#IIP-49: Proposal to Fairly Distribute Landholder Revenue Upon Release of Illuvium Zero

1 messages · Page 2 of 1

digital magnet
#

No, they get the full $10 for 11.111 fuel. (note, I have no idea how fuel fractions work and this also ignores the 95% the DAO is producing)

#

I guess there won't be fuel fractions, instead prices will have cents probably

restive thorn
#

sorry what was the 9? i forget now

digital magnet
#

$9 for 10 fuel is the lowest sell order (at a point where that prices has somewhat stabilized)

#

so buyer spends $10 in this example and seller sells 11.111 fuel. Buyer sees this as buying 10 fuel for $10 (upper-rail price in this example), and also receiving 1.111 bonus fuel.

restive thorn
#

ya we covered it from the user - I'm good there.

what's the final amount the landower gets?

digital magnet
#

$10

restive thorn
#

So, after all, the user is getting more fuel than they were paying for.

Because we can't create value out of off thin air who is covering that cost?

#

that bonus or marketing?

digital magnet
#

or you could say $10 for 11.111 fuel, either way

restive thorn
#

So why do we have a system that is forcing landowners to cover that cost?

digital magnet
#

In this way, as overworld player demand for fuel goes down, they will see bonus fuel available for purchases and be incentivized to buy more

#

landowners are covering that cost because it's the most they feel they can get from the amount of demand that's out there

#

vs amount of competing supply from other land owners

restive thorn
#

that's a fact

digital magnet
#

I disagree, but am not sure what else I can say to explain how this works

restive thorn
#

So you don't see how landowners, have limited options in this system?

#

also, I'm not sure your example lines up with Johnny's explanation of how the system works.

digital magnet
#

It's free market. I didn't read what he said, will look in a bit

restive thorn
#

It's literally not a free market; it's a government-controlled (dao) market with a price cap.

#

landowner: sells 10 cryptons for $1 each - $10
player: buys 2 cryptons for $5 each, but gets 8 bonus. So $10 for 10 cryptons.

So, the landowner sold below the market price by 5x, giving up more fuel for less than the player was willing to pay. This is because there is an artificial price cap, which forces landowners to compete below it. They will compete and be forced to undercut each other to get price fills, losing out on valuable revenue. They are selling below the market price.

Given the dynamics of the secondary market, we will not learn the price players are willing to pay. This is very clearly one-sided.

Landowners compete to fill at low prices, and players reap all the benefits in bonuses and don't have to compete with each other at all.

#

It's not a free market.

#

This is unquestionably biased against landowners.

#

I'm not even saying no controls, but this is too heavy-handed and biased. Fuel supply should be increased to landholders and earned through production, based on demand increasing and falling.

but*** there has to be price competition on both the buyer and seller sides, or it's manipulated heavily.***

#

Imagine this system in reverse.

a minimum price and the highest price a player was willing to pay gets taken and paid as a bonus to landowners. Landowners just sit back and let the rich whales dominate this market.

#

Revenue to the Dao would be maxed out, the price of Illuminals would be way higher, streaming would be crazy, and arena battles would be even more crazy. small fish players would not stand a chance, but it would be elite af.

#

both of these options are just a ridiculous to me.

digital magnet
digital magnet
restive thorn
digital magnet
restive thorn
#

it can't in ANY way be a free market if there is price competition on one side and not the other, especially since this is a price control by a governing body.

#

buyers have no price competition, like in a free market.

digital magnet
#

What would give them price competition?

restive thorn
#

having to decided what price to buy at, like in a normal free market

#

with a normal supply and demand curve

#

you have to decide what price is a good price to buy ILV

digital magnet
#

I live in a free market, but there aren't too many places I can go to and name my price. My decision is to either buy at the posted price or not buy.

restive thorn
#

make it more specific - what specifically?

#

we can walk through it together

#

beer?

digital magnet
#

Sure, I can't go to the bar and tell the bartender how much I want to pay for a beer

restive thorn
#

That bar is competing with other bars on price, if another bar can offer lower prices at the same experience next door - what are you going to do?

#

go to the cheaper bar and buy there.

#

free market

digital magnet
#

The order book will do this for me

#

I automatically get the best price available

restive thorn
#

ya - the current system dramatically favors players

#

you are correct

#

bc you don't have to compete with other players on price.

digital magnet
#

it's an order book, same as a stock exchange. If I place an immediate buy on the stock market I get the best price sellers have listed at

restive thorn
#

dude

#

buyers and sellers are competing with each other on pricing.

#

in a normal market, like a dex or the stock market

digital magnet
#

so your issue in Johnny's example is that a buyer can't say I'll take that 2 fuel for $10, but I require 10 bonus fuel instead of the best sales price of 8 bonus fuel, for 12 fuel total?

restive thorn
#

buyers compete to buy at good prices, on a dex or the stock market.

can you see that buyers in our system don't have to compete on price?

civic tusk
#

can we take this to somewhere else zz

digital magnet
#

lol

civic tusk
polar briar
#

Yes please.

restive thorn
waxen lodge
#

I'm starting to sway back, obviously not fully, but when you're playing the Overworld now it just hits different. Add in a free 2 play version of multiplayer Arena, and fuck, I don't see why people wouldnt start coming over

civic tusk
ruby linden
#

After the AMA I am also way more optimistic in regards to the Illuvium economy and how to bring in mainstream.

It will take a certain breed of gamer, but I realized just a few days ago, that there was a time in gaming history when gamers paid a fixed price for gaming time on arcade machines. When we combine this with a gacha experience, we at least try something really new that differentiates us from almost all other web3 projects.

Aaron mentioning a 3D version of Zero, mobile apps for OW and Arena and bringing Illuvials to all games also sharpens the position of Zero in Illuvium.

civic tusk
#

@waxen lodge can u please provide a high probability non-linear estimation for the duration of depleting the pool that is taking account each plot Tiers upgrade time, production boost, player behaviour (include holidays), revenue estimation and many other variables, in opposed to my simple linear calculation? As raised by @keen orchid

#

my simple degen brain can only calculate 10-months for every 1 months of delay

terse citrus
#

I trust that the team is trying to get our land playable ASAP. However, not knowing how much fuel is required for a run and therefore how long the airdropped fuel will last, I have to thumbs down this.

As much as I wanted play time on land to have an impact on distribution I didn't think that would mean a delayed distribution. I would take a weekly pay out based on plot over that.

woeful dawn
waxen lodge
waxen lodge
# civic tusk <@770826457923715082> can u please provide a high probability non-linear estimat...

We also did simple calculations and it came out to 2 months delay = 10 months, but there are so many variables, you're literally asking me to add in player behaviour on holidays, I'll throw it to the data team and see if we can make it a little more accurate but there are going to be tons of estimates, revenue being a huge one, so im not sure how accurate we can make it. The idea was 10 months means we smooth it out to give time for lower tiers to earn from the bonus pool

#

Actually, before I task them with this lets just see if it's required. We're a lot further along than we thought so it may not matter

waxen lodge
#

Perry thinks we should adjust the IIP to the following. With 9 months also being a variable that can be decided by the community. Sounds like 10 months is too long from what I'm hearing

If Zero fuel production is delayed we will target 9 months to deplete the bonus pool as presented
Upon delayed Zero fuel production release, the bonus pool percentage will be adjusted between <min value> and <max value> based on actual revenue figures at that time and then updated every month (with new updated revenue figures) through whatever governance structure works to target 9 months as closely as possible within the limits presented
Min = 5% and Max = 50%

digital magnet
frosty rain
digital magnet
#

"An extra period of time, 3 to 6 weeks, will be added to simulate the intended Pre-Open Beta Illuvium Zero release window."

This delay before the variable % kicks in would be a nice addition.

ruby needle
fierce citrus
#

I believe that as the number of landholders increases and the fuel supply grows, the price of fuel will decrease, resulting in lower income for landholders and a decrease in land value. I would like to see a situation where fuel is scarce enough to ensure that landholders can profit. In other words, I want to ensure that landholders can make a profit.

digital magnet
fierce citrus
#

If people can profit from ZERO and the Overworld, then the number of people should naturally increase.

civic tusk
fierce citrus
civic tusk
frosty rain
civic tusk
#

As for ILV, the dau maybe reflected by revdis which might affect token price

frosty rain
civic tusk