Request for Feedback on sILV2. collation and re-direction of sILV2 removal and swap facility thread.

[rugged prairie]

(posting on behalf of @mental mist )

Hi all,

Due to the high level of interest and the substantial volume of feedback received, Josh is seeking additional community input on key areas identified within the original thread.

** Concern:**
Possible revenue loss due to sILV2 was identified by Josh.eth. The previous thread explored different options and opinions regarding sILV2. It became apparent that sILV2 minting and usage would most likely be ending, this along with the likelihood of swapping to ILV not being accepted by the team has led to a change in direction. With the main focus on time frames and a solution that provides the opportunity for sILV2 holders to use the token as was stated.

Key Points Identified:
1. Booster Packs and Spending Deadline.- Discuss Introduction of booster packs as a premium product.
2. Land Activities- Discuss Land owners using sILV2 for land activities.
** 3. Ceasing sILV2 Minting:**- Discuss Proposal to stop the minting of sILV2 to control its supply and potentially reduce its impact on the project.
4. Value Decay for sILV2:- Discuss Exploration of a value decay mechanism for sILV2 over time.
5. Discussion on sILV2 Discontinuation:- Discuss Ideation on the eventual discontinuation of sILV2 use.- Consideration as a way to manage its impact on large holders, general long-term impact and unforeseen challenges to the project.

Intended Outcome:
The objective behind this initiative is to arrive at a solution that the Ilv team can progress on. The ultimate result should be something that benefits Illuvum, the community, and the DAO, with the potential to save or generate significant revenue.

Guidance:
Ideally, aim to stay on topic; however, new ideas are welcomed.
Your thoughtful input is crucial to the success of these discussions. Thank you for your ongoing support.

[drowsy gyro]

1. I’m not a fan of booster packs of in game assets that were not minted by players in overworld.

2. Land owners should be able to spend sILV2 on ingame speed ups or whatever. But it’s hard to imagine why that would make sense. sILV2 is used for the same things the fuel they’ll be producing is for. But it may still be an efficient use case for land owners.

3. I think there should be a stop to sILV2 minting but there might not ever end up being a stop. The contracts are tricky. But v2 can be modified. I know that I complained that there was no way to claim the missing rewards as sILV2, but that was mostly because that exclusion was never run through governance.

4. While effective it seems like extra work for devs and extra complicated for players

5. Any date should be announced well in advance

[gaunt meadow]

1. I’ve mixed feeling on this. But it’s maybe the best of the worst to sell value (assets) and release games faster. So in the end burn silv2 faster + generate replenish treasury faster (ilv is chepaer now than what we can expect in a bull market) + activate revdis faster (investor happiness, PR and marketing)

2. Yeah, but what’s the cost? Is it already planned in IZ? If not how long to implement and where? @zinc scarab can maybe give insights

3. Stop the sILV2 minting is a risk management idea. If can’t be done at contract level, how fast? At least can be done on the website easily in minutes. But what are the rules around stoping it? We want to alert people? How long in advance? Plenty of questions to cover

4. I’m against, same view as Pelican.

5. I’m against, at least for now, when we’ve in 2025 and only a few are left then maybe to simplify. Though I’d challenge here saying we maybe also look at the economy and see if it make sense to burn ILV maybe via sILV2.

[rugged prairie]

@gaunt meadow Is that better?

[rugged prairie]

[noble island]

1.I like the idea of booster packs personally - even if they were only slightly more expensive then usual travel. The great benefit of grinding overworld yourself would be to get to choose what you get (e.g. scanning, targeting rare deposits, rare illuvials) where booster packs could be a random selection from all possible things you could have got in a run (so alot less likely to get good stuff)
Also allows mobile only players a way to get illuvials themselves if they don't have pc - kind of turns it into gacha style which we know is very popular and good mobile earner

2-5. I'm all in favour of also. Anything that helps reduce silv2 is a bonus, particularly it's use later on when we expect a higher token price/it has a larger impact on dao revenue.

[full orchid]

Sell more jpegs in sILV2
Use sILV2 for IZ speedups

[rugged prairie]

Keep coming with the ideas everyone.
For clarification I'm helping Josh out on this.
The issue has been recognised, the aim is to brainstorm as DAO and see what we can come up with together.
Josh has mentioned he doesn't want to be the controller of this.

Yet wants to see if everyone together can find the ultimate solution.

[alpine ravine]

agree with this. also in a general way i think we should be looking for more ways to burn sILV2 rather than trying to remove it.

We can't fail on the promess that sILV2 was when we created it, and most of this issue comes from the multiple delays the game faced. Without the delays people wouldn't have gotten the time to mint this much sILV2 and hold it.

Also a reminder sILV2 always meant trade off : revenue loss for burning ILV supply we've always been ok with that, and I think we should be more confident on the game's success. Because if it doesn't, those 7M$ won't make much anyways.

Let's not canibalize our own project by greed or fear and let's find solutions that don't imply missing on one more promess.

[full orchid]

well said

[final ridge]

Beyond wave 3 👋

[rugged prairie]

I'm seeing this idea a bit.
How do you see the effect on revenue if sILV2 was to continue indefinitely?

[rugged prairie]

Hey Fizzo, are you able to elaborate on how you see booster packs, like drop rates, contents ect?

[rugged prairie]

Hi Pelican
I'm thinking I'd be okay with this too, how do you see it working, like can enough high illuvials be caught to fill the packs, would the price exponentially go up as the bonding curve takes holds and it's harder to get illuvials? What do you see as the main contents.

[rugged prairie]

Hi Lelahel, can you elaborate a bit more here on why you think sILV2 doesn't need a deliberate stop point?

[noble island]

I think a good idea for booster packs would be just taking a random selection of harvestables and illuvials from a run. E.g. if there was a total of 100 illuvials in all encounters on an overworld run - you might get a certain number of those randomly in your pack (e.g. 5 illuvials, 10 harvestables as a random example). The benefit the overworld players get is they get to actually scan things and choose what they capture and harvest so can specifically get the good rares, while booster openers are at the mercy of randomness of what they get from the avaliable run. Fuel is still used to buy these booster packs, potentially for the same price but clearly the booster packs will yield worse returns generally

[covert pelican]

1. The Booster is definitly a good way to target Web 3 Degen . High prices on this something that web 2 player would grind because they like the game the Web 3 Degens wants immediate and not have to spend time to the cost of money.
   My question is knowing that SILV2 drops the max supply . And therefore instead of being a claim that reduce scarcity in 1 year it reduce max supply right away . Isnt it the best to pump the token right now as people claim it ? This token wont be spent in rev dis. Lets say the Max Supply was 5 M with 1 M revenu Dis per month how.much would the token be worth ? More than a 9M Supply with 4 M rev ? I have no answers just questions . I believe that SILV2 is an exclusivity to web 3 degen also . Nobody is gonna stake ILV for 50$ a transactiom right now in Web 2 . What if the rev dis from treasury claimed a part in SILV 2 and started burning it trough tournament to attract players . It would reduce max supply -> Pump the token price ( am i right ?) And attract so much people to the idea they can get $ for a f2p game . List this SILV2 as a Marketing expense .
   Big Time had a Leaderboard giving away 1M to the 1st place recently . How are we not on par with this yet ?

[covert pelican]

2. SILV2 used for Everything .
   Stakers get ILV to dump their profit ( this is what is used for right unless people are stacking ILV just to show others the Beautiful logo) or SILV 2 claim is an automatic sell towards the game because it cant be redeemed other than in game . So a long term win . And a big one .
   If the token is worth 2k . The treasury will be worth so much it wont matter if people spend in SILV 2 or ETH.

3.At least let it run for the regular staking . If then people wants to claim lp in SILV2 it should be there choice

4. No
5. No SILV 2 is an automatic win for the project long term IMO .
   Let degen spew their SILV2 they are making us win longterm .

[rugged prairie]

Hi ShotokanLion,
By this, do you see leaving sILV2 is an incentive for whales/degens to keep accumulating and staking ILV?

[rugged prairie]

Hey Jaganite,
I saw in the last post you had some other ideas about how to burn sILV2, like tournaments, do you see any other ways. Plus what are your thoughts on leaving sILV2 in the ecosystem?

[covert pelican]

depends what they are aiming for . NFTS , Pro Player who want to have cheap entrants to tournaments. if you tell me i can buy in in SILV2 and get paid in ILV or ETH imma buy the whole unnoficial pool at this price

What about free to play tournament and win SILV 2 , SILV 2 Tournaments where you win booster packs or ILV or ETH . I just dont know if the treasury has any SILV2

[drowsy gyro]

Really I can’t think of a good way to make it work. The beauty of overworld is that the supply of all the in-game NFTs is based on demand. Players choose what to collect because it’s the sort of thing they want. Players mine if they want minerals, Capture the illuvials they have a demand for, harvest plants if they want those things.

Random boxes will be fairly dumb (like there will be no algorithm used to make the contents meet the market demand) and just random and not reactive in anyway. The supply will just be random and not be a reaction to demand.

I cannot think of a good way for the DAO to get the NFTs after players mint them. The DAO would have to buy them. Which is counter productive. I guess there’s the possibility of players going on an overworld run on behalf of the DAO. But what would incentivize a f2p player to do this? This also gets complicated pretty quickly. Not ideal I don’t think.

[signal carbon]

I think If ILV prices are high sILV2 is not a problem
The problematic case when the price of ILV falls and it becomes difficult to raise funds.
I don't think we are in that situation now, but we should always keep an eye on ILV prices.
Kieran said he knows how to fundraise with X, so I don't see a problem now.
I think booster packs, etc., are for the team to decide.
I disagree about the additional resources that would be required, as we need to release the product quickly to monetize it.
I'm optimistic now because of the half-life of BTC.
The idea of delaying the use of sILV2 is an option in case of a bad case.

[rugged prairie]

I feel you on this one.

[gaunt meadow]

Point 5 you mean ?

[drowsy gyro]

Revdis cannot be claimed as sILV2. Because the revdis is actual ILV tokens that were minted previously. The reason minting sILV2 occurs is from yield farming rewards. Those rewards are either minted immediately after claiming as sILV2 or after withdrawing the fully vested ILV rewards.

[full orchid]

we'll see how the automated tourney works. i believe the best way to deal with sILV2 is more sink

[rugged prairie]

Yep. Also was the money breakdown in the last section regarding the swap or the effect of sILV in general. I thought I would bring it over here.

[rugged prairie]

Sweet.
What I'm thinking from what everyone is saying so far.

• Create more sinks
  Tournament, IZ speed up, beyond and possibly others.
• booster packs will most likely face fair resistance, for me personally it's due to the speculative nature of how the economy will play out in its current form. Yet there does seem to be a use case in regards to revenue and they are heavily RNG so more will most likely be purchased than less, it may be possible, fron what others say, to do it in a way that won't effect the ecosystem too much? I'm also seeing it may be possible to have a true trickle down economy, whereby, those with the most provide opportunities through sponsorship to, those with less. Thus working decentralization to it's potential. Breaking the dichotomy of those who have the most money will be the only ones with the best teams.

I think keeping it on the table is a good idea, with a plan to look further at it once we have a functional economy to gauge off?

• There is still worry regarding launch. So sink ideas that can be implemented without too much extra pressure or work for the team would be ideal.

• There is still a fair split regarding whether or not sILV2 should continue with no consideration to end it.

The conversations going have been excellent. Josh mentioned it would be great to have as many eyes on and brains thinking of this issue.

If everyone, who is willing, could encourage their networks within illuvium to share their thoughts it would be wonderful.

[drowsy gyro]

Here’s an idea for a sink that I think is pretty bad.

Inaccessible Land
Sell some new inaccessible lands right now. But don’t allow them to be playable until the appropriate time (many months later). It’s a jpeg. Until it isn’t. Maybe they have to be held in a wallet for a year before it can be activated.

Problems include: further angering current land owners, reducing potential value of current land by undercutting the market prices, reduction of the remaining lands for future sales, it does not scale well (3000 lands sold at $1000 each would not sink half the current sILV2).

[rugged prairie]

It's an idea. I don't know if it bad or not.

[gaunt meadow]

It’s but of an echo chamber here, can some people from the team chip in and give us what plan do they have if they have one, and also advices, opinions …

[rugged prairie]

@faint jacinth Are you able to jump in and share your thoughts again.

[rugged prairie]

I've reached out to some.
More people trying to find a solution would also be good.

I'm facilitating and collating.
I think it's okay to keep nutting out ideas.

[stuck jackal]

This would risk plugging up the hole with other potential problems, I think its a fun concept but high risk solutions are not the way to solve any problem

[stuck jackal]

Eventually sILV2 will become nearly impossible to trade due to low liquidity, having a cutoff date for its use in the ecosystem makes perfect sense, the timeframe is a lot harder but 12 months after Open Beta makes sense as a baseline.

IZ speed up is a solid plan and is maybe the most actionable thing that has been discussed, I don't see any major issues with it.

I do put a bit less weight on this issue than many of the others do so I'll table the rest of my thoughts for now

[rugged prairie]

@dreamy falcon
Share your thoughts hun.

[faint jacinth]

I'm a simple man. We said you could claim as sILV and use it to buy things. I get that the games being delayed made this a different proposition (and it's well known that I've never been a fan of sILV) but I don't see it as that large of a problem. We've seen that the 'value' of sILV2 used to purchase is much higher than using ETH.

I think that will continue. So even though we will miss revenue, I think it could be some multiple (around 4x) less loss than what it shows on the surface.

As such I'm still of the opinion that we give a shard cut off for when sILV2 will be honoured. Maybe 3 months post launch. That means that all the sILV2 will be used, or it won't be a problem after that date.

The other option, to allow people to convert back to ILV I think is not a good idea. I think it is trivial to see that the total long term loss of value for doing so will be much higher. Locking that conversion can smooth it out, but I think 'rip off the bandaid' is the simplest and best solution.

In fact I don't see this as much of a "Dao funding problem" as it is that a disgruntled sILV2 claimer promblem where they might say "I claimed expecting the games to be done on x date, and they aren't".

The harsh answer to that is all dates are estimates, and we failed on that.

If there are enough of these disgruntled people then an IIP can fix that. I'm not in favour, but I totally understand it.

[dreamy falcon]

Thanks Teloolah. I don’t understand the mechanics like above for sLIV2. 🥰

[upbeat ether]

As such I'm still of the opinion that we give a shard cut off for when sILV2 will be honoured. Maybe 3 months post launch. That means that all the sILV2 will be used, or it won't be a problem after that date.

This coupled with ceasing the ability to redeem yield into silv2 instead of ilv would make the most sense to me. But I would push for after 6 months from open beta for silv2 validity to be used. And hard stop of minting silv2 before open beta to give enough notice for everyone.

[rugged prairie]

Your welcome Haitch,
I think that is good feedback too.

[rugged prairie]

Thank you Aaron

[full orchid]

im looking at the top holders of sILV2. it could be challenging to spend 500 sILV2, or $50k on runs in 3 months

[rugged prairie]

@faint jacinth and @upbeat ether
Do you feel more sinks could be initiated, such as speed ups for land

[rugged prairie]

So assuming that it does get cut off and minting stopped.
Would the 6months be better and perhaps an IIP about sinks that give value to the holders of sILV that give the least if not no extra workload to the team?

[full orchid]

i dont believe in forcing people to spend their money

[rugged prairie]

I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate please?

[full orchid]

putting a time limit to spend sILV2 is forcing people to spend sILV2

[upbeat ether]

This is important as well and plays an ancillary role. You need more sinks for silv2 use cases.

[mental mist]

Leaning into your idea for the cut off, you could announce a cut off and have a decay in sILV2 value over an agreed period. Phase out is slower and less harsh but incentivises the use early still.

[faint jacinth]

That's an interesting idea.

In any case if it is up to me my plan is to do zero work on any of this. I need you guys to kick and scream if you think it's important, because otherwise it will get missed.

https://tenor.com/view/teamwork-gif-11937128885494742584

[alpine ravine]

Ok so here's one quick math i made recently with the actual amount of tokens staked, every 5M$ of benefits that Illuvium makes (because revdis is revenue-cost, we just usually dont say benefit for legal reasons) every Token would get 1.4-ish $ of revdis.

So i return the question: are these 70k sILV (7M$) that big of an issue for the DAO that it's worth canceling a promess we made long ago and influenced how people invest in our game?

[rugged prairie]

Thanks Zeptyle,
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts here.
Just to clarify by the question you asked everyone here, you don't think sILV2 will have much of an effect?
Assuming sILV2 does end, What would be your best case scenario?

[full orchid]

assumptions:
a. ILV at $100. Value of sILV2 is $7m - $11.3m
b. 6m ILV staked, equal weight. Treasury has 1m token. Revdis is 15% of revenue.
c. Burn rate $1m/month. Revenue needed to cover OPEX = $6m/month
d. Average player spending is $500/month

Scenarios:

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

really depends our reasonable estimate of revenue post OB

[alpine ravine]

well the assumptions are quite wild. Actual OPEX is 1,3M on the last 4months average according to burn reports. You just assumed that our operational costs would 4x once the game launches. why?

[rugged prairie]

@alpine ravine for clarification may I also ask what you believe was promised, I'm asking as I feel it's important to see how information is received.

[full orchid]

its revenue needed for our $1m opex

[alpine ravine]

The promess was simple: If you decide to mint sILV2 over ILV out of your staking rewards, that'll give you liquidity to spend in game rather than decisional power and revdis.

[full orchid]

treasury claim 15% of the $6m

u can put a higher number on burn rate, just means we need more players

[rugged prairie]

And that hasn't been able to happen due the game not being released yet.

[gaunt meadow]

Expenses 6m avg $1,169,345
Monthly revenues for sustainability $5,714,849

20.5% revenue goes to treasury (this is a calculation approx. since last revdis a long time ago, next revdis will show how accurate)

[alpine ravine]

23k downloads week1 with no ownership and before the Liquid streams start. I think we are on the right track to have more than 16-20k players. also within the revenues not everything comes from sILV2/travels.

there's the NFT fee we get for transactions between players on the market and merch too and other possible income routes. with a game launched and on the right track with a better ILV price the option for a new raise appears too etc.

I see the fear and Lelahel sent me the calcs he made on the other thread. i'm just genuinely against canceling a promess that was made because the game got delaied double penalizing the people who staied and had plans for their sILV2. I also just think the change proposed here is unnecessary

[rugged prairie]

So more time to spend it would be beneficial In that case?
Do you feel land, beyond have been a fair compensation?

[full orchid]

im against backtracking our promises. but i do acknowledge the potential issues. just trying to find reasonable assumptions on revenue.

what would you do if we fall short on revenue post OB?

selling more token shouldnt be the only solution

remember when we were hyped on 1m sign-ups?
i do feel the epic store numbers are underwhelming

[rugged prairie]

To be fair I'd steer away from the word promise and replace it with expectations as Aaron clearly mentioned previously.

[alpine ravine]

we can still adjust the % of treasury while we settle things down, we can create new ways for players to spend their money like the constant tournament proposal, we can invest more in Marketing, we can re-alocate tokens from the in-game rewards (again while we settle things down) etc. not to mention we have other revenue streams like the market fee and merch. we can sell our IP rights to 3rd parties (like merchandising companies). We can put ads on Zero to speed up some processes etc, we can make a second landsale. And we can SPEND on improving what already exists to make it more attractive and increase both conversion and retention rates.

like there are plenty of ways for a project like Illuvium to make money of that i could think of in just 5 minutes, so not too worried about what we could do if the problem was real and had the entire team + DAO thinking on it.

[alpine ravine]

oh the download numbers suck and we always knew the 1M sign ups were full of bots. but to me that just shows how little of the gaming community we've reached so far. the crypto bros are waiting for ownership

[rugged prairie]

What do you both think of Josh's idea here
#1184266889392836619 message
Would this be possible middle ground.
sIlv2 ends yet there is more time to use it. Along with creating more sinks?

[full orchid]

isnt adjusting the treasury claim % revdis is canceling a promise?
we promised 100% revdis to stakers.

we can discuss about the other ways of generating revenue as you have mentioned

i am for selling more jpegs in sILV2 and providing more sILV2 sink

we just have to be aware that the games have to be popular for people to spend on all of the other ways you have mentioned. and maybe we should consider that it could take some time for the games to be popular to generate sufficient revenue

[alpine ravine]

100% of revenue minus cost

[full orchid]

TL, one of the biggest esports, is streaming our game, i believe we have reached a lot

and we are trending on epic store

[alpine ravine]

ok Broxah was streaming it yesterday to 6k people and only 2k after he said it was crypto... How small do you think the gaming market is?! O.o

"we reached a lot"

[rugged prairie]

Jag and Zeptyle
Can you both please pull back a little to topics at hand.
The discussion you're having is interesting yet not really productive to working on a solution.

[alpine ravine]

the expected amount of players willing to pay to play our games is the core of the problem though
His proposal intent is to limit risk in case we have less than 15k players willing to spend in our ecosystem

[full orchid]

[rugged prairie]

I believe it was part of the original thread. Regarding swapping sILV2 to ILV, it's not something that is being discussed anymore.

[full orchid]

it is actually, if we have 1m players paying $500/month right out of the gate, we wouldnt be having this discussion

[rugged prairie]

I see it's still in the description about the player base, I believe that's still the case, yet the details have changed. As In sILV2 will most likely be ending.
Check Aarons post and Josh's reply.

[rugged prairie]

We may not be having a discussion about sILV2 right now, that's correct, yet we are due to the post. The direction has changed.

@mental mist
Can you please help here. I'm struggling to explain.
Plus maybe I'm wrong

[full orchid]

its good to lay out the underlying issue before we are thinking of a solution

[alpine ravine]

I agree identifying what the real problem is before thinking on a solution is better. From what i understood the "problem" is "what if we don't have enough players and those sILV2 end up being a danger for the runway and survival of the project"

someone correct if i'm wrong but that's what i think we're trying to solve

[rugged prairie]

I'm guessing just continue on until we get some. clarification.

Snap 😁

[mental mist]

That's a risk, but even a good amount of players should still see a sizable loss of revenue to the project.

sILV2 as a whole is an issue, it's scalable debt that moves up with our token price.

More sinks are great and as long as they don't delay the game launch can be entertained pre launch. Good to discuss regardless for post launch.

I personally like Aaron's idea along with the decay in value idea

Things to discuss and consider are when would the 1:1 cut off point be for value, what the decay value cycle looks like and when does it reach 1:0.

[full orchid]

what if people are claiming sILV2 and buying more sILV2 from the pool to mint the next illuvitar waves, or to mint the next land sale

we can use the next land sale as a cut off date for sILV2, last chance to spend sILV2. or, if we are really concerned about losing revenue to sILV2, we can make compromises, like putting a maximum amount of sILV2 use on transaction. e.g. 50% sILV2 and 50% fuel for ingame actions

with a decaying value, we are essentially taking away from investors for nothing

[alpine ravine]

what about we wait and see based on how PB3 and PB4 go and use the final numbers for assumptions on this case? i feel like this proposal would have a better direction or even just more sense with numbers that are not just assumptions.

[drowsy gyro]

Aaron in the chat

He’s our Winston Churchill

[full orchid]

[buoyant pasture]

I still don't agree with a cut off for sILV2. We were told we would be able to spend it in game, we weren't told it would be only for a limited time. We should not be breaking promises.

I think we can become a lot more creative with how to get it spent. You know the Black Friday sale we just had for merch store? sILV2 could have been incorporated into that. I don't know merch store numbers but if something could be offered that is sILV2 based, like a mug with an Illuvial holding an sILV2 token or something. A one time NFT with a sILV2 background. Things you can ONLY purchase using sILV2.
sILV2 arena tournaments.
Could we do something like an entry where people pay a really small amount in sILV2 and then all the sILV2 is pooled and however much money there is buys Mega D1sks. Say there are 10 D1sks bought, people will have a chance to win one if they are lucky enough to have their name randomly drawn. It could be done weekly.
Or remember that one marketing thing Illuvium was involved in where if we did certain tasks we got credits and then we would spend those credits to enter to win other stuff? We could do something like that with sILV2.
I still think land speed ups could use up a lot.
How close are we to being able to change how your ranger looks? Let people buy hairstyles or eye/hair/skin colours using sILV2.
I'm not saying these are the best ideas, just brainstorming some things to think of.

Again, this is something I don't have the numbers for so I am making an assumption. Land sale and Illuvitars sales are quite probably higher thanks to sILV2. If we cut off sILV2 right after the game starts and then we have the next Illuvitar wave sale and the numbers sold plummets, that will look really bad for us. Just something to keep in mind. Illuvium got a lot of attention at the beginning because of a very successful land sale.

[rugged prairie]

Hi Torial,
Thanks for coming back into the conversation.
A few people have expressed they were promised, I understand how a broken promise can be defeating.
Check out #1184266889392836619 message
I think this explains the teams position.
I personally feel using the word promise is subjective to our interpretation of the facts.

I believe the goal now, is to find a way people can still use sILV2 as it has taken longer than expected for the ability to do so.

Merch would be cool to claim. I like a lot of your ideas. You've brought a lot to the table.

I know it's a sensitive topic and I don't want to offend anyone, yet even if it was promised you could use it in game. That's still happening, it's just the time frame. Im not seeing it was said sILV2 would be continuous.
My personal thoughts are to give people a fair amount of time to use it all up.

[buoyant pasture]

@rugged prairie I did see Aaron's response and as much as I truly respect him, I still disagree with the idea of putting sILV2 on a spending timer.

What is a fair amount of time to use it all up? Some people have a lot of sILV2, more than they would want to use in a few months.

It may or may not have ever been said there would be no time limit on sILV2 but I feel like it was implied that it would always be able to be used as an in game currency. sILV2 has always been talked about as an "after it is all spent" scenario not "3 months after game release" scenario, you know what I mean?

If it hasn't been said that it would be available forever, then I guess technically we could get away with this, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. We have advertised it for over 2 years as currency that can be used on game release and then right when the game is almost released we are going to say, "But you better spend it fast or you lose it!" That just doesn't sit right with me.

I get that sometimes companies/DAOs HAVE to make decisions like that. They have to tell people, "We are sorry, we have to do this to survive" but I am not convinced we don't have other options. I think we should be doing everything in our power to use those other options instead.

[rugged prairie]

I hear you, I'm guessing if there is 'a time it's spent' scenario, it may have to be stopped as a reward now?

[buoyant pasture]

Can we do that though when people staked with the knowledge that they could claim either ILV or sILV2? Is it legal to change the contract after someone has entered into it?

[rugged prairie]

I don't know.
There are really no terms regarding sILV2 and the time of its availability.
That's really the limit of my knowledge.
@full orchid or @mental mist or @scenic plinth may know.

[drowsy gyro]

If it’s not then there’s the multiple times the contracts have been changed already which would be a problem. I don’t think blockchain contracts are legally binding.

[rugged prairie]

Also if it was a contract they could call the end anytime they wanted because it doesn't have an official one afaik?

People have been talking about the supply disappearing I'm not really sure what that means. Perhaps when vesting (?) ends? Can anyone add clarity to this.

Lol that message disappeared quick.

[full orchid]

yea everyone should see everything in the project as "subject to the DAO".
it's more about maintaining investors trust.
even pre/seed vesting period and team vesting period was altered

[drowsy gyro]

The supply of sILV2 gets burnt upon use. And the supply cannot be increased after all the yield farming rewards have been claimed or the chance to claim is ended. So eventually the supply of sILV2 will dwindle to nothing.

[rugged prairie]

Okay.

[buoyant pasture]

Good point

[buoyant pasture]

Agree about investors trust. Everything can be changed but that doesn't mean things can be changed without consequences.

[rugged prairie]

So from what people say SILV2 or the original sILV was to reduce the supply of the token.
How did it come about? And when/why were people told it could be a reward to use in game?

[full orchid]

this is why council election and community feedback are becoming more important this epoch.

we are very close to OB and the halving

[rugged prairie]

Lol I know it's a terrible comparison

[upbeat ether]

sILV came about from the team and its treated like an alternative payment to fuel for ingame which evolved to multiple use cases such as land auction and beyond purchase. There was no promise made as to how long it can be deemed valid which is why DAO can decide to implement a period. Of course, it would be equitable to ensure that community is given enough time to use their sILV after open beta and best case is to have multiple use cases for it before said period.

[rugged prairie]

Thank you. Yes I agree with an acceptable time limit.

Im assuming that no limit was out on it, would be why in the last post people mentioned the delay in game is what has led to so many sILV2 to burn?

[full orchid]

yea, our tokenomics provide some indication of the team's estimation of launch

the safety pool IIP and this idea are some of the ways to lessen the effect of delays

[full orchid]

not sure thats what people mentioned. its prob, the delay led so many sILV2 accumulated

[rugged prairie]

Yeah a few have discussed this in the previous thread.

Regardless. I'm getting everyone away from topic now lol.

[full orchid]

you are

[rugged prairie]

I never know if you are making fun of me or having fun with me. Lol

[rugged prairie]

It's cool to clarify things, yet productivity and ease of assessing the information in the end, when talk is too far from intended purposes, reduces significantly.

[alpine ravine]

yeah i mentioned that

[signal carbon]

Are there many who are against making a 3 month deadline for the use of sILV2?
I think it would be better for those who have invested in ILV if sILV2 were to disappear sooner rather than remain in the long term!
I also have about 200 sILV2 but I don't play OW so I would need land sale to use this in 3 months.
A different event using sILV2 is also fine.
Unused portions can be sold.
I don't think most people will lose money selling sILV2, if the time when OB will be released will be about the same as the BTC halving,
How about asking the community for input once as @faint jacinth ?
I don't think there are that many people against it.
People who have a lot of sILV2 should be staking a lot of ILV, or those who are saving sILV2 for investment purposes should be making a profit. especially if they were collecting it for 30-40$.
And if this idea is known quickly, no one will claim for sILV2 any more, so there will be no more increase.

[alpine ravine]

I am, i don't see why there should be such thing or even if the concern is worth considering in this point in time. I do understand the concerns but i feel like we are too far away from Open Beta launch to have real estimates and take informed and wise decisions. I'm afraid some people could vote on this also just based on FUD which is why i would really beg the people who want something to happen on this topic to hold on until we have more info and a better look on what the situation will be on OB launch

[buoyant pasture]

There is not to be another land sale until current landowners can not keep up with fuel production due to a large demand by lots of players.

Landowners will (rightfully IMO) lose their minds if a land sale is held a couple months in.

[rare oar]

Ahoy there, just chiming in to acknowledge Josh & Teloolah for getting this discussion started. I don’t have strong opinions on this, but do see the benefit of a timeframe cut off for sILV2 use.
Really appreciate the discussion between Zep, Jag & others. We’ve clearly got a DAO stacked with industry knowledge and a drive for success 🚀 I’ll withhold from voting at this time.

[signal carbon]

I am not making this suggestion because it is FUD.
I am proposing it because it is in the best interest of more people.

Advantage

1. It is in the interest of DAO for all sILV2 to be faster.
2. All sILV2 will be faster, which will lead to an increase in the price of ILV.
   This is not only because it eliminates the uncertainty of future DAO funding, but also because Revdis can be expected early on.
   It also benefits those who are currently staking.

Disadvantage

1. Force those who already have sILV2 to use it
   (Even if people who currently have sILV2 sell it before they can use it up, how many people will lose out?)
   You should be able to check all the accounts that currently have sILV2 and find out how many people will lose and how much.

@buoyant pasture
There is no need for LAND sale if the community opposes it.
Please think about other uses for sILV2.
I will sell sILV2 if there is no other use for it.
I have 209sILV2 and if I sell it I may lose more than I did when I locked the ILV for 12 months, but I don't mind the loss on that because I will make more profit if the sILV2 is all gone in 3 months, even if there is not much demand for sILV2 and the price drops another 30% than now!
People who save for sILV2 as an investment are on their own, there were times when they could have lost money, and there were times when they could have bought it at a 50% discount and sold it for 90% or more and made a profit!
And many people will not suffer big losses if they sell sILV2 now, the only one who will suffer big losses is the whale, but they should be staking ILV, so their profits will be bigger!

@alpine ravine
If you want to ask the community for their opinion, you need to post both ideas.
Some people think FUD, but others say not.
I think it's good to choose the side that benefits the most people, and that is decided by the community and by the members of the Council that the community chooses to elect.
I think there are fewer people who will lose out with this proposal.
I accept this idea if it is rejected by the community.

If sILV2 is only available for 3 months after the game's release, the demand from those who do not have sILV2 now will increase.
The more people who want to make money quickly, especially in OW, the higher the demand will be, so I do not think that the price of sILV2 will fall too much.

[buoyant pasture]

You are making a lot of assumptions @signal carbon. We don't even know what it will cost for an OW run. If it is announced that sILV2 is only available for use for 3 months I think we will see a lot of people trying to sell as people will decide there isn't enough time for them to use it (like you are thinking of doing). Don't assume you will have a market to sell to.

We have a lot of smart, educated people on both the team and in the community. However, something we seem to be doing is running from one fire to another trying to put them out but without always thinking through the consequences of the methods we are using to douse the flames. Some of the consequences aren't as obvious as others.

Honestly , the more I think on this the more I think we should hire an economist as a consultant who does not hold any Illuvium assets or know the team personally. He/she can be given the full picture and help us decide how to best handle any decision having to do with tokenomics. I don't think community should decide on economic issues like sILV2 and gas fees for travel. We have only one shot to get this right.

[rugged prairie]

Thanks @buoyant pasture and @signal carbon I will aim to get some numbers in for you.

[rugged prairie]

I think 3 months may not be long enough time for holder who will be playing themselves.

However a holder could effectively sponsor other players. Most notably for Stage 3 runs, which may be out of reach for a large cohort of the player base.

A holder could then earn more through selling of assets produced by the sponsored players.

A holder can also have a sponsored player/s collect a team of illuvials for them to play PVP.

This requires no input or work for the team.

Depending on the amount of players sponsored, 3 months may be enough.

[raven drum]

So how exactly do i sponsor someone that i dont know? That contract would cost the devs a huge amount of work.

My opinion: Stop silv2 minting end of the year. Keep the promise of being able to pay with silv2 ingame.

[rugged prairie]

People have already done so with personal deals in Illuvium Zero.

You are still able to spend In game.
One of the issues here, is that there is a lot more sILV2 held than expected.

Check #1184266889392836619 message
For an example of a time frame.

Polemos already has a lending program. I can find out what the plan is for illuvium if you would like.
I have seen it mentioned that illuvium is working on a sponsorship platform.

[raven drum]

I hardly disagree on constantly changing parameters that affect the community financially. You ever wonder why we didnt moon after PVP release on epic store and TL partnership? Because investor trust in the project is low IMO

[rugged prairie]

It could be these reasons or multiple factors.

I feel SILV2 is a fairly unique situation as the large amounts people hold are mainly due to the delay in the game.

My personal feeling is that parameters will continue to change. The DAO can equally affect that.

I definitely get where you are coming from though.

It will be for yourself and those interested where the direction of this will go, if it becomes an IIP.

[gaunt meadow]

Maybe this can help people to debate if sILV2 is a real problem or not. It'll keep updating almost automatically now.

[full orchid]

you cant buy fuel with silv2

[gaunt meadow]

Ok that was a joke but let me update that ahahah don’t want misinterpretation

[rugged prairie]

@twin adder Is this correct. I thought you could.

[gaunt meadow]

You can’t because it would mess with the fuel prices, silv2 can be use to replace the fuel only

[rugged prairie]

Lol thanks. would you mind having a look at the rewording ive done for the explanation before I post it

[rugged prairie]

can you explain that a bit to me, what does it mean replace?

[full orchid]

its gonna mess the whole economy

[gaunt meadow]

If you bought fuel with silv2, you can’t give value to land owner. But the system will allow you to choose how to pay your travel fuel or silv2. Same as today when you choose to buy you illuvitars eth or silv2.

[rugged prairie]

Awesome thanks, perhaps that needs to be clarified in the image, for people like me who wouldn't understand it. fuel/silv doesn't really explain much, leaves room for interpretation.

[rugged prairie]

i will fix that up. Thanks for telling me.

[rugged prairie]

<@&795142782133207063> can you please pin this?

[rugged prairie]

I think the explanation I put in from the previous post needs to be changed. I didn't know how to re-word it. 2
Would something like
Possible revenue loss was identified by Josh.eth. The previous thread explored different options and opinions regarding sILV2. It became apparent sILV2 would most likely be ending, this along with the likelihood of swapping to ILV not likely to be accepted by the team has led to a change in direction. With the main focus on time frames and a solution that provides the opportunity for sILV2 holders to use the token as was stated.
? What do you think?

it doesn't feel correct yet im not sure how to re word it.

[gaunt meadow]

Note to myself:

I think a more realistic simulation on runway would be to start with a higher % of silv2 used and lower it month after month. 🤔

Like first month 70% used, then 60%, then 50, 40, etc….

• add illuvitars paid in silv2

(I’m on my way to get wasted so I can maybe see this message once back alive)

[full orchid]

The fuelconomics:

1. We use an order book system
2. The DAO and landowners earn revenue in ETH by selling their Fuels.
3. Buying fuel with sILV2 means the DAO and landowners earn part of their revenue in sILV2. Landowners might be okay, but the DAO either burn the sILV2 (selling fuel for a loss) or swap sILV2 for ILV to distribute revdis (sILV2 back in the market)

[drowsy gyro]

I’m a little unclear on what the columns on the right side are saying exactly. How is the price of ILV and the revenue used to calculate how many months of expenses are covered? Is it all based on about $5m total rev? Is it saying how many extra months of expenses will be covered by current treasury plus the revenue or is it just the treasury or just the future revenue?

[gaunt meadow]

It’s assuming revenues are at flat 5.7m$. And assuming a go live on 1st March. Then that simulate of many month runway would be left from that point.

Prince of ilv influence the silv2 value. So the revenues when used to pay in game.

It’s flawed. Just give an tangible idea rather than guessing and opinion out of thin air.

[drowsy gyro]

Possible revenue loss due to sILV2 was identified by Josh.eth. The previous thread explored different options and opinions regarding sILV2. It became apparent that sILV2 minting and usage would most likely be ending, this along with the likelihood of swapping to ILV not being accepted by the team has led to a change in direction. With the main focus on time frames and a solution that provides the opportunity for sILV2 holders to use the token as was stated.

(Like this maybe)

[drowsy gyro]

That helps. Thanks.

So $5.7m “revenue” with the listed percentage of that being paid in sILV2 (so not actual revenue)

[rugged prairie]

thanks.

https://tenor.com/view/teamwork-gif-21178977

[static pond]

IMO -

1 No booster packs - there should only be 2 ways you can get illuvials Illuvidex and Overworld that was the original plan Overworld is the crown jewel and the keystone of Illuvium with niche aspect of PVP and IZ supporting it. I believed It would also hurt secondary sales in the illuvidex.

2.If it has to be used burning it in overworld and ILZ would make the burn faster

3 100% this rip off the bandage disable the option to even choose silv2

4 Also an option put the value of silv2 on a x month timer Drop SILV2 ILV---> SlILV2 from 100% to 90 - 80 - 70 - 60 etc have have it reach 0 at the time the time limit is reached

5 As long as enough notice is given of its demises on all social media and other announcement platforms there should not be a problem One suggestion that has not been brought up is to have a** "burn contest"** open a burn wallet and have some big prize or prizes for the wallets that send the most SILV2 to the burn walled Galaxy fight club is doing somthing like that with g-coin.

And just so people have context on just how long this topic has existed look at the date on this screen shot add in my IIP as well. Like other topics --- people like to talk about it but it was always " too early" to make any decision. For SILV2 another reason was getting past the "personal discount" > The DAO generating revenue

The burn contest could also be used as multi IP cross marketing -- get other IPs to donate prizes in return they get more exposure to their project .

[covert pelican]

By decay do you guys mean reducing the value of SILV2 over time? If so how would you explain to somebody who commited to spend in game currency instead of claiming token to.dump and make $ that he made the wrong choice ( also no apy) by giving his rewards a 100% chance of going towards the game ( THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THIS PROJECT) . People tend to forget we are not only a shit coin trying to get rev dis but also a game trying to breach to mainstream. League of Legend did it as a F2P game and makes million selling cosmetic. Copy this web 2 model AND then give the web3 degen an allocated market were they can speculate. No wonder when the word crypto is thrown out people quit Broxah Stream . If anybody joined discord from that stream and seen these $ hungry rev dis advocate they d boycott the game. We need to put crypto as a + to the game not a driving function of it . Or else were just another ponzi trying to rip of customer with Jpegs. I hope the team dont take action at all and just focus on delivering the game changing game they are meant and promise to deliver. So far so good as a bif tft player this is gonna compete well IMO . Just never mention crypto and let people seemlessly get addicted to the complexity of the gameplay , the challenge . Nobody ever read the LoL Lore and now they are making movie about it . They just created an addictive game . Recurring customers. Loyal fan base . And even then there is still degen within that space spending thousands a year on cosmetic . In south korea you could take a Taxi using a app . It would be using Luna token but without ever mentionning crypto. It was seemless operation . Nobody likes crypto . Its gonna take time to make it a non taboo word . Especially in gaming where people have acces to free games of high quality everywhere . @faint jacinth

[static pond]

I think you have the wrong Idea about Silv-2 it was always designed to " go extinct" one day right from conception.

SILV-2 is a BURDEN not a ASSET to the DAO in general as IT DOES NOT COUNT AS REVENUE or revdis or the %5 fuel based revenue eth pay out for land holders perfect example the land sale

Approximately 72 million dollars in value only 7million approx. of that was actual revenue -- so yes -- I would like the DAO to make more Revenue so that less revenue is Lost to Sliv-2 and more REVDIS is paid out to the DAO itself and all the stakers who have supported this project.

If nothing were to change When staking ends july of 2024 so does the slow extinction of SILV-2 .

Think of this this way we started with 10 million potential ILV however 3 million are able to trade their existence to another token in this case sILv-2 everyone who claims part of that 3 million yield get a choice on whether or not that trade will happen . when the first person choose to make 1 Silv-2 the maximum ILV in existence dropped to 9 999 999 Every time silv-2 is used it is burned out of existence. Silv-2 is a finite resource that will go extinct sometime after yield end in July 2024. that is just a fact. If you have 10 balls in a bag and you keep taking them out without replace them eventually there will be no balls in that bag.

" shit coin"
"Instead of claiming token to dump and make $"
If that is your view you also have a wrong view on the ILV token itself and do not understand how Revdis works

Only staked ILV generates Revdis - so if you have 100 ILV tokens you choose your mandatory lock time 1 month lowest weight 12 months highest weight
Revdis does not care about anything other than the ** # of tokens you have not the value ** + the weight the tokens are valued at and the Share per token
If you keep your token stake past the mandatory lock period you continue earning revdis for as long as the DAO exists
simplified at 1x weight if you had $100 to distribute and 100 Stakers each had 1 token token would be worth $1 per token so each staker would get $1

For Example your principle investment is x ( say $100) once you are paid out $100 if you cash that out you will have broke even on that $100

now the next time you end up with $100 to claim for your revdis share ...that is now "profit" --- and the next time - more profit - next time - more profit - everything you make form that point for the life of the DAO is profit.

This is also not a PURE FTP game its a PAY to PLAY game with FTP aspects so comparing it to LOL is not accurate at is core it is also a Crypto based game. People keep forgetting that .

Why would you play LOL and feed RIOT more money - when you can own the assets and help yourself and a entier community prosper not a corporation. that is the question you need ask cypto haters

[covert pelican]

So a SILV2 claimbed reduce max supply which means ILV token goes up ?

[static pond]

No goes down the max # of ILV is 10 million

If all Silv-2 are claimed there will only ever be 7 million ILV in existence - Not likley to happen which is why i don't really care about it any more I think we have reach the most we are going to see the supply of ILV drop

[covert pelican]

Yea but if the max supply drops then the VALUE of ilv goes up? At =holders??

[static pond]

Less of anything will make it more valuable

[covert pelican]

So the price is suppose to go up eventually because of scarcity ? Similar to a btc halving ? Less available token = more valuable = price up ?

[static pond]

@covert pelican unless you are a trader and only care about "dumping" (i want profit NOW!) yes then token price up is a good thing --- me personally i would have loved to see the "$20 ILV" all the fudders were prophesizing --- as i said for REVDIS is the # of tokens stakes that matters not the value of the tokens - $20 token means i get more value and more tokens when i do a buy to stake which means I get more revids

Somone with 100 ILV staked will get more Revdis than somone with 20 ILV staked

[covert pelican]

I understand how rev dis work mate . I also understand that the first point of holding stock or crypto or any investment is for capital gain no other things . If people want rev dis its to take profit eventually ? Or do you intent on never taking profit and have 10M token just to brag about it ? Rev dis is nice but being a cash grab project wont bring you profit . Focusing on other things than the game wont bring you rev dis . Having a game of the year is gonna bring in rev dis. But were here trying to destroy a token which cant be minted in about 6 month where its actual usage gonna be effective FINALLY after 2 years of waiting.

[drowsy gyro]

There’s nothing in the contract that prevents sILV2 from being minted after the yield farming ends. It’s simply limited to the amount yield farming tokens. There has not yet been a deadline placed on claiming yield farming token rewards.

[covert pelican]

Something higher induced me to think it was stopping after staking reward

[static pond]

I don't think you do understand how this works .

Wizards of the Coast annual revenue for 2022 was 5.9B, say 6 billion ( yes there is new " rules" to revdis I am jsut keeping it simply 100% like it used to be)
now Say there is

6million qualified stated ilv tokens

6 billion /6million = 1000per token Which means if you had 100 tokens you would be paid out 100 x 1000= 100000
say you put $0 back in to ILV and left your 100 tokens staked and did not touch them

Next year made 6 billion you would get another pay out 100000

and the year after that and alll you ever have to do is NOT TOUCH THE 100 token you have staked

Show me a stock or any other investment -- that pays out like that - Ithink there would be less "crypto haters" if they understood that concept

[drowsy gyro]

That is one of the things that this thread is suggesting.

[covert pelican]

This is right as I said I understand how rev dis works . But this has nothinf to do with SILV2 . Somebody claiming SILV2 helped the project immediatly without any risk to reduce max supply and get a higher value per token . We established that less supply = more value

[rugged prairie]

@covert pelican @static pond
I believe we all want the same thing here. The success of the game.
Some of the main topics are to end sILV2 in a timely manner, so the 'burden' is gone, yet also done in a way that holders can use the token and take advantage of what was offered.

[static pond]

yes it has limits 3 million . i think we have reach the peaks of the ILV reduction which is why I am not as cocnerned. I don't think we ae going very much more reduction form this point

[covert pelican]

Having SILV 2= less rev dis
But also equal = Higher priced ILV?

[static pond]

@rugged prairie do you know the current max ILV number off the top of your head ?

[rugged prairie]

A possible solution is suggested here #1184266889392836619 message
From Josh.eth replying to Aaron wanted a quick end after OB.

[covert pelican]

Imagine a world where everybody starts to know about the LP token and we have one day 1M Ilv token circulating because now 1M player are staked and they only claim their reward to play the game and burn the hell out of the supply

[rugged prairie]

No I don't, and as I'm here in a facilitation and collating role, I don't need to. My main purpose is to steer the chat back the topics at hand and help keep people on task to find a solution.

@static pond
You came up with some solutions and clearly stated your thoughts.

[static pond]

@covert pelican I think we are some where around 9 million from what i remember so max supply has only dropped by about 1million or so

[rugged prairie]

Okay. So how do you see that forming into a solution for ending sIlV2 and holders having enough time to use it effectively in game?

[static pond]

i present my ideas in my post .

[rugged prairie]

Yes I saw them. Thank you for your input.
Can you elaborate on what your reference to the supply is about?

[static pond]

are you refing to my op or the discussion about max ilv ?

[rugged prairie]

I am referring to this.

I'm seeking to clarify it's connection to a solution.

And how it relates to the topic at hand.

[static pond]

ohh i didn't mean to quote you on that that had nothing to do with topic - it was just a comment form the other poster regarding how Silv-2 "benefits" ilv - I think its burden outweigh how small drop in supply it was.

[rugged prairie]

Cool, is it okay to move on now back to, ways of it ending and holders still being able to use the token for in game currency, within a time frame that's reasonable.

Some points about decay where highlighted in your recent discussions with @covert pelican

The discussion started to drift too far. That's why I stepped in. I feel the point was resolved.

[static pond]

@rugged prairie your thoughts on the burn contest?

[rugged prairie]

I actually think that's a neat idea. I'd like to see how others think about this. I can only really get broad concepts when it comes to tokens and numbers. Yet I can see how it has merit and could be fun too.
Maybe @buoyant pasture and some other large holders could chime I on that one. @gaunt meadow

You are welcome to tag anyone you believe could jump in on that discussion as well . 🙂

[faint jacinth]

SILV-2 is a BURDEN not a ASSET to the DAO in general as IT DOES NOT COUNT AS REVENUE or revdis or the %5 fuel based revenue eth pay out for land holders perfect example the land sale

This is true but it misses out a crucial piece. In a perfect world, sILV has already done its job by increasing the value of ILV via the fact that instead of 10m max supply, there will be some percentage less. There are a lot of theoreticals in there about how this value has been accumulated, to the point where nobody can ever know if the value it added is equal to the burden it poses. I suspect not, and have since the start, since nobody in this space seems to act like a rational actor except the bloody contracts.

I would go so far as to say most are so stupid that seeing 10m exact would be more bullish than seeing 9129082.987987 and they very well might think that the latter is a higher supply because "more numbers".

Which is why I've been in favour of renormalising once we hit the end of the yield.

This might seem like a one sided argument, and it is. The other side is that sILV2 is used much more liberally in sales. We can't say 'all the sILV used would have been revenue generating if it didn't exist' because people don't see sILV as real money, and so they spend it much more readily. Again, because we're humans and we're all fucking stupid.

[covert pelican]

Aaron for president ! Ohh wait ..he kinda is already . Wdym by Normalising it after yield ?

[rugged prairie]

Lol

[rugged prairie]

We may be stupid indeed, I know when it comes to this topic I certainly am. Yet for others it may be not enough clarity.
As many believe it was promised silv would be used in game and they would have sufficient time to do so.

For my own head,
I would like to ask for a dummies version please. As I find myself wondering why we are having this conversation.

By normalising do you mean sILV2 will naturally fade away and no longer be a burden?

In the past you have mentioned you would like to rip the band-aid off, suggesting SILV2 stops in 3 months?
Is this in line with the end of yield?

Do you see value in the conversations we are having or are we better to sit back and do nothing as it will normalise itself?

[faint jacinth]

Talking about many different things.

“Rip the bandaid off” - Don’t do anything, let people use sILV2 until it goes down to very low numbers.

3 months cutoff - after most sILV is used, make a notification that only 3 months more time for it. Definitely not 3 months from now.

Renormalise - Inflate everyone’s ILV so that the total supply is a fixed round number like 1B.

Note: I have a crazier suggestion that would mean not doing that. So I’m not actively pushing for it.

There was always going to be a cutoff for sILV. It is confusing and doesn’t look as good in the interface. So I don’t see a problem with cutting it off. Maybe others want it to last longer. That’s fine

[faint jacinth]

I am president of nothing. Also your question is answered above.

[rugged prairie]

Thank you. Can you talk about the crazy version?

[rugged prairie]

Hey all
In light of the information above I'm feeling the direction of this could go a few different ways.

1. We wait and do nothing. As Aaron mentioned, the 3month cut off would be initiated after most sILV2 is used. This may be a non issue. Close this thread.

2. Discuss the longer timeframe of 6 months and the gradual devaluation sILV2 (once most sILV2 has been burned)

3. For those who wish it, discuss not cutting sILV2 off.

4. Aaron has something planned. What for that before continuing with this thread.

@drowsy gyro can you please pin Aarons message and mine.

[rugged prairie]

Thanks 🙏🏼

That other name was so random 🤣😅

[drowsy gyro]

That’s a three month countdown that starts when most sILV2 had been used

[rugged prairie]

Oh wait what's the difference there. I feel like that changes it yet not sure how

@drowsy gyro

Oh he said is.?

To me that means once most sILV2 is used the 3 month will start. Am I missing an element?

[faint jacinth]

No. Some people know about it but they all signed NDAs so I doubt it will leak.

And it doesn't matter anyway, I can't just say it will happen. I just think it's a cool long term idea.

[faint jacinth]

I think you guys are talking about the same thing but using different tenses for it. Truly a modern writer vs a classical 3rd person writer sort of conundrum.

[rugged prairie]

Lol okay. 😅 I pretty much skipped understanding grammar. So I'll be looking that up. The modern world has made life easier for a person like me. I think I have managed to survive through sheer will.

“The purpose of a storyteller is not to tell you how to think
but to give you questions to think upon.”
~ Brandon Sanderson

I think this quote makes sense.
And from quick reading, the difference is Tolkien vs Marvel?

[drowsy gyro]

Sanderson

[rugged prairie]

Alas I know which I am now.

[drowsy gyro]

Yeah. We seem to be seeing it the same way. There may have been some way to think that what you had written was indicating that the 3 months would end around the time that most of the sILV2 would have been used.

[rugged prairie]

Ahh I see.

[static pond]

Thanks for the response. Like golf some times a lower number is better. LOL

"There are a lot of theoretical in there about how this value has been accumulated, to the point where nobody can ever know if the value it added is equal to the burden it poses

I suppose this is correct - but I still feel the DAO is going to lose a lot of revenue till its gone and alot of "service and illuvials " that may not have been "sold" otherwise ( the same thing will happen in overworld as the land sales X # of land sold for Y total sales but only Z actual revenue)

Just for full disclosure yes I will be using sliv-2 -- yet still have an Anti-sliv2 stance and willing to take that option away from myself .🤔

[static pond]

**Renormalise - Inflate everyone’s ILV so that the total supply is a fixed round number like 1B. **
why not 1Trillion -- that is an even bigger number that would make some people even happier 😆

[faint jacinth]

The point is the boost to ILV has already happened. What is being proposed is to reduce that boost retroactively so that we don’t pay the consequences later.

To me it’s just borrowing money to pay back a loan.

[buoyant pasture]

I am reading everything as people post. I think I have pretty much said what I had to say. I understand the potential problem. Best case scenario would be to find a solution that doesn't hang sILV2 holders out to dry and of course we always need money to operate. My best suggestion is sinks (as Aaron said, most people don't see sILV2 as actual money) but my background is marketing not development. I have zero idea on what it takes to build these things, so, I don't know what is reasonable to ask the team to do. Or when they could do it.

You are asking what I think of the burn contest, the idea of prizes being given for burning sILV2, suggested by SolarStorm? I think it could work IF the prizes were good enough, IF the team had time to do it, and IF people felt this was the best way to spend it (either because the prizes were so good or they were backed into a corner to do so). Would this be how I would personally want to spend my sILV2? From what was described it sounds like not everyone gets something, so, no. I'm not really into putting my money into something which may give me absolutely no return. I don't buy lottery tickets either.

[buoyant pasture]

Making an announcement that people only have a limited time to spend their sILV2 after most is spent sounds reasonable. Either people won't have much left in their own wallets to spend so it will be easily doable or they would be able to sell it to those who have none left. It wouldn't end in a plummet of sILV2 price like it would if it were a 3 months from today scenario.

Aaron, maybe you could draw your version of Rhamphyre breathing fire, melting an sILV2 token. Make paper prints of them and sign them. Sell them for sILV2 only. It would make a great inside joke collectible item.

[rugged prairie]

Thanks Torial, the question was really to everyone. I signalled you and leahal out to get the balm rolling.
It seems like the thread will change or end.

[spare field]

Great thread @rugged prairie . I don’t have much to add that hasn’t been mentioned here already. I do think it’s an important discussion.
I think that 3 months might be a bit short. Hopefully any time limits don’t negatively impact the economy.

[rugged prairie]

Thanks splendor.
Thanks for jumping in on this. Some things have changed a little. Apologies of this is already understood, yet I'm wanting to ensure people have clarification on this.
This time limit being thought of is, 3 months after most of the sILV2 has been used up.
Aaron also has something in the works regarding this matter.
It's definitely been an interesting conversation and I hope it continues.

[gaunt meadow]

FYI - IMX Wallet

12/09/2023 12:02 PM

• 87420 silv2
• 2.28 eth

12/19/2023 10:01 AM

• 87619 silv2
• 128.33 eth

Results:
238h
199 silv2 -> 0.836/h
126.05 eth -> 0.529/h

20 silv2 used per day for the last 10 days

[rugged prairie]

Would a dumbies version of this be, there is a lot of sILV2 and not much is spent.
Or is it saying this is a significant spend and sILV2 will likely all be spent?

[gaunt meadow]

That's not a lot for sure

[drowsy gyro]

The team liquid promo D1sks can only be purchased with eth. So it’s definitely gonna be skewed.

[gaunt meadow]

Yup true

50 average per day more or less between 28 Sept - 19 Dec 😉