#Make Zero the ONLY source of FUEL

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

agile pewter
#

Landholders and Gamers unite!!!

SUMMARY:
At this time, plans for fuel production are set at 5% landowner and 95% DAO... effectively making the landowner's fuel production insignificant in the ecosystem. This idea aims to change that by making ALL fuel production solely via LANDOWNERS. This would eliminate fuel production from the DAO completely. Sales of fuel would still be determined by a Landholder/DAO split ratio. There would still be a set upper rail and no lower rail system as previously devised. However, the new revenue split will be 20% for the landowners and 80% for the DAO/stakers. F2P plots can still continue with the airdrop point system.

This Idea aims to:

  • Make land and landowners the integral part of the Illuvium ecosystem they were meant to be.

  • Increase value and demand for land

  • Incentivize Zero gameplay and fuel production

  • Encourage market activity

Currently if Zero were completely erased Illuvium could still continue because the DAO produces 95% of the fuel. That is not a balanced system. Change things now so that Zero is an instrumental part of Illuvium... not a forgotten remnant or solely a tool for F2P farming.

Get it before it's gone.

silk vale
#

👋🏼

#

👍🏼

stark lichen
#

My Dream 👀🙏🍾

spiral tiger
waxen pelican
#

How do you reconcile the 5% to land owners when all fuel purchases are being directly bought from land owners? Are you then trying to circumvent this and cut out the 95%?

agile pewter
# waxen pelican How do you reconcile the 5% to land owners when all fuel purchases are being dir...

If a version of this were to become a proposal and pass... then it would replace the current system of 5%/95% Landowner/DAO split
5% of all in-game purchases ala iip-45 can still remain in tact.

Landowners would sell one unit of fuel and receive 20% of that sale... DAO receives 80% in a fund and distrubutes accordingly.

An alternative to mitigate potential market manipulation is to immediately transfer 80% of fuel production to a vault whereby that fuel automatically goes on market at top rail price... whereas landowners can do what they will with their 20%. This would ensure landowner orders are 1 for 1 and not 1/20th of an order.

waxen pelican
# agile pewter If a version of this were to become a proposal and pass... then it would replace...

That's a drastic shift in revshare. 5% to 20% of fuel purchases not to mention the accounting of non-fuel purchases being maintained at 5%. Seems a bit complex at the same time completely overhauling the sharing percentage.

Even setting this aside, have you considered what happens when the demand overly outweighs supply to the point that fuel becomes so scarce that overworld players literally can't play cause landowner is unable to keep up with demand?

urban vapor
agile pewter
agile pewter
still meadow
agile pewter
# still meadow 400% increase is pretty drastic

All of us who allowed 5/95 to actually be the norm for so long are guilty of self-immolation imo. Ofc stakers want to keep 5/95 and keep landowners in their place. It's also why landowners are essentially expendable now. Land was touted as INTEGRAL to the game loop and economy, not incidental. So 20/80 + iip45 balances out the ecosystem.

white crown
agile pewter
glass tree
#

I think right now we need to focus on ensuring the revenue is cover development costs instead of shifting revenue allocations away from the DAO. Long term sustainability is absolutely critical. To me this would make sense later on when we have lots of active players and want to release additional land.

stark lichen
#

Maybe before releasing more land we could move to 20/80

stark lichen
#

IZ is not just a game it is the economic engine 'it should be the players who control this economy

stark lichen
waxen pelican
stark lichen
#

Giving an important role to the player in the ecosystem

#

We have to trust the player to give them a chance to really participate and have a real impact.

waxen pelican
# stark lichen I understand but for you personally this idea seems crazy to you or this is wher...

Its not ideal.

Here are my personal thoughts on the matter based on "a possible delay":

Yes, I would prefer that the whole P2E IZ game mechanic is made available in OB. That was what was communicated and understood to be part and parcel of OB.

However, if there are technical blockers whether it be development, technology, regulatory, or whatever it is that will delay OB then this is something we need to know the extent of. Will it take 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, a year? We need more context tbh.

Assuming it will take months, this means Q3/Q4. Would I be in favor of it? Honestly, no. The caveat here is that there are measures in place to ensure that the core promises to landholders are upheld. How that looks, I have to wait for Labs to propose. At the same time, I would like to know the timeline from labs on when can they activate the P2E/Player economy side should we push through without this feature for Q2 Open Beta.

So in a nutshell, theres just too many factors for us to make a decision even on an IMC level. Not one of us would be comfortable to make a decision without more info and context. I know it sounds non-committal but I wanted to stress the fact that theres a lot of unknowns.

stark lichen
waxen pelican
stark lichen
white crown
# waxen pelican Its not ideal. Here are my personal thoughts on the matter based on "a possibl...

Kieran basically told us what is the technical reason behind the delay. He said in an AMA that "we decided to refactor the code for Zero". This came out of the blue, especially this close to OB.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but refactoring is done to optimise the code, it's not about adding/developing features. Based on the timing, this sounds like this was done to enable the mobile app to run on weaker phones, aka. to help more people to get access to the play-to-airdrop. (otherwise, if the refactoring was needed for the paid land, this would have likely started a lot earlier)

So this boils down to risking the p2e land delay for the sake of player numbers after game launch.

I understand the intent behind it, pulling more players to the game is beneficial as some of those will convert and keep playing the game. EXCEPT, the only exposure a mobile player gets at this time is the f2p mobile app, which was never designed for player retention. From the point of view of a f2p player, that game is a pointless progression game for prettier buildings. No endgame, no pvp element, no reason to keep playing.

So in this context, prioritising access to a wide audience that have no way to play the main games yet (and a large percentage of will be bots) is questionable, imo.

languid summit
agile pewter
#

I'm working on an actual proposal to submit... will post here when it's further along for feedback.

gleaming girder
#

Land owners get 100% of the revenue from the Fuel they sell, but they only produce 5% of the Fuel. The other 95% is produced by the DAO, and is the revenue that comprises revenue distribution for ILV stakers. It seems like you're essentially asking for landowners to produce 20% of the Fuel, and for the DAO to produce 80% of the Fuel.

I'm not at all in favour of making drastic changes to a system that people on both sides of the equation have invested in. If there are issues with the 5/95 split after the games go live, that would be an appropriate time to make adjustments, but as a few people have pointed out, quadrupling the portion of fuel that landowners produce likely isn't the kind of adjustment that would be called for.

dusk trellis
# gleaming girder Land owners get 100% of the revenue from the Fuel they sell, but they only produ...

Okay .. now this gets a bit confusing (to me at least)
So you are saying land owners get 100% of the fuel they sell -> does this mean that for ex if i place 1xcrypton at 1$ -> an order is created for 20xcrypton for 20$. Let's say someone buys it in 1 minute after i place it on the market.** When do i get my 1$ **? If it's in the moment that person bought the fuel, then yes it means i get 100% from what i sold... BUT, and this is very important, if i have to wait X amount of time until i get paid for whatever fuel i sell, with prices fluctuating, how would i be sure that i won't get less if for example for another month that fuel will be sold at half price?

languid summit
pine raven
dusk trellis
gleaming girder
#

This isn't me telling you there isn't a problem, it's me saying that I will not vote in favour of this particular solution.

#

I do own land. So the many of us who have capital locked away incudes me, and the other council members. This really isn't an "us vs. them" issue, no matter how many times people will try and frame it that way.

It's been my perspective for over a year now that land owners will continue to be unhappy until they get their hands on a fully functioning IL:Z where they are producing and selling Fuel.

On the DAO side, we don't get closer to that goal by blowing development time rebalancing what percentage of revenue goes to what bucket when no revenue exists. This feels like a reactionary proposal to negative sentiment, but in my opinion, it won't help anything to task Labs with creating a new system for Fuel where landowners create ALL the Fuel, when the current system is half built, and other systems rely on it to be built as-is. It's extremely late in the process to be changing course on something like that.

We need our suite of games out for any of this to matter in the first place, that will continue to be by number one priority.

fast blaze
#

With the proposed launch, marketing is ahead in term of priority, over getting Zero out.

dusk trellis
gleaming girder
# dusk trellis Okay .. now this gets a bit confusing (to me at least) So you are saying land ow...

The long term solution is that you'll get what you sold when it sells. Using your example, post 1 crypton at $1, get $1 when it sells.

The short term mitigation to IL:Z running behind schedule was the distribution specified in IIP-45-R, where until IL:Z is live, distribution will be based on Land Tier, and will happen when the outstanding amount exceeds $500k, or when we move to the long term solution.

image.png
dusk trellis
gleaming girder
#

I don't know who said that. When the long term solution is live, you'll produce Fuel, sell it, and get what you get for selling it. There's no pool.

#

There's a target, which is to have 5% of Fuel produced by landowners, but it's not a distributive system.

dusk trellis
#

Hmm ...I can't find it now but i'm sure it was mentioned somewhere. But thanks for the details for now

stark lichen
gleaming girder
#

I'm certain many others are in the same boat, and bought land to produce Fuel to subsidize their gameplay.

stark lichen
#

Ok so the first motivation is to ensure your own playing time

#

This is not supposed to be the economical lungs of illuvium

#

Attracting gaming investors
👀

gleaming girder
#

Are you conflating my personal reasons for buying a piece of land with the role of land in the Illuvium ecosystem? The two aren't necessarily the same.

agile pewter
#

Things were not clear about Zero and how everything would work even up till recently. And once it became clear it wasn't like okayy that's great! It was more like hmmm... and people tried to digest it or still didn't understand it. Even now, some people don't realize that when you sell one unit of fuel you are making an order for 20 units. That's crazy sauce. This proposal would simplify the economy and make selling fuel a 1:1 and what you list is what you get.

You can't say that having orders tied to 1:19 aren't going to make things unneccisarily complicated. You have to consider what one unit costs, then what 20 units cost... then decide if its even feasible to sell 20 units at a reasonable value... if not, then sell only .5 or .1 unit just to get a sale. Crazy shit.

But taking production out of the hands of the DAO would make everything easier and a better market experience.

agile pewter
#

Currently the system is set up to make landholders subordinate to the DAO in all ways... it should not be this way. Zero should be the mechanism for extracting fuel... not magical pixie dust from the DAO.

#

Fuel should be supplie to the DAO via Zero

lyric juniper
#

Insanity. Absolutely does not work.

agile pewter
#

Here's a rough sketch of a proposal... any additions please suggest or dm 🌟

Zero Fuel Production & Economy Restructuring


SIMPLE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this proposal is to restructure the Illuvium Zero game and Fuel economy so that ZERO is the sole mechanism for providing fuel to everyone in the ecosystem. Also, it aims to provide a more balanced revenue split between landowners and the DAO. This restructure would change the current 5/95 ratio split to a 20/80 ratio split. It would also make all fuel production executed via landowners only, removing the DAO as producers of fuel completely. IIP-45 and IIP-39 would remain intact.

ABSTRACT:
Zero started along with Illuvium’s inception three years ago. Now, as we approach Open Beta, it has become clear there is a need to reconsider Fuel Production and Revenue Split as the game’s game scope, player base, market conditions, team priorities and deliverables are all very different now than they were at Illuvium’s birth. Taking these factors into account it is worthwhile to consider these change for the betterment of the Illuvium ecosystem as a whole.

OVERVIEW:



  • Landholders would produce 100% of the fuel for the Illiuvium ecosystem

  • Landholders would keep 20% of what they produce

  • The DAO would automatically receive 80% of each fuel type upon extraction by landowners

  • Fuel transferred to the DAO would be automatically available for purchase via Illuvidex

PROS:

** Simplifies Fuel Listings: **Listings will be sold 1:1 since there will be no fuel production by the DAO. A player lists 1 unit of fuel and 1 unit gets listed instead of 20 with the current system.

** Promotes a healthier economy: **Players can list more fuel and expect sales as opposed to the current system. Likewise, buyers can expect better prices because there’s nothing added to the top of seller’s listings.

** A Fairer Split: **20/80 split provides a better return for landowners while also ensuring the DAO still receives a significant majority.

** Removes Conflict of Interest: **People will feel more drawn to play Zero because there will be no competitor in the DAO. Currently landowners are essentially tools or employees for the DAO. This change would give power to landholders.

CONS:

** Lessens stakers profit: **A 20/80 split would mean less revenue for RevDis

** Potential Manipulation:** Too much power for landholders could make it possible for a collective halt in fuel production

** May not be enough fuel: **There may be significant demand for fuel and current amount of plots may not provide enough supply

hollow jungle
agile pewter
hollow jungle
agile pewter
#

  1. That seems uncertain... we still don't know how much fuel plots will produce. We also don't know the demand for fuel yet either. It is possible that landowner fuel gets sold asap and regularly, requiring fuel to be bought at top rail. That would come down to balance.

  2. Maybe I don't understand the question... How do I expect THIS? Meaning the whole proposal? Pricing will be determined by the free market system with an upper rail still set.

hollow jungle
agile pewter
#

I see your point. If people have the option to buy lower, they will. If there is an excess of fuel then the DAO will hardly sell fuel... Would be hard to balance as well as supply/demand continuously shift.

The fundamental reason for the idea is to remove the DAO as producers of fuel... because landowners are basically expendable in that system. So the desire is to make landowners more significant in the ecosystem.

The idea of promoting a healthier economy is because players could expect the market to be straightforward without being tied to 19 extra units for every listing. It puts players in charge of the economy and not the DAO.

hollow jungle
# agile pewter I see your point. If people have the option to buy lower, they will. If there is...

I get that, but it's almost no possibleto balance that Way.
You could the dao fully take out of the fuel equation and the dao just gets 80% of the value the Lands are selling maybe.

Like the adding the extra 19 Units was to secure the 95:5 Split
And the Unlimited fuel sales at top rail is to secure a Max price and that there is always enough fuel for people to keep playing all the Games. Changing both lf it needs a set of new features to solve those possible occuring cases

agile pewter
# hollow jungle I get that, but it's almost no possibleto balance that Way. You could the dao f...

I'm not sure that would work either as it puts landowners in total control of fuel. By splitting and sending the DAO 80% it is out of the control of landowners. And while landowners could control the supply... they couldn't control the price of the 80%. Finding the balance of control is tricky... but right now the DAO is in total control. Landowners don't need to play and yet there will be fuel available.

This is also partly why this whole F2P is even possible to happen right now... cuz landowners are insignifcant and fuel will be available whether landowners exist or not.

hollow jungle
pine raven
agile pewter
pine raven
#

gotcha

#

well then it really depends on how high is the rail, in order to say the DAO is in control.

agile pewter
#

alas... many details we still don't know

lyric juniper
#

What happens if not enough fuel is produced or land holders don't sell.

They essentially hold the project hostage, this isn't a good idea. It's like creating a mining union like what we saw in the UK.

The unions kept holding the gov over a barrell and eventually they had enough and just shut them down 😂.

I don't think it goes that far but inherent project risk is present.

hollow jungle
lyric juniper
hollow jungle
stark lichen
lyric juniper
lyric juniper
stark lichen
agile pewter
lyric juniper
pine raven
#

I'm hoping someday this can become a reality. Maybe in a future where the DAO is drowning in profits where the unlocking of more landplots could be accompanied by an increase of the % landowners get from fuel sales.

pine raven
#

Something like:

40k plots - 25%
60k plots - 50%
80k plots - 75%
100k plots - 100%

white crown
pine raven
#

Now that the game is not gated by having to buy a land plot I ask you why would anyone buy land instead of ILV when you get 95% of all the land revenue?

white crown
pine raven
white crown
#

And why would anyone hold the token for 3% revdis?

hollow jungle
pine raven
#

I may not be getting this. But is revdis only coming from fuel?

white crown
hollow jungle
pine raven
hollow jungle
pine raven
#

something like the game I proposed, would be 100% revdis for the DAO. Like Beyond is.

white crown
hollow jungle
# pine raven are we sure about that?

I don't know their Planing, but i don't expect Movie and TV shows and merchandise exploding Next year.
And ingame revenue might be majority of revenue even im 10-15 years

white crown
pine raven
white crown
hollow jungle
pine raven
#

I mean if we're afraid of lacking revdis sources we don't have to push fuel to the 100% for landowners. Gradually increasing would make sense to me. Since I only see land increasing in price from now on. Game launch + ETH price increase.

hollow jungle
#

I guess you can argue about 5% being to less for landowners, but turning the table 180° doesn't make it fair for both parties.

pine raven
#

To me this distribution made sense when there was no F2P plots since you were paying to play the game. But not anymore now.

pine raven
#

or 45% since they get the 5% revdis

#

40k plots - 15%
60k plots - 25%
80k plots - 35%
100k plots - 45%

#

I'm just trying to brainstorm with you guys, cause to me it's not really making much sense on why I would buy a landplot vs staking ILV.

pine raven
#

But I think I get it now, it's all semantics.

hollow jungle
# pine raven But I think I get it now, it's all semantics.

Revdis is revenue distribution.
What revenue the dao has now?

  • merch Shop
  • fuel (95%)

If you take away fuel, revdis as it is now would include merchshop only

Fuel will be used to buy anything digital Like Shop in IZ, researching in iz, future Landsales, crafting + travelling + curing shards in OW, beyond disks and other stuff i might not think about now.

pine raven
hollow jungle
pine raven
#

And this idea to increase the fuel % to landowners would be something long term with the remaining landplots unlock.

pine raven
hollow jungle
pine raven
# hollow jungle IIP-45

Yes but this IIP is about landowners getting the 5% share from Beyond and other digital like games. I may be wrong but it doesn't say d1sks will be available to be bought with fuel.

pine raven
hollow jungle
hollow jungle
pine raven
#

Thanks for the clarifications Atlas_Love

hollow jungle
#

I'm probably asleep, but questions linked to Stuff Like that would be awesome for townhall. I feel most people are not fully aware of how the economy ingame and revdis etc. Actually work

pine raven
pine raven
#

I'm also curious what the vision is.

agile pewter
upbeat talon
pine raven
upbeat talon
pine raven
agile pewter
urban vapor
molten onyx
#

I would like to suggest another approach to fuel production and market control:

Zero is the sole source of fuel production and the DAO influences price on the market not by selling its own fuel (neither 95% nor 80%), but by giving or withdrawing additional fuel production concessions to land holders in the form of boosters.

The economy would start with the normal fuel production capacity from lands and in combination with demand from OW players a price will be reached on the open market.

When the DAO deems the fuel price too high, it would start selling boosters (on the market) to land holders that would give them the ability to enhance production by a certain percentage for a certain time period. They could apply them to fuel extractor buildings.

Land holders would buy these boosters on the open market (auction ?) in a speculation to be the first to supply this new fuel while the market is still hot.

Maybe we can simplify and automate this and I don't have the math figured out, but wouldn't a government friendly to open market rather go this route instead of creating its own fuel production capabilities (what the rail essentialy is) or giving land holders 100% control in the other extrem?

We could still keep the IIP-39 rails as an additional safety mechanism, but it would be rather high to give the boosters enough room to keep the free market alive as long as possible.

round drift
#

Yeah 5% is lackluster. 20% would mean land owners could afford to play more. Most of it would still go right back into the ecosystem. This would increase addiction. I like it.

cobalt summit
#

Brilliant idea and in the spirit of Decentralisation.

light frigate
#

idk about lore but how do u explain the dao can instantly print 19x of every fuel produced by IZ?

Does the dao have unlimited Strategic Fuel Reserve in another dimension?

or Does the DAO invented infinite source of energy?