the in-game rewards would buy 300 sILV2 from the market, and bring sILV2 to the price of ILV"
=> in-game would become 996 400 ILV + 300 sILV2 ...

[tender reef]

some people might want to win the tournament for cash. ILV token has the liquidity

if we use sILV2 for tournament prize:

1. Treasury is providing exit liquidity for sILV2 holders
2. it's like giving steam store voucher for dota2 tourney winner

[tall geode]

Main probleme is revenue, right ?

And the amount is not very relevant when looking at the amount of ILV left for the reward. Treasury is untouched.

I mean we can turn around and around and around for days.

There is no perfect solution.

Question is do you guys accept some limited drawdown to solve the initial problem?

[tender reef]

perfect solution is to get more players

[tall geode]

Get more player, sILV2 sinks.

Got ideas for those that can be executed in a matter of days, weeks max ?

If not, then it's no better solution than my very limited idea

[dark grove]

There are probably 0 ideas that can be implemented before the yield farming ends.

[tender reef]

sell more jpegs in sILV2

[tall geode]

So should we do nothing and pray ?

Or accept possible idea with drawdown but solving the initial big issue in the room ?

[dark grove]

I think we should be looking at solutions, but there will be none that can be implemented in weeks.

[tall geode]

So do nothing and pray.

Good strategy. lol

[deep willow]

Sell board skins for sILV2

[tall geode]

Board skins, Blasts, Mozarts, etc.

[deep willow]

Cosmetics. Yeah.

[tender reef]

i dont think costing the treasury to provide liquidity for people who cant exit their sILV2 position is wise

[tall geode]

in-game rewards are not treasury though

[tender reef]

how do u think we are going to replenish it with

[tall geode]

there is nothing in the tokenomics, planned to replenish the in-game rewards

[tender reef]

i reckon from treasury revdis

[quartz smelt]

I'm pretty sure sILV2 is going to end at some point so isn't this about finding the best way to do it. Best for the holders of sILV and best for the DAO

@deep willow has mentioned a few sinks. And @tall geode

[tender reef]

let me ask this question. what is the reasonable reason for someone to claim sILV2 instead of ILV?

is it to swap it back to locked ILV?
is it to spend it on mints/ingame?

[tall geode]

Let's find solution, rather than answering rethorical questions that bring nowhere lol

[quartz smelt]

Agreed.

[tall geode]

I wish good luck if the only solution to the problem is: selling more JPEG

[tender reef]

how can we find solution if we dont understand the purpose in claiming sILV2

[quartz smelt]

I chose the higher weight to get the higher rewards. I claimed sILV once to buy disk's. Now I only stake for ILV.

[deep willow]

Did you see this? #1183341350624702525 message

[quartz smelt]

The purpose will be dynamic. As people's reasons are different.
The fact, as I understand it, is that it needs to wittle away.
So to me the most effective and less time consuming option is to hash out some ideas. As per the point clarified by @open valve

[tender reef]

do you personally want to swap your sILV2 to 12-months vesting ILV for 0.6:1 ratio?

[tall geode]

Booster pack are not skins though, that's assets needed to play the game.

Pretty good one, but Jag and everyone were against to not kill the Overworld.

[quartz smelt]

It's not the only option

[deep willow]

For sure that’s a controversial one

[tall geode]

No. But if you refer to buy back, i'm not talking to swap with a lock. And if you refer as a overall solution standalone, it's not doable in a few weeks, so not a viable solution, so no need to be discussed.

[tender reef]

we spent 2 years and maybe $millions on OW.
i personally prefer to buy packs or from illuvidex, since i dnt want to grind OW

[tall geode]

Agreed but then if you're to talk about solution, talk about doable. Buy back and lock isn't doable.

[tender reef]

what is the reasonable ratio to buy back sILV2? its currently trading at 0.6 to ILV

[quartz smelt]

Yeah, I don't like it unless the assets are from players. I see that as being a continuous market for players, yet the details I have no idea how complex. Plus it would take time.to build up assets. Yet it could also work as a double sink as high sILV2 owners could effectively sponsor multiple people in sILV2 to farm. Then you get more people playing, sILV2 getting used multiple times in various ways. As players could spend it on other items. Skins, beyond speed ups.

[tall geode]

What solutions to the initial problem do you propose ? List them and let's see 🙂

[tender reef]

sell more jpegs in sILV2
allow sILV2 to buy IZ speedups
just more sILV2 sink

[tall geode]

OK then I suggest to open another discussion specific on sILV2 sinks and how to get them up and running in days/weeks with the team.

Those solution do not need to remove sILV2 from the system to improve revenues at launch.

Let's sell more images.

[tender reef]

our whole economy is about collecting jpegs

[deep willow]

https://tenor.com/view/malinda-malinda-kathleen-reese-art-oart-gif-17321970

[quartz smelt]

I think it's relevant to discuss here. The title topic changed and, as I understand it, the discussion now is how to deal with sILV2, which can be multiple ways.

I'm also not sure this has to be done at launch, as per point 9.

[tender reef]

the point is to deal with it at launch

[quartz smelt]

I don't know how to search for it, yet point 9 came from a discussion between Aaron and Josh.

[tender reef]

sILV2 is a potential $70m reduction in revenue. the revenue that we need the most due to our limited runway. based on lelahel calculation, sILV2 might be worth a couple of months of no revdis post OB

[quartz smelt]

As you can see by the discussion points taken from this thread it has changed. Josh is asking for point 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 discussed

[quartz smelt]

Yes I'm not denying that point.

[tender reef]

everything discussed here is to solve this issue

[quartz smelt]

I don't really have much to add around tokens. That's for all of you token heads.

[quartz smelt]

See if you can find Aarons comment.
I don't know exactly where Josh wants to take this now. So best to ask him.

[tender reef]

i have been following the thread since posted. its prob good to read back or i can clarify in dms

[quartz smelt]

Aarons message
#1183341350624702525 message

[quartz smelt]

Me or you?

This is why I'm thinking the way I am.
#1183341350624702525 message

I could be mistaken though.

[outer cedar]

and that is the advantage of having staked as a early investor? People will get so greedy for rev dis that they are willing to sacrifice people risked stack and reward for their own interest. If people used SILV 2 it is for in game purchases . Staking reward werent meant only for investor but also gamers . SILV2 Already burned some of the max supply and that was its 2nd intent which in another way doesnt make you miss on revenu since it increased scarcity

[outer cedar]

burned amount might be a bit too high but definitly a great idea to add SILV2 based tournament

[maiden iris]

Id probably tweak this. People pay silv2 as entry fee and DAO pays out via ILV from the rewards pool. Then DAO burns the sILV2. Thats your sILV2 sink without having to build a system and can execute within weeks

[tender reef]

thats a great idea

combined with https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1182510285089685584

[outer cedar]

More ways to spend SILV2 is definitly way better than eradiquate 3 years in almost in the project. Booster packs , Fuel equivalent , tournaments,Land , Nfts .

[tender reef]

i believe providing more sILV2 sink will not cost the dao. sILV2 tourney as proposed by shabim can be an alternative to the free-to-entry tourney, we do have to offer higher ILV prize tho

[tall geode]

You know that's the same as getting sILV on the market for ILV right.

[tender reef]

we already have free-to-entry tourney with ILV prize

maybe ethlizard can do sILV2 wager for BITB too

[tender reef]

for sILV2 tourney, maybe add 10%-20% to the ILV prize

[safe tiger]

Do you think that succes of the project depends on revdis? Not many sILV2 out there price of ILV will not go to moon with game launch, let's be real here. And if people use sILV2 ingame, it will be gone and there will be more revenue from the next land sale or any jpeg sale... as people will not have sILV2 anymore.

[tender reef]

it's pretty much short term vs long term

[safe tiger]

Let's focus on game and growing player base and we will not have to worry if 10% or 20% revenue less short term because of sILV2

[maiden iris]

But its not guaranteed nor is it 1:1.

[tall geode]

Still similar inflow / outflow for Illuvium

[safe tiger]

Honestly I will be very surprised if revenue will be lower more than 10% because of sILV2 and if it will be the case, we failed to acquire web2 players

[maiden iris]

Agree there. Need to extract value from sILV2 somewhere.

[tall geode]

I mean your solution, as mine, are not perfect, don't solve 100% of the issue, but contribute at the end result.

Better than seeling pictures.

And can be done manually even, but gaz fees will kill the idea.

[maiden iris]

Unless transfer is through IMX which is essentially what we do when we pay sILV2 for d1sks. I recall Danny mentioning they just burn that sILV2 so same concept can apply.

[tall geode]

Can we go that account to account in IMX ? If yes then it's just having someone to setup tournament and settle the fees.

For the sILV2 burn of disk, it's manual, for now 87,495.095958649 sIVL2 to be burn.

[maiden iris]

Can look into it if this is something thats viable to do and get back to you all

[tall geode]

Allow the winners to choose 100% revward in silv2 or 70% in ILV vur burn even more lol

[tender reef]

assumptions:

• ILV at $100
• value of sILV2 is $7m - $11.3m
• revenue needed for OPEX = $6m/month
• the average spending is $500/month

1. sILV2 spent over 3 months, its $2m - $4m/month
   we need $8m - $10m of revenue/month (sILV2 used is 25% - 40%)
   we need 16K-20K players

2. sILV2 spent over 6 months, its $1m - $2m/month
   we need $7m - $8m of revenue/month (sILV2 used is 15% - 25%)
   we need 14K-16K players

3. sILV2 spent over 12 months, its $0.5m - $1m/month
   we need $6.5m - $7m of revenue/month (sILV2 used is 8% - 15%)
   we need 13K-14K players

[lilac spruce]

thats also assuming all the sILV2 will be spent in game which definitely wont happen

[tender reef]

yes, thats assuming sILV2 is gonna be spent over 3 - 12 months. the faster sILV2 is spent, the more players we need

cmiiw, the land sale was 90% sILV2?

[coral lava]

you are off by an order of magnitude here

delete a 0 from the end

[tender reef]

oh lol

thanks

[tall geode]

Can I ask you also if you can bring to discussion the burning of the sILV2 in the IMX wallet.

With the RevDis restarted, the safety full, would be good to reset the sILV2 counter also.

And also use the burn as a good PR.

[tender reef]

16K players shouldnt be a problem right?

[maiden iris]

We have a meeting with Danny next week so can bring this uo

[open valve]

If you are targeting web 3 users 500 a month sure whatever. If we are talking web 2 adoption, whales aside not many spend 500usd a month on any game. People are talking about 100-500usd complete decks and a 50usd a month spend.

[tender reef]

$50?

[open valve]

Avg gamer spends around $50-80ish a month from research numbers I've seen. I dont think we can price travel so cheap, some middle ground sweet spot needs to be found.

[tender reef]

with web2 spending $50/month, either we have to get hundreds of thousands of web2 players

or we have to price costs higher and get every web3 degens

[lilac spruce]

We make money off of whales not the average user

[tender reef]

we need more alexas

[open valve]

Hes a smart guy, world could use more.

[open valve]

I think we could probably make a new idea thread with this list, remove option 1 and 4 as discussed

Get wider feedback on those from the community/team

[quartz smelt]

Cool. on it.

[outer cedar]

why are you saying we have as if it is a necessity?what happens if we get only 10 k people spending 50 bucks a month

[quartz smelt]

Im doing a new one now, ill have a quick look

is it the spending deadline?

and value decay

Hi @deep willow Can you please have a look at the new thread and suggest any changes if necessary, also how do i get rid of the double space under the headings?

New thread to continue from here https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1184266889392836619

I have to duck out, yet i will be on my phone.

[quartz smelt]

Its up.

[deep willow]

I don’t think it’s the headings that creates the space. It’s the bullets. If you remove the space after the -(hypen) it would just be a dash and no bullet point spacing.

[sharp quiver]

Is it possible to delay sILV2 that can be used in the game if there is a problem with DAO funds for the first few years?
I know it's not good for those who currently own sILV2, but considering the DAO, I think that's a good thing.
I think it says that sILV2 can be used in games, but when can it be used? is it stated clearly?
I also have about 200 sILV2 in reserve, but I don't really care if I am late in using them!
Most of the people who own sILV2 should be staking ILV, and I think some of them would prefer if the project is successful and the price of ILV goes up!
And you can expect Revdis too.
Whales will have to sell cheap or wait until the project is successful!
I think the only people who have large amounts of sILV2 are whales, so I don't think many people will be affected.

[outer cedar]

There is no problem in DAO funds didnt we just finish filling the security fund(cushion)

[sharp quiver]

I think sILV2 could be a problem if the number of users is not so large when the game starts
If the game is successful and the price of the ILV is 1,000$, this is not a problem at all, because we can sell the ILV of the DAO to fund the development.
If sILV2 goes to $70m, we can sell ILV until it runs out.
If the ILV is 1,000$, the monthly operating costs are only 1,500 ILV.

[tender reef]

That is only $500K/month revenue. It will not cover our monthly expenses.

[quartz smelt]

I did that yet there was still a big space. Is it okay to read?

[quartz smelt]

Hi everyone this thread is moving as per ask from the author.
https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1184266889392836619

[quartz smelt]

I got it. Thanks

[quartz smelt]

Hi aruwaioh99,
Would you be happy to share your thoughts in the new thread, or mind if I share it there?

[quartz smelt]

Hi Sjud, would you be happy to elaborate on this point in the new thread?

[quartz smelt]

Hi Vetamor,
I tried to tag you yet for some reason I can't.
Would you be willing to add more to the conversation In the new thread regarding this issue?

@final oxidehi Nick the conversation is still hot over in the new thread, it would be great to have your continued input.

[deep willow]

@eager ridge