Landowner RevDis

[near flame]

Illuvium Zero Land was sold with the promise of returns equal to 5% of the total in-game revenue. This proposal is to ensure land owners see those returns prior to Open Beta.

RevDis has resumed, but because there is no way for landowners to produce fuel, there is no built in way for them to receive 5% of the in-game revenue.

In addition, in-game purchases were used to fill the safety pool to 5 million USD. If and when that safety pool is distributed as RevDis, land owners should receive 5% of what came from in-game purchases.

The Illuvium team should come up with a solution to ensure landowners receive 5% of the in-game purchases as well as a plan for distributing the safety pool to landowners when the time comes.

This is not changing anything. This is to ensure landowners receive what they were promised. Would love your feedback and opinions.

[turbid warren]

I think this is a good common sense catch where the original intent of land to receive 5% of all in-game revenue was unintentionally left behind as Illuvium evolved.

At the time of the land sale, Illuvium Zero's release was expected to be imminent, but things changed for good reason. In that extra time gap Illuvium Beyond was born and there just wasn't thought put into if this is considered a game (for the in-game revenue promise) and if so how land could and should benefit from d1sk sales.

Illuvium Beyond is clearly a game at this point.

I'd be surprised and disappointed if Kieran and the leadership team disagree that this was just an honest oversight and that we now need to look into what can be done to rectify it going forward.

[near flame]

Very well said. I believe it is accepted that Illuvium Beyond is a game within Illuvium and as a result the D1SK purchases should be seen as in-game revenue.

[raw bone]

IIP-20 set the parameters for land's earning potential prior to the sale, looking at what is said there should be pretty important when we're discussing what premises land was sold with.

If we want to keep land's functionality the same as people signed up for, the way to do so should be to allow sales of things like D1sks priced in Fuel. The premise has always been for landowners to produce Fuel and swap that for ETH, not for a direct distribution like ILV tokens.

Swapping over to such a system would absolutely be a change. I'm not saying that isn't something people may want, but additional complexity is introduced by implementing something like that. At a basic level, you could divide plots up by their potential to produce Fuel (Ex. T1 gets ~1/3 of T2, etc.) and distribute based on those weights. There's some extra complexity that gets ignored with Landmarks, but it's possible those could be integrated as well.

My main concern with something like this is that we'd be taking development time to create a system that would no longer be relevant after Open Beta. Land is not ILV, the premise was and is different for the two assets. If anything, I think we should be looking to make scalable systems by which any in-game assets are sold in Fuel, as this gives agency to land owners over what their plot is producing and when they wish to sell Fuel.

To explicitly call out a place where Land Owners are NOT entitled to revenue, trading fees were never part of the premise of land, so those fees would need to be subtracted out from a distribution.

[near flame]

I agree the best solution will be to make all in-game purchased in fuel (I understand app purchases for something like IZ credits will not work for this) I’ve actually had a proposal waiting for the right time to have purchased like D1sks paid with FUEL.

The problem lies between now and open beta. I don’t think there needs to be a fully developed revdis system, but temporarily having that 5% pull out of the ILV revdis and airdropped to land owners. I purposely did not mention how this should be done because I think the team could come up with the best way.
And I agree trading fees and any other form of revenue that is not considered “in-game” should not be included here.

[raw bone]

I get that, it's mostly that land is not the same as ILV tokens, and building a temporary system to treat land like ILV tokens isn't going to be a good use of time if we compare it to building the systems to actually get us to Open Beta so everything can function as intended.

A reasonable ask to me is: Beyond is a game, land owners want a portion of that.
A reasonable solution is to sell D1sks in Fuel.

The way we get there is to get IL:Z launched so that Fuel production exists, land owners are producing Fuel and swapping it for ETH, and the system is functioning normally. It's generally not good practice to build out complex custom systems that will only be useful temporarily.

On the flip side, if it's not temporary, this proposal should read something like: "Make Land the same as ILV for revdis", which is a pretty substantial change to how land works.

[near flame]

I’m not suggesting it be the same at ILV revdis. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the phrase revdis. I’m just saying 5% of the ingame revenue should go to land owners.
A new system doesn’t need to be set up. Before revenue is used to purchase ILV for revdis take the 5% out and get that to the land owners. Maybe this is in the form of a one time airdrop before fuel launches.
And again I agree, using fuel to make these purchases is the best option, but that is not an option right now.

[turbid warren]

As long as there's agreement that land holders should be involved in revenue from d1sk sales, then details of:

"The Illuvium team should come up with a solution to ensure landowners receive 5% of the [D1SK] purchases as well as a plan for distributing the safety pool to landowners when the time comes."

can be worked out. Team may have much better ideas on implementation.

But I agree that we wouldn't want to put huge development into a one-time solution, anything for the sales ahead of ILZ launch and actually using fuel to purchase D1SKs would need to be very simple.

Was thinking maybe just use those funds to buy fuel off the market, but I doubt there's a way to do that without the normal 95/5 split, which would just make it another complicated development.

[raw bone]

I also want to call out that the Safety Pool isn't allocated to be distributed. It's an option for how it can be utilized, but it seems to be assumed here.

If this is something people feel is worthwhile, the easiest way is almost certainly an airdrop, as opposed to something like the way revdis works for staking, and doing it as a one-time thing makes the most sense, otherwise gas fees will eat into a lot of the value. There are 7820 land owners on IMX, and a transfer on ETH L1 is ~$5. It might also make the most sense to do the airdrop on IMX, as that would save ~$40k in fees.

What needs to be clearly specified for the team in a proposal is exactly what revenue is being considered eligible. Right now, all revenue is feeding into one pot, and it will need to be split out if it's going to different places.

If the ask is for Beyond revenue, are we only considering D1SK sales in ETH, are we considering promo sales, etc. The specification needs to be clear on the DAO's side to make a concise proposal for Labs to implement.

[turbid warren]

Airdrop amounts could be calculated based on land fuel sales during some promo period...just a thought, could do something fun with it like that rather than arguing over T1/T4 ratios down the line

[near flame]

5 million of the safety was revenue. If the time comes where that safety pool is not needed anymore that should be used for revdis. If it’s used in any other way I think there would need to be an ICCP to change that.

I didn’t specify D1sks because if there is another in-game purchasable item before open beta I want that to be included as well.

To define what is included for in-game purchases I think is easy. Is it a game? beyond = yes. Is the purchase in-game? D1sk yes. D1sk plate no.

For promo D1sks I believe Illuviums cut of each sale is used as revdis. So 5% of that.

[near flame]

I think it would be best to have the airdrop before fuel is produced.
You can just weight the land by possible fuel production and distribute out based on that.

[nova cypress]

I’m afraid that it’s a bit of a logical leap to state that in-game revenue has already occurred. I’d think most people will need to be walked through that logical process.

[raw bone]

If I'm understanding correctly, the premise is that Beyond is a game, and that D1sk sales are considered revenue within that game.

[near flame]

All you need to do is clarify that Illuvium Beyond is a game. And D1sks are in-game purchases.

[turbid warren]

It will reopen a massive debate about why DA pricing ratios don't match production ratios

[nova cypress]

So it would be a simple thing to add to the idea then.

[near flame]

It could be a debate. But we’re already in a unique situation. I wouldn’t be opposed to something like that tho.

[raw bone]

I'd recommend splitting discussion around the Safety Pool out of this proposal. Including it involves changing parameters in IIP-29, which clearly specifies that if the Safety Pool is utilized for distribution, the funds will be transferred to the Vault for regular distribution.

The Safety Pool does require an ICCP to utilize for ANY purpose, including distribution or use as operating runway.

The reason I'd recommend splitting it out to a separate proposal is because the revenue that funded the Safety Pool is also coming from multiple sources, and fundamentally doing so would be a change to IIP-29.

From my perspective, there's almost no chance I'd be voting to distribute the Safety Pool prior to Open Beta. Funding the Safety Pool was a huge effort for the DAO, and its' existence establishes a buffer against risk before we have Open Beta launched. It feels early to be discussing how we're going to distribute that pool.

A simpler way might be, if we get to a point where we're distributing the Safety Pool, after Open Beta, to specify at that time that any Beyond revenue that funded the Safety Pool is dropped to land owners.

[near flame]

I can certainly leave that part out. It may be better to look at these topics separately.

But in-game purchases were used to fill some of that safety pool. If and when it’s used for distribution (even after open beta launch). Do you think the land owners should receive 5% of that in-game revenue?

[raw bone]

The ICCP for distribution can specify where the distribution is going.

[turbid warren]

Makes a lot of sense if that distribution will require discussion anyway

[nova cypress]

5% of the safety pool is 250k. That’s an even $12.50 to each land (is an even split the best way to divide it? Probably not).

[raw bone]

Yeah, a T1 would end up net negative after gas fees, so it would almost need to be on IMX to make sense.

[turbid warren]

Fuel sales will be L2, so I don't think land holders should expect to receive anything at all on L1

[near flame]

Being on IMX makes the most sense

[nova cypress]

Most lands are on IMX anyways as well.

[untold bolt]

Only staked tokens get Revdis, do you also only give this to active lands?

[turbid warren]

I think it would be best. Pay for performance as land is intended rather than trying to set % cuts that will never satisfy everyone and lead to endless debates. #1186709194435469332 message But these details can be determined later.

[near flame]

Don’t think of it as “revdis”. I should have used different words.
I just meant that 5% of the ingame revenue should go back to land owners.

[raw bone]

I do just want to call out that while the idea here is good, it's not a proposal. We should only be posting proposals in #1126838877429182506 , because if/when this gets to 25 upvotes, it can be voted on, and currently it's not in a format where I'd be comfortable passing it. It's missing some of the required specification and rigour I expect out of proposals. #📌〕governance-info

[near flame]

Yup. My plan was to get feedback and then draft up a proposal. I was pretty sure there was a channel called governance proposals, but I don’t see it anymore.

[swift ermine]

Currently where does revenue from d1sk sales go?

[near flame]

It was going to safety pool up until recently. Now will be used for revdis

[swift ermine]

It would be nice if the team would release their ideas around how they will incentivise and reward land holders for the long delays. After my failed 2 iipcs Johny had commented that the team and founders know something needs to be done but have not disclosed what. From my experience trying to find a solution to solve this issue met a lot of resistance from the team.

[near flame]

Well, let’s try this and see if we get any resistance. To me this is just what should happen. And this could give some more clarity to land utility.

[swift ermine]

Certainly the issue of land utility needs a bit more clarification. I’m not sure how I feel about splitting rev dis to have a portion go to land holders though.

[near flame]

Land owners were sold the idea of 5% of in-game revenue. I’m not trying to make any changes. Just to ensure that happens.

[swift ermine]

I will be interested in the feed back from the team. I agree that what we were sold is not necessarily what we have been promised.

[near flame]

I too am interested in what the team thinks. Maybe they’ll take notice of this thread soon 😅

[swift ermine]

You may need to pose a direct and short question in zero chat. Not sure that they will comment here unless prompted. Just from my experience

[distant scarab]

so we are owed 5% from all previous bullshit beyond sales?

[swift ermine]

A town hall was meant to happen just for IZ but to my knowledge this has been pushed back indefinitely as the team have been focused on delivering the games.
Hopefully this will happen in the new year

[near flame]

I will do that. I want to get a little more support with 👍🏽 so it looks worth their time b

[near flame]

Sort of

[stray plank]

The promise was always just 5% of fuel purchases in the game. This sort of adjustment makes the lore of land feel weird to me. Unless they produce the fabric for merch, why would they get a cut of merch sales you know?

That's really all I have on the subject, they were not promised 5% of all revenue, and if they were we need to rectify that for the future and I'd be happy to honour it for the past promise. But I need proof first.

[nova cypress]

That does seem to be want this idea is suggesting.

[near flame]

This states that the goal is for land owners to recieved appoximately 5% of all in-game purchases. Fuel is set up to streamline that and I believe all in-game purchases should be in fuel once fuel can be produced. But right now we have in-game purchases and no fuel so I'm trying to solve that problem.

[near flame]

The only caveat being that the the safety pool was set up in case it's needed for runway, but if it's distributed out then yes 5% on the D1sk purchases should go to land owners

[stray plank]

Illuvitar sales is not an ingame purchase. That's definitely not how I view it at least 🤣🤣

Happy to disagree there

[near flame]

Ah. I see.
Do you think Beyond should be considered a game?

[raw bone]

Solar wanted to post this but wasn't able to here. #🎮〕illuvium-zero message

[slim carbon]

Beyond is not a game

[nova cypress]

Then why do people on the leaderboard get ILV in-game rewards

[slim carbon]

In order to bribe people into buying JPEGs

[near flame]

At least you have a solid reason to oppose this 😂. I personally believe it should be considered a game.

[nova cypress]

Fine. But the DAO can’t have it both ways.

[slim carbon]

Trust me. If we could get rid of both Beyond and Zero I would be very pleased

[nova cypress]

I know

[stray plank]

Hmmmm I do. But I always figured ingame purchases referred to overworld specifically. Since the heart of Illuvium are the illuvials. And they are the things used in all other games.

But yeah you've caught me there

[near flame]

Yeah I think the only real argument against this idea is to argue Beyond isn’t a game. Once it’s considered a game than this should just be part of the plan.

[stray plank]

All I really care about. Is that 5% of fuel goes to land. If we make d1sk purchases in fuel in a way that makes sense then I'm all for it.

As others have said your biggest problem is how to proportionately split the money

[near flame]

I do think once fuel is released that all ingame purchases should be in fuel, but that’s not possible yet.

[honest vessel]

Nijafe, thank you for looking after landowners. I understand that in some documents, it says 5% of ingame revenue, and you would like to consider Beyond sales as ingame revenue.
I understand landowners frustation due to:

1. Delays
2. Beyond cosmetics
3. Beyond leaderboard incentive
4. Fuel price ceiling

I do acknowledge that cosmetics from Beyond is taking away some value from IZ.
I do want to help landowners too, but i don't believe taking away some revdis from token staker is the right way.

We all know that IZ earn revenue by:

1. Selling Fuel (5% of total fuel)
2. Selling BP or skin
   I personally believe, we should come up with more utilities to landowners, without taking away value from token stakers.

[quaint flint]

[honest vessel]

If we are asking D1sk to be sold in fuel, would we ask for speedups and future land sales to be sold in fuel too?
Land is not a passive investment, people need to play the game, produce fuel and sell the fuel to earn revenue. Distributing ingame revenue equally to all plots is not the current objective of IZ.
Technically, landowners are promised megacity too, and people might have paid premiums to have megacities. how do we take account their production boost from T3 and T4 if we want to distribute revenue equally?

[swift ermine]

Selling blueprints or skins??

[honest vessel]

oh ill edit

thx

[swift ermine]

Thought you knew something I didn’t

[honest vessel]

sorry just woke up to dms

[swift ermine]

No worries

[near flame]

This does not take away from token stakers. Token stakers are promised 95% of ingame revenue and 100% of other revenue. That’s exactly what they’ll get.
I just want to ensure that the land owners get that 5% they were promised.
In my opinion if you don’t want to give the land owners that 5% you need to write up a proposal to make that change.

[honest vessel]

The documents posted clearly stated that IZ revenue will be from selling fuel. The IIP should be making future D1sk in fuel. We should not take one sentence, and disregard the explanation after that sentence.
It is not that i dont want to give 5% to landowners, i want whats right

[near flame]

Why should future D1sk sales go towards land owners, but not current sales?

It’s not the land owners fault the game isn’t out yet and can’t produce fuel

[near flame]

I see it as fuel is the means to facilitate the 5% for land owners. But it’s the 5% that’s promised.

[quaint flint]

Jag believes he can MILVGA without his brothers and sisters who tend the land...

[meager garnet]

Is Beyond a game within the Illuvium ecosystem? If yes then it should have fuel incorporated into it and landowners should get 5% as we were told ALL games would run on fuel.

Or is Beyond not a game or not within the ecosystem?

[near flame]

Exactly. If we can agree that Beyond is a game then there shouldn’t be any argument against this proposal

[honest vessel]

Not sure if we are going to redistribute the safety pool. I cannot think of a fair way to do it, some stakers who were supposed receive revdis might have sold, some landowners might have sold too. we will benefit more new stakers and new landowners

[near flame]

What’s done is done. It will still need an ICCP to determine when and how and if the safety pool will be distributed.
After an earlier conversation in this thread I think I will leave this out of the proposal and re-visit when the time is right.

[honest vessel]

i dont believe in clawing back revenue from the d1sk sales.
I prefer to give land more utilities, e.g. future d1sk sales in fuel, landowner perks in OW.
Or even landowners exclusive illuvitars. if we can get skins and emotes from beyond, why can't landowners get additional cosmetics too.

[swift ermine]

Yes what is beyond and how do we put it into the context of “all future games” ?

[near flame]

We’re not really clawing back anything. The safety pool just fill. What happens with that can be settled in an ICCP at a later date.

The first round of revdis since the safety pool has yet to go out.

Now if the perfect time to push this through.

[honest vessel]

some perks in OW: crimson wate holders get +5% jump +5% sprint +5% thermal vision in crimson waste

[honest vessel]

cmiiw TL promo sales is around $200k. 5% divided by 20k plots is $0.5. i understand, its probably not about the amount, but about getting some compensation. do we know when is wave 3 sale?

[near flame]

To me it’s about what should be done. I do understand with the current sales volume we’re looking at a small amount.

We don’t have a date for wave 3. But I believe there were 6 weeks between 1 and 2 so that might put wave 3 start around March 1st.

[trim echo]

@dry idol sorry to ping but my message got blocked for being spam 😄 Can you post it ser?

[honest vessel]

i think we have a word limit

[untold bolt]

Beyond is called beyond because it’s beyond the Illuvium eco system.

[dry idol]

lol I just read all this and was waiting till the bottom to post “there is a reason the name landed on was Beyond”

[trim echo]

Forgive the block of text but I wanted to go deep into this.

Before we go into the arguments on both sides we need to look at the controlling document which established land and where the 5% comes from. We see this clearly laid out in IIP-20 which Blickter mentioned.

Landowners will have the opportunity to earn revenue from players in the main game through the novel use of a balancer multi-token weighted pool. They will do so by swapping fuels they generate in-game for ETH. On the other hand, players in Illuvium will exchange ETH for fuel and use it to complete all transactions in the game except for trading between players.

The target will be for landowners to earn approximately 5% of the total revenue generated from in-game purchases in Illuvium

From the quoted provision, we can see that the intention was for landowners to earn from the MAIN game. It must be noted at the time of the passing of IIP-20 Beyond was not released yet (IIP-20 Apr 2022 Beyond Mar 2023). It can be gleaned here that the fuel-to-eth thesis had Illuvium: Overworld in mind. The same goes with the approximation of 5% since at the time of passing, the use case for fuel was only in Overworld for travel, crafting, and fusing.

That being said, the introduction of Beyond and its classification as a collectible profile picture game caused the confusion. If the argument that if Beyond is a game then should Land owners have its 5% from its “in-game revenues”?

This is a tough one since IIP-20 specifically states swapping of Fuel to ETH. Fuel being the main component and adding the issue that Beyond isn’t being purchased by fuel for the sole reason that we aren’t generating fuel on the blockchain. I am of the opinion that we are able to close this loop once fuel can be generated and sold on the blockchain preferably under layer 2 (IMX). However, until then, even if we pass an ICCP that makes beyond d1ks be purchasable by fuel this will not address the current issue that landowners will miss out on potential revenue, if any, distributed before making fuel live on-chain.

Assuming we allot the 5% to landowners, the only logical proportionate distribution I can think of is the 3x ratio (T1 = x, T2 = 3x, T3 = 6x, T4 = 12x) following the fuel sites under IIP-20.

So to tackle this properly, we need t0 address three things: 1) ICCP/IIP to mandate that all game-related purchases be in FUEL; 2) ICCP making d1sks purchased by fuel once its on-chain; and 3) interim formula to allow landowners its 5% of in-game revenue prior to fuel being on-chain.

One thing I want to note and should be tackled separately is safety pool should not be included in this conversation as this is a mix of multiple revenues including IMX conversion, Illuvidex fees, D1sk sales, ETH to USDC/T conversion, merch sales, etc. It would be overreaching to state that land owners has a 5% stake on the safety pool if it distributed in the future as this will unintenationally expand its stake from in-game revenues to ALL types of revenues

[quaint flint]

It's "beyond" in terms of lore but not the ecosystem itself sir. That's why we see the Beyond PFP in Arena, OW and soon Zero

[honest vessel]

prob just mean beyond the reach of landowners

[quaint flint]

that's more honest

[untold bolt]

lol ofc you can use the pfp that you payed for 😅

[quaint flint]

so then it's not beyond

[nova cypress]

Land affinity.

[quaint flint]

beyond is interoperable thus not actually removed from the ecosystem

[bright lynx]

I remember Aaron mentioning the burning of Illuvitars for Essence, which can then be used in other games. This is a clear indication to me, that Beyond is part of the game ecosystem and therefore a game.

[meager garnet]

Yup, it was called Beyond meaning it doesn't need fuel. Which was fine except we also call it a game and landowners were told in videos that all games would require fuel.

We needed to fill the pool so token holders went without and so did land holders and that was something that I (as both) was happy to do. We needed money to pay the bills.

However, the pool is filled, land is about to be functional (I hope) and it would be nice if moving forward we could go back to what was first stated about all Illuvium games being run on fuel.

[turbid warren]

I'd like to see it based on true in-game ILZ performance of fuel sales during a set "promo" period as there's no need to rush it. This would prevent getting into an unending debate on the correct ratios for splitting it with added benefit of promoting the game when most needed and adding a fun event.

Meaning for the 5% outside of the safety pool anyway. Dissecting the safety pool is a tougher problem for future discussions.

[honest vessel]

good idea

[empty palm]

Land Owners receive 5% of the revenue from the sale of Fuel and only Fuel

Beyond doesnt use Fuel so its outside the scope of land revdis, one might say it is “beyond” the scope of land revdis

Land Owners dont receive “revenue distribution” as ILV stakers do, Land Owners produce Fuel and are able to sell that Fuel, that is all, the only promise is that the Fuel that ALL land owners produce will always be exactly 5% of the total Fuel produced/sold (as the rest is produced by the DAO and revenue is distributed to ILV Stakers)

This proposal undermines our tokenomics and over reaches asking for something that was never promised and no one who actually read the terms ever thought was the case, things were clearly demarcated throughout and this proposal is out of bounds

I’m personally not a fan of Beyond being purchasable using Fuel or sILV2 instead of ETH or sILV2, but a proposal to make that change doesnt undermine investor expectations and what was promised, this proposal does undermine trust in the DAO and I am firmly against proposals purely for expanding the benefits or revdis of 1 group of investors at the expense of another when everyone already knew the terms and how things work

[whole harness]

This is one more reason why we should've never called it a game in the first place...

By the way, imo this has no legs.
Some people may have bought Land without knowing how it works but it's on them. as we always say in this space: DYOR!

The land promess was: you will get 5% of fuel revdis and skin blueprints. Fuel will be used in all of our future games. (and at the time we were still considering IZ, Arena and Overworld as ONE big game interconnected Otherwise can someone say me where do you use fuel in Arena?)

If we start changing things for people who misunderstood the concept before buying what are we gonna do about all these people who bought illuvitars thinking they were playable characters in Arena?

Are we gonna do a proposal to make the promess fit to what they want everytime people get misinformed or don't understand?

So if anything, i'd say the solution is stop calling Illuvitars a game which it isn't anyways and just say its a PfP collection with leaderboard. Problem solved.

[bright lynx]

If Illuvitars can be burned for Essence, which can then be used e.g. in Overworld: Isn't this a game in the ecosystem of existing and future games?

[whole harness]

But as of now they can't so what is your point? the Land promess was -> you will get 5% of all fuel revdis, everyone has always been ok with that and now that someone found a mis-writing in our marketing everyone is just asking for more money for themselves? non sense i'm sorry and especially from @near flame which you would assume as a content creator who made dozens of videos about land and was Strategy sub-Council member he would know what the initial deal has always been

[bright lynx]

All I can see from your "arguments" is that you are concerned about giving 5% (!) from your 100% Beyond revenue to land owners and accusing us of being concerned with just getting more and more money. Pretty funny.

If Beyond is a game, which it is without doubt (see the Essence argument) and all games are supposed to be using fuel (Beyond could not use fuel, because the tech wasn't ready) then 5% from the Beyond revenue belongs to the land owners.

It is really that easy and how it is done is left to the team and the devs.

[tribal flame]

Even as a landholder, I'm firmly against this proposal. It's much cleaner having revenue from fuel be the 5% that goes to landholders and that's the way it has always been envisioned as far as I'm concerned.

This feels like just a bit of a revdis grab from landholders.

From the article written at the time 'Fuel plays a critical role in your journey to catch and upgrade Illuvials. Fuel is required for all in-game transactions, including travel to different regions, curing shards to capture Illuvials, fusing illuvials to upgrade their stage and forging equipment and armour. These same Fuels will also be used in future Illuvium games and reward Landholders with Fuel revenue generated from those games. Landowners earn approximately 5% of the total revenue generated from in-game Fuel purchases in Illuvium.'

Everyone knows that fuel has never been a part of Beyond and I wouldn't expect it to be.

Fuel will be part of future games..

At no point does the article mention fuel is required for Beyond (as it isn't)

Would rather Landholders get value for having to wait to play the game from different avenues, but don't want to re-direct Beyond revenue in a way not initially envisioned

[bright lynx]

Beyond is an existing and future game, which can not use fuel at the moment because fuel isn't ready and the DAO wanted to generate income, before the other games can go on chain.

The same reason, they sold land to us knowing very well, that the other games and Zero wouldn't be ready for quite some time after the sale.

Beyond and Land Sale were about selling in-game items to generate needed DAO income at a critical time, before the "real" economy and the Illuvial "sale" can start.

And this from a DAO that was so proud, that it wouldn't sell spaceships before a real game was ready. So they sold land instead of spaceships and made fun of Star Atlas.

I even paid some land with ETH instead of sILV2, because I wanted the DAO and all of Iluvium to succeed.

These sales were about keeping the DAO afloat, so your "real hard core grown up serious PRO gamer" Arena can be developed.

We are only asking for 5%. 5%! How greedy can someone be, that even 5% is worth risking to piss of land holders, who already gave the DAO so much money. Again, 5% !

If we don't even get this, then fuck land and I will never buy another Illuvium asset.

[tribal flame]

Lot of anger there - doesn't change my opinion.

There is a reward coming for having held the land for so long and helping the DAO. Do I think landholders need 5% of Beyond still - no.

If you want the Beyond Revdis, feel free to sell the land and buy ILV.

Adding fuel to Beyond makes it messy

[tribal flame]

Agree with this 100% - everyone knew the score, so there's no argument to 'in-game rewards including Beyond sales'. Have a debate about whether landholders should get EXTRA revenue, but there's no point trying to use vague marketing copy to make your point as everyone in the community knows the score

[bright lynx]

I would like to add that I love what the Iluvium team is developing and I also like the new gov3 much better.

[distant scarab]

scoriox got no land confirmed, big bags of ilv

we need to clean the council and start over, i knew these guys would hav e filled their bags and will not support land ever

[bright lynx]

And even if someone says they are land holders, it is a T1 only in a lot of cases.

[distant scarab]

not sure how nobody realizes that they can purposely hold back land , cuz theyre " most known in the community"

i did that shit in mu online 20 years ago.. 😄

[untold bolt]

The lands I have access too are worth a lot more than my $ILV bag and I still voted no on this 🙂

[near flame]

Thank you for this well thought out post.
I agree safety pool can be discussed at a later date and I would leave that out of drafting this proposal.

I do agree all in-game purchases should be in fuel, but we run into some small problems that may prevent that. One being “credit” for IZ. If the app stores require and in-game purchase on mobile so they can take a cut the “credits” can’t be sold as fuel.

Until fuel is on chain I think the 5% could be distributed as a one time airdrop on IMX around the time fuel starts producing.

It’s constantly been said by team and founder fuel will power all games that come into the Illuvium ecosystem. I don’t think Beyond specifically needed to be mentioned for it to be included as a game within the Illuvium ecosystem.

[near flame]

Beyond is beyond the lore, not beyond the ecosystem.

[honest vessel]

maybe an IIP to use fuel for bonding and other actions in beyond game

and maybe an IIP to stake land, earn some production bonus or something

[tribal flame]

You would hope people would vote for what's best for the DAO, rather than protect their financial investment too strongly. But I guess that goes both ways

[empty palm]

If beyond is a game and games should use fuel, then a proposal should be made to ensure that all future beyond sales must accept Fuel instead of ETH

Such a proposal wouldn’t undermine our tokenomics in the way that this proposal infact does

[stray plank]

I have lots of land... But whatever

[turbid warren]

Using fuel for future beyond sales is the most important part of this to me. It's that long-term aspect that matters, to ensure we get it right.

[near flame]

100% and that’s exactly how I feel. However fuel isn’t on chain yet so we need to get creative until it is.

[empty palm]

I mean… do we?

The simplest solution is:
Land Owners didnt expect to get revdis outside of Fuel and them waiting for the game to launch before they can begin earning revenue is entirely expected and a solution that is already in place essentially

Lets not mess around w tokenomics for something no one was expecting anyways, its not worth it, lets keep things simple

Otherwise feel free to make a proposal for Beyond Sales occuring post-launch to have to be sold in exchange for Fuel or sILV2 and no longer accept ETH

At that point we can still accept ETH or USDC and if it was accepted it would on the backend just be used to buy Fuel and make their purchase (so that the front-end allows as many currencies as possible for consumer convenience…)

Lets keep it simple

[empty palm]

And thats totally fair, this proposal however over-reaches beyond that in a way that is imo inappropriate

[near flame]

Land was sold 1.5 years ago and we were told it would be playable in 6-8 weeks. At time of purchase no one expected it to be delayed years.

The idea of a game releasing before fuel could be farmed was not a concern at the time.

[untold bolt]

Yes, they told you it would be possible to play the game and get blueprints before open beta.
You still got that, only the playing came later than expected because art upgrade.
Land owners got a better game that was up to the Illuvium Labs standards. Nothing changed.
Changing future beyond sales to fuel will also make onboarding of new people harder.

[empty palm]

Told it would be playable (which it now is) not told it would be Live and earning revenue prior to OB launch

Also why was no one trying to make a proposal about this when beyond was initially announced to come prior to OB, that was like a year ago…

[slim carbon]

Everyone was told things were coming sooner than they have been.

[near flame]

Fair.

The reason I’m making the proposal now is because we had been filling up the safety pool. Revdis has just started back up. So it’s becoming relevant now.

[near flame]

I don’t think it makes onboarding players any different.
D1sks can still be purchased in ETH. It would just pass through fuel on the back end.

[empty palm]

the solution of making Beyond purchasable with Fuel post-launch doesnt undermine tokenomics and investor expectations

This proposal however does undermine tokenomics and investor expectstuons, thats my issue with this proposal

[empty palm]

With this I’m fully in agreement, its totally fine post-launch if its purchasable w Fuel and sILV2 only and have well done UI that allows payment in other currencies that just filter through Fuel market on the backend

[near flame]

I don’t think the is undermines Tokenomics. And it would only be temporary until fuel is on chain.

If anything I’d say giving ILV stakers 100% and land owners 0% it undermines the proposition of land being that the goal is for them to receive 5% of all in-game revenue.

[distant scarab]

never though id say this, but stupid ilv token is ruining the game.

[whole harness]

yeah token ruins the game definitely not land

[distant scarab]

yeah, it created greedy community that doesnt really care about the game, they only care about boosting ilv token and making profits for themselves. i still cant believe that land owners didnt receive even 1 stupid beyond box

none of this would be possible without land $ and yet here we are

[empty palm]

Temporarily undermining the tokenomics is still undermining.

The fact you don’t think it undermines the tokenomics is concerning mainly because you’re actually on the council… 😬

[near flame]

I didn’t say it’s temporary undermining Tokenomics. Imo it’s correcting an error. fuel is part of the Tokenomics yet it’s not out yet.

[empty palm]

We wouldnt be here if it wasnt for ILV owners either, they fueled the initial funds for this project to get us to land and other initial development work

Both are important and both need to be respected and have the promises made to them kept intact

This proposal undermined the terms that ILV owners were given and alters those that Land Owners were given, this is not good

[empty palm]

Yh its not out yet and land gets its revenue from fuel and selling blueprints ONLY

Thats not an error, those are the terms like it or not

[near flame]

And I’ll bring this up again. You put through a proposal last epoch that very clearly was undermining Tokenomics haha. It’s hard to understand what you actually believe anymore. Seems like you pick and choose based on personal preference

[empty palm]

What proposal would that be?

[near flame]

The one where you tried to make fuel a stable coin

[empty palm]

To increase the revenue that the game makes and therefore both ILV stakers and Land Owners would benefit equally

I didn’t propose something that alters any terms, land owners would still have had 5% of fuel revenue anyways

Its not my fault if you dont understand what “undermining tokenomics” means

[whole harness]

man i was ironic. there is no issue with the token itself. the issue here is people who were fully aware of how land works and what the promess actually was, using a miswording from the website they just found out now, to try to get more in their selfish interest.

I really see this from a very bad eye. Not even mentionning that the whole narrative of: token holders are just greedy f*ckers trying to keep the 100% is straight up bullshit.

Did you know that for each 5M that illuvium makes from ANY revenue source, each token only gets 1.5$?!
And you think we fight to save the few cents that this proposal would take away from "token holders" ? don't you realize that most people in this chat own both token AND land? if we disagree with this it's because it's just wrong!

[empty palm]

Agree, no one is disagreeing here because they own ILV and dont own Land, the disagreement is in the fundamentals of this proposal and that the change its proposing is wrong

[near flame]

I’m also not proposing something that alters the terms. Land owners get 5% in-game revenue. Im just coming up with a solution to ensure that.

[whole harness]

5% of fuel sales and you know it.........

[empty palm]

Where does it say 5% of in-game revenue?

[near flame]

Fuel is the means to ensure that 5%. Fuel isn’t on chain yet.

[whole harness]

in the small text he found and that is attached to this proposal. legit using a small miswording who smh only becomes a problem now...

[untold bolt]

in-game purchases, there are none yet.

[empty palm]

Exactly lol

Because in-game purchases are made in Fuel

The game isn’t out yet

[near flame]

If the team wants to come out and officially state that Beyond is not a game I’ll drop this. But as it stands Beyond is a game.

[whole harness]

you know that trying to word play here doesn't serve the purpose right?

[empty palm]

Honestly, with that word play, I can see how u can come to that conclusion and I agree that the point you’re raising here is one that the Team actually have to address because you’ve found an inconsistency in their wording that they need to elaborate on

@grim mountain @drifting coral

Its something they havent commented on recently, why don’t land owners get revdis from beyond? just the official team stance on that

[near flame]

We go down a slippery slope for land owners if we don’t allow them that 5% here.
Next we get an Illuvium Kart racing game and someone decides fuel doesn’t run those karts it’s a different currency.
I, along with many believed that in-game purchases for all current and future games will be run by fuel to ensure that 5%

[empty palm]

Honestly, fair enough, curious to see what the team says in regards to this and agree they need to address your point

[near flame]

I know you missed the meeting last epoch that we had with Aaron. But in that meeting I brought this up. I asked if Beyond should use fuel because it’s a game. At the time he agreed.

[whole harness]

I thought we had already all agreed that beyond is no game and that the team uses that word just to promote their PfP project. nothing more nothing less anyways so very surprised that you take it that seriously Nijafe

[near flame]

Why are you surprised that something that’s called a game is perceived as a game?

[empty palm]

Not sure discussing the contents of our private meetings publicly considering our NDAs is appropriate

But fair enough, I also said earlier in this convo its fine w me if once game launches beyond does cost Fuel, im a bit concerned of it being implemented prior to OB launch and the potential implications

[near flame]

Opinions don’t fall under NDA.

[empty palm]

Opinions shared during council meetings DO fall under NDA

Bro how are you a Council Member seriously

[quaint pivot]

For the sake of everyone trying to follow along let’s keep this thread on topic and away from personal insults please

[near flame]

I think a good portion of the community understands I truly want what’s best for Illuvium and its community.

I may seem argumentative with you, but you may be the only one. I have very good conversations with most.

[honest vessel]

d1sk sales in fuel sounds a like good idea.
maybe we should postpone wave 3 until we have fuel

D1sk sales : fuel or sILV2

[untold bolt]

Didn't they already say no more sales until after open beta?

[honest vessel]

perfect

[quaint pivot]

Just poppin in my own opinion so it's down for the record, but don't have a ton of time in the day to go back and forth.

As a land owner, at the time that land was sold to the public, I personally was under the impression that it was sold as 5% of future Fuel sales. This would mean that future games that Illuvium produced, whether it be a FPS or a kart racer would incorporate fuel as well to fullfill that promise. And all of this had to do with how fuel was worked into the lore. Because while yes you're making a profit form your land, land is still a game the owners are still players and incorporated into the lore of the game.

Beyond evolved from it's original intention, because originally it was only suppose to be PFPs. Things evolve and sometimes new proposals need to be implemented to account for those evolutions.

While I am not against changes to what and how Land owners get their 5%, I am a land owner after all and I will always welcome more return on my investment, I am against this proposal in how it is currently stated.

If we want to create a proposal to allow disk purchases with fuel in the future, fine. In that case land owners should only be receiving 5% of those fuel sales and should get nothing from the Eth sales imo.

But I think the wrong way to go about this is to act as though land owners are being cheated out of anything, when Illuvium Beyond was never intended to give 5% of sales to them. In the same way that Land Owners are not entitled to 5% of royalty fees that come from secondary sales.

[near flame]

I’m glad so many people are weighing in on this topic. Here are the main questions we need answered:

Is Illuvium Beyond a game?
Were land owners sold on 5% of FUEL sales or 5% of all current and future in-game purchases?
If we can agree D1SKs should be purchased in FUEL in the future so that land owners can get 5%, does this mean they should also receive 5% of those sales before FUEL is implemented?

My thoughts:
The in-game revenue included in the safety pool can be left out of this proposal and re-visited when the time comes to deploy that pool.
If we simply say the 5% is only from fuel sales that means an any future game can use a different currency leaving land owners with nothing. 5% of all in-game revenue is future proof.

[delicate grove]

FYI

Let's assume TL brought 380k$ (a bit less but whatever)

5% = 19k$

That's the cost of plots, in sILV2 during the last hour of the land sale
min T1 sILV 4.77
min T2 sILV 13.26
min T3 sILV 43.16
min T4 sILV 185.76

Ratio
T1 - 1
T2 - 3
T3 - 11
T4 - 39

Plots for land sale #1
12,029
5,012
2,088
869
2

Result * Plots
T1 - 12029
T2 - 15036
T3 - 22968
T4 - 33891

Total = 83924

So 19000$ / 83924 = 0.226$

RevDis per land
T1 - 0.226$
T2 - 0.679$
T3 - 2.49$
T4 - 8.83$

Iluvium Beyond may be called a "game" but the revenues are not the initial "in game" meaning it had when expressed. Time chaged since, project lol, also. The team better find ideas to give a shitload of value to land other than RevDis (and fuel, and blueprints).

[dim coyote]

Could also be looking at expected Fuel production 1:3:9:27 (expecting 3x between each tier)
Or 1:4:12:36 expecting Fuel sites x tier Multiplier to be directly correlated to fuel production.
(Excluding landmarks)

Basing it on investment cost like you did is an interesting approach as well.

[delicate grove]

Team said what matters for them and Illuvium land owner is that we get our investment back.

So that's why i based on that.

Based on that I need 4320 more TL sales to make my money back.

But it's ok, land emotes incoming.

[empty palm]

Well said and totally agree

[distant scarab]

thats what u get when u leave ur game in the hands of randoms

[static tangle]

Where you found those "expected" numbers?

[dim coyote]

Oh my bad. I saw the 3x ratio of @trim echo in this post. I messed up copying that xD.
#1186709194435469332 message

But it's not too far off from the fuel x tier multiplier.
T1 -> 1 x 1 = 1
T2 -> 3 x 1.33 = 4
T3 -> 6 x 2 = 12
T4 -> 9 x 4 = 36
So it could be a similarly viable rate.

[static tangle]

Sadge... Thought i missed some adjustement updates 😅

[swift ermine]

I guess the question here is, how many hours of grinding a t1 will it take to finally make back the money we’ve invested, and then turn a profit?

Beyond has become something much more than originally imagined. I would hope that any future games that are added incorporate revenue for land holders as promised.
Beyond is a good sink for silv2, the eth part of those sales going forward after launch would make sense to convert to fuel.

[delicate grove]

Anyway decisions around land isn’t a priority… without games, land will be worthless.

So landowner destiny right now is to wait and hope the project survive and is adopted by gamers.

[distant scarab]

arena isnt ready and wasnt well received, so we have a bad start already

the way they went with this game.. nobody will play it, except sweats, it simply cannot have big playerbase, i believe. i see that theyre trying to shill some disks again in the announcements :D:D

im losing hope

they just trying to suck more and more money with nothing in return, whoever is buying those disks must be braindead, i swear.

[empty palm]

Theyre just gambling, cos u can always get lucky and get a rare expensive one, people buy them cos its a slot machine

[honest vessel]

@near flame are you revising the proposal to :

1. Remove the "safety pool redistribution" from this proposal.
2. Ask for 5% of the all D1sk sales revenue (minus promo split, tournament contribution) for landowners.
3. While fuel is not being produced yet, landowners will be airdropped the 5% D1sk revenue. The calculation would be prorate, based on the amount of fuel nodes plus Tier bonus (plus landmark bonus)

[distant scarab]

since those disks are just magically appearing and its just pixels, they could easily airdrop such shit to land owners

[nova cypress]

3…. And tier bonus and landmark bonus seems extreme

[honest vessel]

meanwhile, christmas emotes for arena players

[distant scarab]

😂

i gotta say, i see more and more people that have been here for years and supporting

annoyed by whats happening

which is not good, but its also great, because a riot might be coming

and i plan to be muted for a week during that riot

[honest vessel]

i understand that we need to improve epic store numbers, but the iip to get landowners battleboard skin was rejected due to workload. And suddenly we have christmas emotes

so yea, its clear that IZ players are not the priority

$70m spent tho

[whole harness]

it wasnt because of workload. it was because people are tired to always see the same group: people sweating about their land investment, trying to always ask stuff for themselves!

[honest vessel]

maybe just tier bonus?

[whole harness]

Nobody has put a knife under anyone's throat to make us buy land, being like: "hey we deserve X or Y just to have more stuff to sell and exit better" is such a f*cked up narrative

[honest vessel]

a bit graphic

[untold bolt]

I don’t understand why they just couldn’t use one of the battleboards already made. They have plenty ready

[whole harness]

It was rejected because of the intents behind the proposal and the precedent it would create in our DAO. we don't want IIPs to be used to request Airdrops!

[nova cypress]

Still seems rough. But it’s how land was sold. I’d say purely based on fuel sites is a viable option. But I definitely understand why others would disagree.

[honest vessel]

did arena players asked for christmas emotes

IZ asked for the skin because they feel lack of appreciation

[whole harness]

guys! do you still not get it that if we don't promote Arena = NO MONEY FOR LAND OWNERS?

[honest vessel]

Arena:

1. 48-hour 100 ILV raffle
2. Christmas emotes
3. $140k tournament
4. Leaderboard incentive

Beyond:

1. Weekly ILV prize
2. Battleboard, skins, emotes
3. Promo d1sks

IZ :

1. 15 bp

[whole harness]

we're all in the same team! but smh ive been dealing with land owners for 2 years now that are so afraid of arena taking some cents away from them it's disgusting

[whole harness]

it's just marketing dude. As far as i know there is no second landsale yet so we have no reason to promote land. Land promo to sell our land also included a TON of giveaways and raffles + trailers etc. I guess you will agree that your marketing efforts should focus on what you're selling rn or next.

In fact, Arena players didn't ask for leaderboards incentive this early. At least I didn't and always said i would've prefered it coming when the game is in a more stable balance state. BUT it's marketing.

[honest vessel]

im sorry i dont agree with that. i spent most of my web3 time in NFT projects, i believe in giving more value to holders.

even in web2, retaining customer is more cost efficient than acquiring new one. based on TL promo sales, most of the minters are existing customer. Guess how many new wallets we got from TL promo

[whole harness]

Ok and what gives more value long term to land? a battleboard printed 20k times, or a succesful game and ecosystem with tons of players spamming the arena, creating demand from Overworld Assets that are farmed using fuel that comes from land?

you need to enlarge your scope and stop doing sub-groups in our community and act like "we are the unloved ones", I repeat we all the same team!

[honest vessel]

sure, long term. we are discussing about now, zep.

[whole harness]

Do you know how many times i got this kind of discussions just to end up having a response like: "idc about this becoming a good or fun game. i just want my money"

[honest vessel]

welcome to web3

[whole harness]

Do you also know how many proposals that were GOOD for the game as a game but that got shut down because of land owners' interests?

spreading a narrative like nobody cares about land owners is just wrong on so many levels it's absurd! all we need from you guys is to chill out, enlarge your scope and see long term. Money will come IF arena and overworld are succesful. and ONLY if these are succesful. So what i'd like to see from "land owners" from now on is not: "i want airdrops" but more "hey how can we make arena and OW better so i can get a better return on my land?"

[honest vessel]

it's actually part of my council campaign to look after IZ and give more value to IZ without taking away from token stakers. I understand your point of view, greatly appreciated.

[tribal flame]

Do you not listen to Johnny? Repeatedly saying he’s put forward a suggestion for landholder rewards that it is going to council for discussion today

[tribal flame]

Welcome to the greedy element of web 3. Not all web 3 are in it for the same reasons 🤙

[honest vessel]

Looking forward to it

[static tangle]

Spreading a narrative like all landowners just care about their bags and give a fuck about all other Games is just wrong on so many levels it's absurd 🙃

[whole harness]

isn't it what this proposal is all about though?

[static tangle]

No

[slim carbon]

Yes it is just like all the other ones

[near flame]

1. Yes
2. 5% of all in-game revenue.
3. I think an airdrop proportionate to fuel sites +bonus makes sense, but I was leave it vague enough for the team to decide the best approach.

[near flame]

No

[honest vessel]

Can we get a confirmation from team if they consider beyond as a game and d1sk sales as ingame revenue?

[near flame]

That would definitely be nice. I know others have tagged them multiple times tho and there is no response that I’ve seen.
I’m in no rush to bring this to a vote tho. I’ll draft up a proposal and let’s the ICC take a look first.

[turbid warren]

It's really sad and off-putting to see these discussions constantly devolve into people saying the proposal is based in greed and narrowmindedness, not taking the full picture or long-term view of Illuvium as a whole into account.

Why can't we just discuss the topic instead of hurling insults @whole harness? To me the original vision is too vague for the current state of the game and we need clarity on what 5% of in-game revenue means. Does that include beyond or not? Does it only include fuel sales, meaning eventually beyond will use fuel and fall under this? Will beyond never use fuel?

How are these not important questions to have answered by the founders?

[whole harness]

Because all the defenders of the cause I see here are people that always knew what land implied, which again was 5% of fuel sales.

But because they now found this mistake in ONE official text they try to pretend like they were lied to and that the current situation is "unfair". How would you qualify that?

[turbid warren]

That's not at all what this is about.

[whole harness]

I mean the TL sales will give each staked token 0.06$ relax dudes were not trying to "protect" cents of cents... we just don't wanna set a bad precedent in our DAO

[whole harness]

Read original post and you'll see. It is...

[turbid warren]

If you have listened to founders speak, you would know this is based in much more than one sentence in a document. It needs to be set in stone either way for the long-term of Illuvium Beyond.

And all future games

[whole harness]

Wait so we do IIPs based on what they say in AMAs now?! Damn council is gonna get really busy real quick if we go that route. And FYI, I was here way before the landsale, I participated in it etc. I am very aware of what they said.

If your point was valid, how did this not come up when beyond was announced as a game?

I'll tell you why: because nobody realized straight away that there was an inconsistency in the wording to abuse.

Because that's all this is.

[turbid warren]

By attacking "defenders of the cause" and the people who post these ideas and proposals, you are actively fighting for ambiguity rather than clarity for this investment vehicle. How does this help anyone?

The only way we get clarity is through a real discussion of the issue without attacking each other.

I think you have good intentions, but your words here are very toxic and will turn newcomers the other way. Is this what you want?

[whole harness]

Toxic? Deal with it

[turbid warren]

Oh, I'll be OK, no need to worry. I just care about how people see at our community.

[whole harness]

Very practical sensitive narrative to show when you have no more arguments but that's only used when it profits someone else. I don't buy it. I say it raw the way I think it. If we are to use the word toxic I feel like this proposal is way more toxic than I've ever been

[static tangle]

Thats not 100% correct.

• It's 5% of ingame revenue not 5% of fuel sales.
• And all ingame purchases should be in fuel.
  It's AT least what's written in the original iip

Due to obvious reasons the sales yet can't be in fuel. But if there are ingame purchases Team actually should have came up with an interrim solution.

The case with beyond is even trickier, since it wasn't a game in the beginning of it but slowly and surely turned into a game. I know thats arguable but the team calls it game. If it is handled as a game there's not really a difference between buying disks, or lootboxes or an overworld Run etc.

[empty palm]

looks like not enough realise this lol

[empty palm]

IZ: makes tons of money if Arena succeeds

Beyond: gets incentives and bonuses because the assets you're buying are so overpriced and have no built in revdis or utility beyond being a PFP

Arena: gets promoted so that Land Owners and ILV stakers can profit on launch and long term

IZ Owners and ILV Stakers have it best as far as I can tell but both need to realise focus needs to be on Arena and OW succeeding because thats how they profit and succeed...
#perspective

[turbid warren]

You're going to attack supporters of this too rather than debate the point? Do you really think most land owners are too dumb to know how their investment works?

[whole harness]

well isn't it because some pretend to have misunderstood their investment that this proposal was made?

[empty palm]

I mean Jaganite is a Council Member making a completely nonsense point that made it seem that he didnt know how land investment works...

I was responding to him

[turbid warren]

No, just a bit of clarity is required. Arena is far more important than any possible beyond revenue for driving fuel sales through overworld play.

[near flame]

Speaking like this is not a good look. Debate all you want on the topic, but you shouldn’t be accusing others of lying.

[whole harness]

Are you really trying to pretend you genuinely didn't know?

[near flame]

There’s no pretending here.
I believe fuel is the means to ensure land owners got 5% of all in-game revenue. Fuel hasn’t been implemented yet so we have to get created.
In a perfect world fuel is on chain and all in-game transactions pass through that fuel.

[empty palm]

idk why u still bothering on this circular argument zep

agree to disagree, move on

[whole harness]

i think i'll do that. really not worth my energy and i might risk one more time-out if i say what i think

[honest vessel]

Beyond gets incentive because we are still selling them and we want to maintain their value. we need people to keep buying d1sk and not dumping them on the market. the album is there so that people keep holding the pfps.
plus, there are more stuffs are coming for beyond. more utility is always good for NFTs. i believe in giving more value to NFTs, do you?

[honest vessel]

i am listing the incentives for each games pre OB

[honest vessel]

in case you missed it, johnny is proposing a reward for IZ #🎮〕illuvium-zero message
are you saying johnny, who lead IZ, does not know how IZ investment works by proposing reward for IZ?

my role in the ICC is to vet proposals and gather community sentiment. this proposal received overwhelming support from the community. it does not matter what i know. we are a DAO, what matters most is the community.

[turbid warren]

I would add that the founders' voices are extremely important here. I think many of us are here and invested because we believe in the Warwick brothers' vision, skills, and judgement calls.

I'm still very open to their thoughts on this topic and think myself and many others would be open to changing our votes if they had strong reasons to go the opposite way.

[slim carbon]

So if the DAO votes to give every ILV holder 1 million dollars then thats what matters?
No of course not. Of course something that gives free shit is going to have overwhelming popular support

[near flame]

IMC would never pass that

[slim carbon]

Just like they should never pass this 🙂

[near flame]

Maybe they won’t. But they have better access to the team and committees to make the best decision.

I trust the decisions they will make. But I see the ICC as the bridge to get these ideas to the IMC and let them figure it out.

[honest vessel]

Based on gov v3. We examine its feasibility

[honest vessel]

yea, thats why it's called the Community Council. We have to represent the community.

[wary nova]

I don't believe Beyond is a game at all. It's speculative fun, the only thing close to a game is the battle system development by ethlizards. That cannot be counted as illuviums ecosystem.

It has been suggested to turn beyond into a game. Yet it is not.
I believe it's your perception that it is a game you are running on.

Until it is declared a game by the DAO collectively or ILVLabs. Calling it a game is pure speculation.
Maybe you could call it a money game for nft traders yet it's a stretch to say it is the same as ILV zero, arena and overworld.

[wary nova]

So clarification is needed.

[slim carbon]

It's clearly not a game and is just marketed that way to get people to ape in

[wary nova]

I don't believe it's part of the 3 game ecosystem

[honest vessel]

@drifting coral i believe you came up with illuvitar. is illuvium beyond a game? do you consider d1sk sales to be in-game revenue?

[wary nova]

Perhaps that's where the separation is and the wording hasn't been thought out properly.

I'd call it a side product

[honest vessel]

lets just wait for team to confirm, they created and designed it

[wary nova]

Specifically for nft and web3 traders, perhaps hard core collectors

[wary nova]

Yes

[honest vessel]

this proposal relies solely on illuvium beyond being a game. if it is, we can proceed. if it's not, op need an IIP to make beyond a game

[nova cypress]

In-game rewards are being distributed to the beyond leaderboard. It seems like the DAO considers it a game.

[honest vessel]

good point

[wary nova]

So perhaps the clarifying question is.
Does the land holders revenue include revenue generated outside of the interconnected games IZ, arena, and overworld along with any future connected games.

Is beyond its own eco system?
Is the IBG the over arching ecosystem for IZ, arena and overworld?

[honest vessel]

beyond is connected to the other games, you use the illuvitar, skins and emotes in these games

[tribal flame]

Whether it is a game or not is completely beside the point. The ecosystem was conceived with fuel not being a part of Illuvium Beyond, whether it is a game or not.

Whether you want to change that is up for debate, but there’s no debate about whether the team planned for landowners to receive beyond revenues.

And it is clear to me that any reference to ‘in-game’ rewards is meant to mean overworld/arena in open beta.

Clumsy wording for sure.

But it’s a pointless debate. Just put together a proposal about changing it, if that’s what landholders want (and certainly not all do) and we can all vote for it either way.

[untold bolt]

Maintain value? You are giving 1 for free. You just halved the value and slapped everybody that purchased one before in the face.

[honest vessel]

it's a collab promo. let's just hope IMX is paying for those free d1sks

your argument can be made to ILV rewards too, unless the prizes are staked.

[drifting coral]

Yeah I think it's a game. We missed it. Landholders should receive their share of Illuvitars. But that's only my opinion which I've previously shared. It's up to the council to decide.

[honest vessel]

thanks so much for the respond. @near flame there you go.

the iip might need to consider the distribution mechanism

[static tangle]

Ridiculous an iip is actually needed.

[wary nova]

It is not connected in an economic sense though. The skins and emotes don't affect anything.

Well there you go. Its seen as a game. Onwards.

[trim echo]

Yeah it needs it as it's not clear how the ratio of distribution for the 5% to the different tiers.

If it's 1:1 then holding tier 1 lands are better by sheer volume.

Also need to correct wordings on IIP-20 or at lest clarify how other in game revenue that doesn't use fuel counts to the 5% I.e. land power ups

[static tangle]

Just save it and distribute it as soon as Land can sell fuel the same way like when price hits top rail and people buy from dao.

Wording is pretty clear to me, what you wana see Changed?
It says 5% of all ingame purchases and all ingame purchases have to be paid in fuel.

[latent reef]

5% of in game revenue, I originally viewed this as land holders got revenue from fuel and since speed ups were added then from them also. The revenue is from in game revenue, the game being Illuvium zero, not all connected titles. We are not one game but a IBG of interconnected games. The token has always been all revenue, land states in game. I think this would be a big pivot.

[static tangle]

It says from ingame purchases from Illuvium.

Was also advertise as that

There's no pivot at all

It's really awesome to See how many people joined the discussion. But it would be even more awesome if those people also read the IIP. (Not just Scan it and Like "OK i got a General Sense what is this about"... Actually read it)

[wary nova]

i get what you are sayiong. for me it wasnt clear what beyond was to whole ecosystem

[static tangle]

• It was said in multiple occasions by team members they view it as a game
• it is in the games list on the Homepage
• it gets ingame rewards

It's just a few community members who say it's not a game, but who cares about them.

[slim carbon]

Yes the people who want you to buy the jpegs are saying it's a game. I wonder why?

[wary nova]

righto.

[latent reef]

In fairness, perhaps my memory fails me. If it was from in-game purchases from illuvium. Then they should get illuvitar revdis because it was marketed as a collection game.

[slim carbon]

I can market a rock as a pet. Doesn't make it so

[untold bolt]

https://tenor.com/view/rock-everythingeverywhereallatonce-gif-25516405

[swift ermine]

Grant made might disagree.

[distant scarab]

so the founders think land owners should receive $ from these stupid jpegs, but the council holds only ilv and has no land, so they dont vote for it, am i understanding correctly?

[nova cypress]

I’m not sure a vote has been taken yet. The council is supposed to post their rationale for their votes in #📯〕council-chambers

[nova cypress]

Actually I’m certain that a vote has not been taken. There has not yet even been an officially submitted proposal yet. This idea is still just getting past the discussion stage.

[near flame]

I will be drafting up the proposal for a vote. I'm in no rush, I want everyone to enjoy their holidays. I may wait till the first week in January to submit it.

[torpid wharf]

Usually there will also be a post in #📰〕governance-news advising the vote is going to ICC and share the link (like past announcements)

[dry idol]

https://tenor.com/view/thank-you-gracias-ty-thnx-takk-gif-15722945443857291466

[wary nova]

I've been thinking a lot about this.
I feel I definitely got my wires crossed and as @static tangle mentioned actually given it some in depth research and not relied on memory alone.
I think I let my bias to the idea get in the way.
I actually think I argued with @slim carbon about it being a game in the past. Lol.
I never imagined the funds raised would be considered revenue to land holders.
To me it was always a whales game, yet maybe that's what land is too.
Anyways apologies for not giving this proper due diligence.
❤️

[whole harness]

yeah it's really sad that the portion of the community that knows what a game looks like is so small. really lame.

[wary nova]

Yeah so lame.

[wary nova]

To me it's still a web3 nft collection with gamefied elements and a reward system similar to staking your nfts.
To me it's also aimed at the few and not the many.

[stray plank]

Lu Asked me to post this on his behalf

https://illuvium.io/news/51-illuvium-land-sale-explained

Not entirely sure what his stance is

[slim carbon]

Yes we all know what was actually meant
Except land owners just want more... because...???

[near flame]

Thanks. Yeah it makes sense. If fuel was on chain right now the argument would be if all in-game purchases should use fuel.
Since that’s not an option yet I think we find ourselves in a gray area.

[honest vessel]

So illuvitar mint should have been in fuel 👀

[slim carbon]

no

[whole harness]

this should just end the topic idk why people keep going on here

No nobody was lied to, Land owners are still getting exactly what they were told. Nice try, move on

[swift ermine]

The topic keeps getting confused I think.,the terminology is where it gets turned around.
It was in game “fuel sales” as per original land sales info, but somewhere along the line it turned into “in game revenue”.
Beyond was only supposed to be a quick pfp project. It changed.
I think some clarity is needed.

[honest vessel]

kieran did

[slim carbon]

Kieran isn't the DAO

[honest vessel]

just team confirming it's a game, ur right it's up to IMC

[slim carbon]

They can say its a MOBA. It's completely irrelevant

[whole harness]

The DAO can say it's a MOBA 🙈

[near flame]

At this point a proposal has been drafting. Will work with team, IMC and committees to see what makes the most sense.
Then it’ll come down to a vote from the IMC.

People like to pick sides and that’s fine, but we’re in a gray area. We can’t argue that all in-game purchases be in fuel right now because fuel is not on chain.

[latent reef]

Grey area indeed, needs clarity. Is it 5% from all in game fuel rev or just all game rev?

[static tangle]

The IIP says 5% from all ingame purchases and all ingame purchases have to be made in fuel.
Since fuel is not live an interim solution ist needed.

[near flame]

I think the idea was to use fuel for all in-game purchases.
Question now is do we wait till fuel is on chain and propose the idea that all in-game purchases use fuel or do we figure out a system so that if fuel is not used the land owners still see that 5%.

[wary nova]

Agreed. In Scorioxs interview with Kieran, he said beyond evolved. It wasn't meant to be a game yet over time the premise changed.
So I can definitely understand why we are all confused.
Plus the info graphic kind of makes it clear what it meant at that time.
Afaik it has always been suggested that purchases would be in eth. Or sILV2.
Fuel was to be sold for eth.
I guess it will become clear soon.

[trail fiber]

Here's what @compact obsidian wrote on the subject. I'm not claiming to speak for him, so maybe after his holiday he can chime in with any explanation that differs.

#🎮〕illuvium-zero message

You have to read up a bit from his message to get the full context, but I take what he wrote to mean that land owners were originally intended to receive 5% of ALL in-game purchases (not fuel). It was also originally imagined and intended that fuel would be used for all in-game purchases, which has since changed for valid reasons. It wasn't intended that land owners would only get a share of the revenue from fuel.

Whether Beyond is a game seems pretty obviously yes to me. It's called a collection game. People compete for prizes. IMO, that's a game. And it's part of the Illuvium ecosystem. Personally, I think D1sk sales should count as in-game purchases.

All only intended to share my opinion. Full disclosure: I have held land since the original sale and have been staking since the first year.

Last thing... IMO, it would be very impractical to try to require fuel to be used for all in-game purchases. It makes more sense to track revenue as revenue converted to ILV and distributed within a reasonable timeframe from the sale, regardless of the currency used for the purchase. I think this reflects the original intention of the tokenomics design to create a kind of "deflationary" situation for the governance token. At least, that was my understanding way back when I dove headfirst into the Illuvium pool. 😉

I didn't mean deflationary... more like "buy pressure" on the market.

[compact obsidian]

My main points were:

1. Fuel is not a necessary condition for land holder revenue share.
2. There should be formal clarity for each revenue stream.

The fact that marketing decided to call something a collection "game" a few times shouldn't mandate an entire revenue stream is classified a certain way. If they decided its not a game and no longer refer to it as a game and just referred it to an Album would the RevDis go away?

As an extreme example if a single twitter post says "Staking is a DeFi Game" does the Sushi pool revenue then need to be split with land holders?

I'm not saying Beyond revenue shouldn't be included, but I'm also not saying it should. There are valid points in favour of both options.

Ultimately council needs to listen to the community, consider the ramifications, and make a clear decision that is in the best interests of the DAO.

[near flame]

Thanks for sharing this. Can’t believe this was posted weeks ago and this is the first time I’m seeing it.

[near flame]

Thank you for weighing in and clarifying your thoughts. I will take this into consideration as I’m editing my drafted proposal.

[nova cypress]

I think the fact that the beyond leaderboard gets ILV that was allocated for in-game rewards means it’s a game in the illuvium ecosystem. If it’s not a game then it’s gotta get its rewards from somewhere else or the allocation needs to be reallocated.

But it does not need to be relevant to this thread or proposal.

[compact obsidian]

I think we need to be careful of getting caught up in details like this. We are not lawyers trying to argue a contract dispute and 'win' on some technicality. We are a business trying to make decisions which benefit the business and its customers.

It is good to be consistent, to avoid reversing decisions arbitrarily, and to stick with what was agreed... but its not the only factor.

[nova cypress]

I think It’s just accounting. The DAO can vote to allocate tokens for whatever.

[compact obsidian]

Exactly!
And that vote should be driven by whats best for the DAO.

[nova cypress]

Agreed

[untold bolt]

So IIP to stop giving rewards to beyond leaderboard?

[trail fiber]

I agree with you that simply calling something a game for marketing purposes doesn't make it a game. Whether Beyond is referred to as a game or not isn't nearly as important as whether it functions as a game or not.

IMHO, the fact that rewards are offered for results people achieve in a competitive scenario makes me lean pretty heavily towards thinking of it as a game. Not saying it's black and white clear, but it seems like a reasonable inference.

I also agree that it should be voted on with the best interests of the DAO first and foremost.

[trim echo]

Did someone call me? lol

In all fairness, intention differs at certain points in time. As mentioned before, when IIP for land with the accompany revdis was passed there was no beyond in the horizon. The wording of the proposal lacked foresight and was not future proof. But that the beauty of being a DAO. We can enact changes to reflect the true intentions. Were not tied down to a 2 year old proposal.

My position here was that the 5% failed to account for in-game revenues that was not fuel based and a new proposal correcting that would reconcile the issue. I gave advise to Nijafe on the proposal he wrote on this. We need to be both broad and clear what constitutes in-game revenue and what is not.

Theres a legal maxim that comes to mind "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" which translates roughly to when one or more things of a class are expressly stated then the others are deemed excluded. This means that anything outside the definition of "in-game revenues" will not be subject to the 5% of land owner share. Example are merch sales, partnership revshare, IMX trade fees, etc.

[swift ermine]

There is a good reason we have you around. 🫶🏻

[near flame]

@compact obsidian What are your thoughts on FUEL buy backs if this were to be implemented? The non-fuel revenue is used to buy fuel off the market and burn it so that those who are playing and accumulating the fuel are still those who are seeing the return.

[honest vessel]

isnt the fuel in the market a mix of dao's supply and iz supply

[near flame]

That’s a good point. I’ll have to rethink it, but I feel like there’s a way to make it happen.

I guess it would have to be done where the DAO buys back fuel directly from the land owners at 1:1 instead of the market at 19:1

[turbid warren]

This was my original thought too, but I think it gets too complicated. An airdrop seems most simple to me (could be wrong). I think the issue you're trying to solve here is to incorporate gameplay and distribute this based on ILZ gameplay performance still in some manner, which I am in favor of. #1186709194435469332 message

[near flame]

Yes I think it would be best to incorporate gameplay. Originally, I had thought this to be too difficult. And maybe it is. But I feel like there’s a way to make it work. Just need to think about it a little more.

[turbid warren]

For X dates, all ILZ fuel sold will be eligible for airdrop rewards. Take whatever ETH needs to be distributed, divide by total fuel sold during the period, and determine how much everyone gets per fuel. Pretty easy.

[near flame]

I could see that working, but it’s not perfect.

[turbid warren]

And there's no rush to do this, so instead of having it near open beta, better to wait until the first big marketing event after release. That way fuel sales volumes/pricing will be better known first.

Biggest issue I see would be if people are unable to sell fuel or it drives prices down too much, which is the reason to wait and gauge economy first

Hold the event when fuel sales are somewhat stable, then a marketing event is pushed out to increase that

[honest vessel]

at what price?

[near flame]

At market price. Could do 33% for each fuel type.
Example would be instead of buying 100$ of fuel off the market and land owners only 5$ of that the DAO would buy directly from the land owners so 100$ would all go to those sellers.

[honest vessel]

it's doable using a special pool, iz landowners can swap their fuel in that special pool at market price

lets say there is 100eth to be distributed to landowners. landowners can sell their fuel into that pool at market price anytime they want until it's finished. why is it different than selling their fuel directly into the market

the fuel that they produce post OB to claim the d1sk revenue will be the same fuel that they can sell in the market, netting them nothing from this proposal

unless we are using pre-ob fuel (after this reset)

and it has to be done before people are running out of storage

[turbid warren]

Fuel supply that can be sold should be for players. Not a fan of artificial purchases to burn it. While this could still benefit land holders by driving up fuel prices vs just meeting the existing demand, I don't think that's good for the system. Fuel pre-OB needs to feed into this system to establish a supply base that will meet initial surge in demand, timing that will be tricky enough as-is.

[honest vessel]

i prefer a simple airdrop

[turbid warren]

I'd be fine with this for pre OB revenue that needs distribution. @near flame, I watched your video with the proposal draft and would be very much against long-term ETH airdrops to land holders once fuel generation is up and running.

The mechanism should be fuel related if possible. Otherwise, there needs to be a backend market purchase of fuel from the in-game ETH revenue in real-time when the purchase happens. This would reward ILZ players selling fuel as ETH revenue occurs and pay for ILZ performance as the game is intended.

An airdrop would use fabricated reward ratios for different land tiers (which would forever be a point of disagreement) and even reward land holders who don't generate fuel for the economy. This is why I proposed #1186709194435469332 message but I'm not nearly as concerned about how the historical stuff may be pushed out.

[near flame]

I agree. AirDrop pre-open beta. But based of play/performance post open beta.

[honest vessel]

post OB, d1sk sale should be in fuel/sILV2
fuel is our in-game currency
while ETH is the p2p currency

[honest vessel]

People mint/buy land to produce fuel

They already spent $70m, so yeah I hope they make a lot of money

Just like our token whales

[honest vessel]

They are the same land. i can explain in dm

Fuel from IZ is only 5% of total supply.

[honest vessel]

there is no effect to revenue, if we are giving 5% to landowner anyway

[wary nova]

Thanks for explaining Jag.
I get where I was confusing things. Removing my posts. ☺️

[simple pecan]

It is a bit of a stretch to say that buying pfps is a game in any normal sense of the word.

If you buy a load of stamps and put them in an album would anybody genuinely say they were playing the stamp collecting game?
Obviously not.

The existence of regular financial rewards to incentivise people to buy more PFPs also doesn’t make it a game.

This is very much a change from what was originally intended when ‘in game revenues’ were mentioned at the land sale and afterward.

People can decide that it is right to change what was originally intended, but let’s not play dubious word games to try to justify it.
Not that you are doing this. Just doing a reply to your post to continue the line of thought.

[honest vessel]

we should hear more from people who are playing the beyond game

collecting games is a thing

the pfps have power points, you can compete with other players in the leaderboard
the pfp by itself is not a game, just like illuvial by itself is not a game

and by completing a collection line (objective) you can unlock stuff
the album gamefied the pfps

[simple pecan]

Like I said… a bit of a stretch.

Since when does owning more of something constitute being a game.

But I agree that it would be interesting to hear from people who have bought lots of illuvitars.
Do they think they are collecting / investing, or do they relish the ‘game’ of seeing who has more points on the leaderboard? 😏

I think if we are honest, they are collecting or investing.

[whole harness]

I flip a lot 🙂