[PASSED] IIP-45 Landowner Revenue Share

[worldly robin]

[Passed]<@&1107754780744487002> Snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/community.ilv-gov.eth/proposal/0x93276af2460827f08d01040a07c87f82bdc1772e686a7e52d024ff1cf6c8bd66
[Revisions Needed] <@&814435151307866142> Snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/ilv-gov.eth/proposal/0x36f7dc2be162da0d72d76d81ed035169f57f9bb4e5fd28906942b0a94993fdde

IIP-45-R <@&814435151307866142> Snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/ilv-gov.eth/proposal/0xc4511bc3dadffcd3bcb617ea6b5fbeb8e0cf46c05f4805348f6fa87c601b8a0c

Simple Summary:

Illuvium Zero Land was sold with the intention of returning 5% of the total revenue generated from in-game purchases to its holders. This proposal aims to guarantee that landowners receive those returns from all existing and future games within the Illuvium ecosystem.

[VOTING] IIP-45 Landowner Revenue Share

[crisp mulch]

revenue will be sent same way as regular revdis or some other way?

[vivid dawn]

Different than revdis, although I left it up to the team. I didnt want to be too restrictive in my wording by having it done in a specific way.

[elder lance]

Am i the only one reading this Like if the iip gets denied, it is actually questioned if IZ gets the 5% total share of ingame revenue since everything not sold in fuel wouldn't get shared with IZ anymore?

[tacit cosmos]

I really like that you left the threshold and distribution method up to the team.

You hit the primary need and left implementation up to the experts. It also allows them to change it down the road when more time allows development of smoother systems.

[vivid dawn]

Right now fuel sales are the only thing that guarantees 5% to land owners (* its actually worse than that if you consider the implications of rails, but thats a topic for another time)
So, yeah I think this is important to get passed so land owners can know that all future games will benefit land owners and not just where fuel is chosen to be used.

[vivid dawn]

Thanks. Some things are best left up to the experts.

[elder lance]

Right now out of IIP-20:

• "The target will be for landowners to earn approximately 5% of the total revenue generated from in-game purchases in Illuvium."
  --> Landowners earn 5% of ingame revenue

• "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.*

• "Illuvium will not fix fuel (required for all in-game purchases)"
  --> In Overworld this all should be worked out with using fuel for all ingame payments. How this will work in other games can't be determined until Illuvium Implements ingame purchases in future games.

The question is, what changes when IIP-45 gets approved... Absolutely nothing.

What changes if IIP-45 gets declined?

• It questions the claim of the 5% overall and IZ actually could lose all ingame revenue created without using fuel, because it's phrased as if IZ now is only legitimated revenue when fuel is used.
  (Out of IIP-45; "Illuvium Zero generates FUEL, landowners receive a 5% share of the revenue when it is sold on the market.")

[vivid dawn]

What is currently in place is being interpreted differently by different people.
I think Beyond purchases fall into the category where 5% goes to land owners, but currently that is not happening.

Declining this does not change anything. Declining just means things remain as is.

And keep in mind things are constantly changing in a DAO, even the quote you used about using a balancer milti-token weighted pool is outdated and not true anymore.

[elder lance]

How can you interpret it in another way i did? Like, what do those sentences say to you?

Imo it does due to the reason i mentioned.
It acutally not only changes that IZ is just eligible for %share of fuel sales, it also changes that future games doesn't necessarily have to use fuel as ingame purchases.

Absolutely, there was an IIP about how it works and council voted on it. That's how it works...

[vivid dawn]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at it.
It seems like I am interpreting it the same as you, but take a look at https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1186709194435469332 There are people interpreting it differently, saying its not the 5% that matters, its just the fuel sales.

[elder lance]

Well you do aswell, or did another ICC member rewrite the IIP.
"Illuvium Zero generates FUEL, landowners receive a 5% share of the revenue when it is sold on the market."

And what some random people interpret, shouldn't matter. The question is more of what actually is written. I feel like most of them just argued, but didn't actually read the IIP. I remember someone even took the time and read it and changes his mind.

And creating IIP's/ICCP's just because a few people interpret it on another way than everyone else, isn't a good approach at all imo.

and also should have been solved in another way.
like changing the wording on the original IIP with an ICCP or whatever.
This IIP should have been all about an Interim solution, but turned out to be something completely different i feel.

[vivid dawn]

I wrote that and that quote is true.

Youre right that random peoples interpretations dont matter, but Illuvium's interpretation matters and right now 5% of D1sks are not going to land owners.

[vivid dawn]

I wanted to make it more future proof

[tacit cosmos]

There's undoubtedly a lot of debate on whether Beyond is a game and falls into this or not, for good reason because it was never clearly spelled out.

"Before launching a new project within the Illuvium ecosystem, it should be made clear whether or not it constitutes a “game.”"

This will ensure that ambiguity doesn't happen again.

[elder lance]

i bet, but imo you fucked it up.
Sorry to say it like that. 😄

[vivid dawn]

All good. You're entitled to your opinion ha

[elder lance]

yea, that's fine

[tacit cosmos]

You're looking for something to specify how to deal with d1sks that have already been sold, or something else here?

What's an interim solution? Until everything is sold in fuel?

[elder lance]

I thought that what should have been done with that IIP

[elder lance]

like what happens with all revenue until there's an automated system for example sell disks for fuel

[tacit cosmos]

Yeah, it may still need to be done after this. The approach here is good though because if this passes it says Beyond is a game and land holders get 5%. Much easier to discuss retroactive sales after that is established instead of before.

[vivid dawn]

The vast majority so far has gone into the safety pool and that will require a separete ICCP if and when that get distributed so theres no point in including that now. That will be for later

[elder lance]

i have no problem with it if it gets approved.
But there are changes to the system as it is phrased as i mentioned above, which could change stuff if it gets declined

[elder lance]

was just an explenation to what i mean with "interim oslution"

[tacit cosmos]

That would be interesting for sure....I don't think voting this down ends the discussion!

[elder lance]

voting this down changes the revenue system as it was.
For sure there will be discussions when that happens, but shit already fell down...

[vivid dawn]

If it gets declined nothing changes. It doesnt mean the opposite happens

[tacit cosmos]

If this fails to pass, nothing changes, but it would certainly highlight the fact that there's too much ambiguity and someone needs to clear everything up. It would just restart the whole conversation over again.

I don't think that will happen based on comments from council and Kieran

[vivid dawn]

Also, a lot of the changes I made was from internal/council feedback as well as community feedback.

An example would be removing the safety pool part

[elder lance]

You sure?
It states that now IZ is only eligible to fuel sales and want to ensure that IZ also gets revenue from not fuel sold purchases.
If it gets declined, would you say IZ gets 5% of all ingame Purchases or IZ gets 5% from all fuel sales?

[tacit cosmos]

I'm sure that a declined proposal doesn't result in changes, yes. I would have to assume it's another aspect in here that people object to in that case.

[elder lance]

How elegantly you not to chose to answer 😆

[tacit cosmos]

Oh, even if it's declined I would still be under the belief that IZ gets 5% of all in-game purchases based on prior info. I would have to assume (in that case), that it was declined not because of the 5% vs fuel but due to something else in this proposal.

The proposal also states that "Illuvium Zero Land was sold with the intention of returning 5% of the total revenue generated from in-game purchases to its holders." so obviously voting it down doesn't just make that false

[elder lance]

Idk what to say, slowly i feel like i am crazy 😄
What problem does this IIP wana solve acutally?

The IIP title is "Landowner revenue share"
It states that IZ just gets 5% shares from fuel and wana make sure other revenue also gets included regardless of it being fuel or not in all future games.
--> That's what has always been the case. (They just fucked it up as Kieran mentioned)
It also states Beyond disks are included.
So is it an IIP about revenue share change or is it an IIP about Beyond being a game (Which was stated multiple times also listed from Labs as a game) and every new project has to be introduced wheter it falls into IZ revenue share or not.

I was under the impression we needed a solution to what happens to the $ made with beyond until everything is hooked up as it should be. Was obviously wrong with that assumption. But phrasing it like it is is wrong, dangerous and reads like there are additional claims made.
Or just the title is set wrong.
And all this because of 3 or 4 people arguing they interpret the letters in another way than everyone else, and Beyond is not a game.

[tacit cosmos]

To me, this just establishes much better clarity that:

1. In-game ETH revenue needs a mechanism to distribute 5% to landowners
2. D1SK sales are in-game revenue
3. Future projects must be determined if they count as a game for this purpose or not earlier on

I agree, to me it seems that these have all been stated more-or-less already. There is still ambiguity and debate around this though, which is not good for investors.

[surreal trench]

This proposal ensures that 5% of all in-game purchases, regardless of whether FUEL is used or not, are returned to landowners for all current and future Illuvium games, including, but not limited to, D1SK sales within Illuvium Beyond.

the IIP is about landowners getting their share whether Fuel is used or not

"However, there may be in-game purchases made without using FUEL"

"When in-game purchases occur without using FUEL"

@elder lance

Fuel is our in-game currency, so any in-game purchase need to use fuel

as we know, landowners have not been receiving their share from d1sk sales
this IIP is enforcing it

[elder lance]

Yea, I think i expressed my concerns already. I'm not going to repeat the whole conversation 🙃

[surreal trench]

if this IIP gets declined, there will be no mechanism to give landowners the d1sk sale revenue

because the past IIPs stated that landowners only get revenue by selling their fuel

[elder lance]

No

[surreal trench]

ok, thanks for participating in governance.

[worldly robin]

Passed <@&1107754780744487002> 5-0

[young sequoia]

Maybe this is the intent but I'd rather an IIP be developed that ensures all "in-game" purchases are able to be made in other currencies and then the DAO is responsible for purchasing and burning that fuel equivalent.

I'd also like a detailed definition of "in-game" so that this argument can't be made for something else as well.

[vivid dawn]

My latest version touches on both of these. Waiting for IMC feedback.
In-game purchase would be any purchase within a game of Illuvium that can affect gameplay.

I did add in a buy back system where non-fuel in-game purchases will be used to purchase fuel at market and burn the portion the DAO mints.

[tacit cosmos]

<@&814435151307866142> I saw in the meeting notes from a few weeks back:

"IMC determined that the statement: “This includes FUEL produced by the
DAO in the case where a top rail is hit and the DAO is supplying more than
95% of FUEL. These purchases will be held and used to purchase FUEL at
market value once that value drops 10% below top rail.” is unnecessary and
should be removed."

Can someone describe what happens with revenue at that top rail? I assume there's already another mechanism that handles this?

Separately, I'm also wondering how sILV2 used for fuel purchases works. Does that just come straight from the DAO at 100%? I assume that would NOT go through the X currency --> FUEL conversion/burn, correct?

Thanks!

[lament iris]

I believe this was in reference to the revised proposal. I think another sentence in the revision covered this scenario in more general terms, which is why the one you quote could be removed. I'll hold off any other specifics until Nijafe posts the revision, I'm not sure if further updates have been made and don't want to mislead anyone.

sILV2 isn't used to buy Fuel, it's used to purchase the thing that Fuel would otherwise get you.

For example, for a travel cycle, it would cost X Fuel, or Y sILV2.

[tacit cosmos]

Good stuff, thank you.

[tacit cosmos]

I just noticed it's in IIP-39 already:
Fuel Guardrail
Enables players to set unlimited buy orders for Fuel at a fixed price (top guardrail). Players can specify the amount of fuel they wish to purchase at a price pre-defined by the council and team. To maintain the revenue sharing model with landowners, 5% of this fuel sales revenue will be distributed to landowners proportionally based on their weekly fuel sales.

[worldly robin]

IIP-45-R has been revised and is going to <@&814435151307866142> Voting - Snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/ilv-gov.eth/proposal/0xc4511bc3dadffcd3bcb617ea6b5fbeb8e0cf46c05f4805348f6fa87c601b8a0c

[tacit cosmos]

Nice revisions, well done.

[silk thicket]

Great I understand how it works a lot better now.

[silk thicket]

@nja

Okay so I know this has passed, yet due to recent comments from solar storm, I am wondering now about the wording of revenue distribution.

Is this new set up mean its different to what Aaron stated?
A player receives 5% of the fuel they produce and sell.

As now it says units T1 - 1unit, T2- 2units, ect of what the land can produce at its base capacity, not what it actually does?

[lament iris]

There are 2 sections to this proposal. Pre-Fuel Production and Post-Fuel Production.

Once Fuel production starts, land owners earn through Fuel. This is supported through a Fuel buyback system, so if the DAO conducts sales of digital products that are NOT able to be priced in Fuel, land owners still earn by selling Fuel. Anything that wasn't priced in Fuel supports the price of Fuel through these buybacks.

Before Fuel production starts, distribution is based on land tier. This is because landowners are unable to produce and sell fuel, so some means of distribution is required. The threshold for distribution is delibrately set high, ideally this distribution only needs to happen once, when fuel production starts.

[silk thicket]

Ah thank you. ❤️