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

[waxen lodge]

Abstract:
This proposal addresses concerns within the Illuvium community regarding the distribution of Fuel revenue during the Open Beta phase, particularly among Landholders. The current interim solution proposed by Illuvium Labs, which distributes 5% of revenue to Landholders proportionately based on land tiers, has raised concerns about fairness and fails to incentivise active gameplay as initially intended. This proposal suggests delaying the distribution of Fuel revenue until the completion of Illuvium Zero, ensuring a more equitable distribution that rewards player skill and engagement.

Full proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tqQFlyJ4ROD7GPn8wA3sp-Z2RcoYHFJ3dbSjCC8pYv8/edit

Author: @waxen lodge
Contributors: @keen orchid , @silver rose

[restive thorn]

So we earn the same and it's just delayed.

---

LAND OWNERS UNITE!

Let's adjust the game balance so that value is driven to land over the entire life of the Illuvium ecosystem.

Add an addition here, cancel all future land sales.

[digital magnet]

This is helpful, but it does only address one part of the delay issues. Maybe other IIPs are still planned to address the others? Specifically:

1 - Landholders can't generate fuel/ETH to help fund their overworld runs

2 - No time is provided for initial build-up of land plots ahead of Open Beta, requiring land owners to put more time into ILZ when they could otherwise be grinding Overworld (2-4+ weeks advanced release has always been discussed)

[severe plaza]

I have no idea where you read this. It says until the release of IZ not for 2 months. And it's 10% extra per sell not double.

To me this proposal has a problem, and that is that all fuel sales will be done at the top rail-guard by the DAO until IZ is released. And this means one of two things. Either everyone is going to pay a lot for fuel in the beginning or the top rail-guard will have a very low % range, something that will be bad for the future since it strangulates free market price action.

[restive thorn]

okay so it's even less

this is throwing peanuts at us

https://tenor.com/view/nope-nope-nope-gif-11239163144514157923

I'm honestly insulted lmao, no way you guys say yes to this

right?

[wide heart]

Or sell their airdrop fuel

[severe plaza]

It's not that the proposal doesn't have some merit, but I'm against this because this is a solution to a problem that should have never existed in the first place. We've been waiting for 3 years for the game and now you can't release the 3 games simultaneously? Come on... This is embarrassing...
There's still 2 and a half months left before Q2 ends, get your shit together and make the OB launch happen and make it so it's a fuckin huge success. If you still can't make it in time then delay the OB until everything is ready.

[restive thorn]

exactly. So, we take it on the chin (not saying we don't get an air drop too or whatever) a bit in the short term and get something very valuable.

A permanent stake in the future earning potential of Illuvium.

No more land sales.

Lmao, okay if you guys are comfortable opening negotiations here.

Best of luck.

Seak value not compensation.

@waxen lodge I don't know what to say. I'm one of the biggest diehards, and brought a ton of value to this community - time, money, and education.

You are going to lose my active support. I'm not a loser who thinks this is going to kill the project.

It's not, Illuvium is going to crush regardless of this decision.

Just as someone who has been here and put the dao first every time, and supported every sale.

If you can't see the future scenarios that I've outlined and how you will be raking over Illuvium's biggest fans, then I have nothing to say.

I will quietly respect the pump and do my thing.

Ask @calm drift for confirmation. He is the only one who has been here longer and more active.

[civic tusk]

it's 10% bonus of your fuel sales, so 0.5% (5% * 10%)

[restive thorn]

absolutely insulting

[severe plaza]

it clearly says " Landholders will receive 10% of ETH as a bonus on top of their Fuel sales" not 10% of

[restive thorn]

peanuts either way

[severe plaza]

it might be so, but let's stay factual.

[restive thorn]

agree

[civic tusk]

theres an example too

[severe plaza]

is 1000$ compared to 10k 10% or 0.5%?

[civic tusk]

it's basically 5.5% of fuel sales until the pool is finished.
the pool it self is 5% from revdis, so you need to keep playing for 10 months to get
if u do you will get 10% of revenue

[restive thorn]

so was i right the first time lmao

it's double

[civic tusk]

yes, but u need to play for 10 months

[restive thorn]

i'm calling cap on this iip

https://tenor.com/view/epic-flag-hurricane-america-two-gif-15635280081699944556

@keen orchid explain yourself bro

[civic tusk]

let me recap

• Does the IIP include other ingame sales made without fuel?
• Landowners need to play 10 months, in order to claim the full amount of delayed revenue because the redemption mechanism is 10% of every fuel sale.
  Normal revenue : 5%
  Redemption : 0.5% (5% x 10%)
  Example : Fuel revenue is $1m/month. Pool is 5% or $50K
  The following month, IZ is launched and landowners produce 5% of fuel or $50K. Landowners sell their fuel for $50K and redeem $5K. The pool will be depleted in 10 months.
• Landowners who want to get the full amount of redemption need to competitively play IZ for 10 months

[ruby linden]

I just say this: There are bigger battles to fight than compensation. I want to hear about the future of land at the AMA and not about percentages that can be changed in a whim.

[civic tusk]

I prefer the bonus is 100%

or at least 50%

i dont understand why the landowners that is enduring a delay need another delay to get their compensation

[woeful dawn]

Regarding "5% of fuel sales, not digital in-game sales" sounds confusing considering it's different than what's described in IIP-45. @waxen lodge are all digital sales buying Fuel anyway?

[frosty rain]

The way the fuel gets distributed after release is solved ok imo in this proposal.

However, there are some stuff which isn't adressed but should be imo like:

1. IZ not launching before OW and arena, not even at the same time, but delayed.
2. Landholders who bought their plot for funding ow runs, won't be able to do that for a uncertain period of time
3. IZ could be delayed for another year because other stuff gets prioritized as more important.

This could be implemented with a weekly fuel crates airdrop (2.) increasing by a certain factor over time (3.) and being able to build on our plots during pb4 + testnet (1.), and take progress to open beta(no wipe)

[civic tusk]

some sales like Promo Beyond might need to be sold in ETH

[woeful dawn]

But doesn't IIP-45 clearly say that land owners will still get 5% of those transactions, even if made with ETH?

[civic tusk]

they still do, but does the pool consider sales made without fuel?

[frosty rain]

as far as i read it, there is no additional fuel being paid, it's just the way the revenue being made (before IZ launches) gets distributed after IZ launches

[woeful dawn]

I disagree with the proposal anyway. This addresses only 1 of many issues. And I bought ILV just to say this 😆

[frosty rain]

putting this directly into government section where you have to have tokens staked to comment is kind of lol indeed 😄

[civic tusk]

i agree with the additional revenue, and delaying revenue distribution
but i disagree with the "10% of fuel sold". 10 months is too long, i think 3 months is ok
plus i still want some speed ups for landowners

[civic tusk]

lol
landowners without token cant comment is so ironic

[frosty rain]

there is no additional revenue, right?

an individual might get additional if it plays good after launch, but there is no additional fuel in general paid into the pool

[civic tusk]

there is an additional of 5% on top of the 5%
but yea, u need to play to claim it

[frosty rain]

i don't think so

[woeful dawn]

No need to stake it, just own. But I find it funny that some are encouraged to seek feedback from the community first... for others, it's not needed.

[civic tusk]

it's exactly as i asked
additional 5% during the delay

[restive thorn]

absolutely bs this starts here

[frosty rain]

no read it again

[spare delta]

I'm sorry but this iip does not address landowners most important concerns in my opinion. It's a 👎for me

[frosty rain]

there is no additional revenue

[rare willow]

I will take the take the progress to open beta and no wipe. I really like this idea. But I’m not sure if this affects people who has higher tiers and advance much quicker to develop an advantage.

[frosty rain]

the 5% get collected in the bonus pool until iz is released.
when iz is released you sell your normal fuel, plus you get 10% additional out of that pool.

only thing this porposal changes is how the 5% get distributed, there is no additional revenue implemented

[digital magnet]

You're reading this wrong. All it does is change how the 5% is allocated to land owners. 5% goes to a pool until fuel is being used. Once fuel is ready, if an individual land owner sells fuel, they get an additional 10% more than what they sold (taken out of the 5% pool)

what Dr.Spoon said, lol

[civic tusk]

thats how i was when i read it the first time
because the IIP doesnot mention landowners existing revenue share
so taking from the IIP

Month 1: Fuel sales total USD 50 million. 5% of sales, $2.5 million, is allocated to a bonus pool.
Jag add: AND 5% of sales, $2.5 million is allocated to landowners

Month 2: Fuel sales amount to USD 40 million. Another 5% of sales, $2 million, is added to the bonus pool.
Jag add: AND 5% of sales, $2 million is allocated to landowners

After two months, the total bonus pool is $4.5 million.
Jag add: AND $4.5m is allocated to landowners. so total is $9m or doubled

[rare willow]

Can we just wipe and start off new during test net. And airdrop $$ “pretend fuel sales” according to production and take progress into open beta? Sound much of a hassle but wondering if this is the more fair and cheap option to land holders and DAO. Not sure if it’s feasible.

[civic tusk]

WAIT A MINUTE

[digital magnet]

Why are you doubling them?

[spare delta]

No it's not, it just delays the rewards from the first months

[drowsy abyss]

Everybody talking about fuel and we haven't even started on all the blueprints we will lose in the time we cant play

[restive thorn]

okay - I'm seeing what they are saying

[civic tusk]

lol
so this IIP is just delaying landowners revenue?

[restive thorn]

LMAO - WHAT IS THIS

[woeful dawn]

I think you're right, damn

😆

[restive thorn]

LADS we do no need to take this

[frosty rain]

and how it get distributed... change from airdrop based on tier to make it based on fuel sales

[woeful dawn]

@smoky knoll want to hear you thoughts on this. 😂

[civic tusk]

i thought we were waiting for a compensation IIP lol

[civic tusk]

bro why would u ping him

[frosty rain]

i guess we all did... + the change of distribution mechanic (which is well done imo)

[digital magnet]

I assume that one is still coming? 😁

[woeful dawn]

entertainment 😅

[restive thorn]

LANDOWNERS UNITE! Demand long term value creation for land.

[civic tusk]

so this IIP is only addressing your distribution suggestion in that thread.
what do u think of having to play 10x to fully redeem your delayed revenue?

[woeful dawn]

@waxen lodge I have a hard time believing this is the best you could come up with, after all the feedbacks.

[frosty rain]

i like it... it flows rather natural in those wallets who selling their portion of fuel over time

[hybrid depot]

You misread or misrepresented that.

this simply says the revenue land would get will get distributed once the game is out to the people who actively play and is tied to them playing, there is no + or - to the 5%, but instead of airdropping based on land tiers it is tied to gameplay once you can play the game.

Landholders get the 5% of revenue from fuel sales like always intended.

Also this is only in case IZ isn´t ready in time.

[digital magnet]

We don't know how long it will take to redeem delayed rev. If the game makes 50M in the first two months, then ILZ is released and the game is making 1M per month, it will take a very long time (no thought went into these numbers)

If it went the other way and grows from 1M to 50M we earn it in like a day

[rare willow]

oh i havent thought about that.

[spare delta]

And if it's 10 months delayed we won't see a penny until then. Funny

[rare willow]

even if we know its a sensible matter to the dao i would like to know how much delay are we talking about.

[civic tusk]

yea i was waiting for the compensation IIP. not this

[woeful dawn]

It is sneaky indeed. Using terms like "bonus".

[civic tusk]

its not bonus at all lol

[restive thorn]

The most likely situation is that it takes time to build up because onboarding will be a challenge.

Look at prime and other games.

[frosty rain]

i guess one could argue like that was sneak yea 😄

[civic tusk]

it's liability, not bonus
i got thrown off reading it as bonus, thinking it was the compensation

[woeful dawn]

Same

[frosty rain]

probably most do with just scanning the document and don't actually reading it carefully

[woeful dawn]

I read it carefully twice. I guess I need to improve my reading comprehension, or maybe trust Kieran even less.

[digital magnet]

best solution = finish the game already

[restive thorn]

So you all really aren't going to join the movement for no more land sales?

I would honestly give the team a lot of grace during launch if we got that, because land would be way more valuable for a much longer period of time (the whole ecosystem's life)

and we would sacrifice very little, 25k more zero players, and a pretty bad marketing campaign trying to sell a value diminishing asset.

also when we don't need the money and reduces the equity of the longest-running supporters of Illuvium.

[frosty rain]

it's actually sad to see this is the proposal of debating for weeks about the struggle IZ has in this ecosystem.
In not so sugar coated words...
Either <@&1107754780744487002> fucked it up to carry over community sentiment to IMC, or <@&814435151307866142> don't give a fuck about the struggles.

[restive thorn]

Asking for no more land doesn't break the economics of the launch which is also important to our success.

so I understand this proposal from that perspective.

Why not the solution, that proves revenue the most (as in the dao still pulls in cash quickly) and creates the most landowner value of the longest time frame?

and would be easy for the team to launch the game.

---

getting the dao to sustainable income the fastest is important

[soft marsh]

Sad .. but true ... in a word about everything that was debated/promised in the last week or so for the land owners/community -> **negligible ** -> is the kindest word i can find

[ashen obsidian]

ya like kieran said. It is getting ridiculous 🤦‍♂️

[soft marsh]

I was trying to say we don't matter .. at all!!

[civic tusk]

sorry man, i honestly thought kieran was working on a compensation, I even tweeted it

pinged kieran in that thread too about the speed ups

[restive thorn]

I don't know about you boys.

some of us, funded the doa through the bear, voted to fund the dao with revdis, participated in a number of gov improvements, bought everything and ate a -98% drawdown.

also cheered on raises that we would have liked to be in.

[frosty rain]

JP is the connection between imc and icc, not you, right?

[green cove]

I can only speak for myself, but as an ICC member I was not consulted on this proposal. This is actually the first time I am seeing it.

[woeful dawn]

IMC was well aware of the concerns, even if the communication between IMC and ICC failed.

[ashen obsidian]

you also need to think about that a tier 1 needs much more time than a tier 4 to build up to get fuel out of it.
and put that idea first in the #1020759212172775464 channel, that every landholder can see it and vote for it.
thats how it works here. first #1020759212172775464 vote.
then the rest is coming. don´t go over the heads of the land holders.

[restive thorn]

we would not be here in this good of a position if the community did not make sure it happened.

We would have been begging for money

---

why not us

why should we not have a meaningful part of the equity of the game?

---

Equity not compensation.

No more land sales.

[woeful dawn]

@silver rose @keen orchid Any comments?

[golden pasture]

just to make it clear for me:
So what this proposal states is that Landholders do not get revenue until the game is done, and all revenue that comes in that should have gone to landholders is saved in a pool.

And then when Zero is done, that pooled revenue is distributed over those players that sell fuel right? So there is no bonus, just a delayed distribution based on activity?

[frosty rain]

https://tenor.com/view/michael-scott-absofruitly-yes-absolutely-gif-13477450

[golden pasture]

Well that's just sad. but hey, at least they did take into account activity based returns. xD
Good job Dr.Spoon!

[restive thorn]

We should demand permanent and stable equity in the future of Illuvium's long-term success.

not compensation.

is the team going to take a dilution round if this doesn't work? if we need to raise again.

no, and they should not, we should not either

[frosty rain]

yea, that's at least something out of the debates they catched 😄
but there's an additional iip needed imo to make up for all the other stuff.
like i already mentioned:
#1229420814986772510 message

[ashen obsidian]

Dr.Spoon for Council 💪 Vote Q3 24

[sick python]

I think everyone is focused on the release of the game so illuvium zero is not a priority for now

[ashen obsidian]

def. not. and if they get it on the same date as ow and arena then its still late. because of the time we need to build all up.

[restive thorn]

did michael jordan take more money in the short term

NO

he asked for equity in the brand he was going to help turn into a global success.

---

look at the bigger picture

https://tenor.com/view/brad-pitt-troy-achilles-take-it-its-yours-gif-8286866

[green cove]

IIP-45R ensures that land owners will always receive 5% of in-game revenue for all current and future games

[golden pasture]

I do think this is a good iip to facilitate your point. But it should not rule out other points. In lines or: "We already stated 5% would go to IZ owners in this IIP and that is final".

So if this is the IIP to only fairly distribute fuel revenue then I agree on this.

[restive thorn]

that was a clarification

[ruby linden]

And can be changed at any time until it becomes a durable IIP.

[green cove]

True, but many still didn’t see it that way.

[frosty rain]

https://tenor.com/view/shia-labeouf-absolutely-definitely-agree-gif-8251967

[woeful dawn]

Watch out, this just might be the only IIP for Zero OB. Note the terms used here "bonus" while there is no "bonus".

"This proposal aims to address fairness concerns and incentivise active gameplay among landholders by delaying the distribution of Fuel revenue and introducing a bonus ETH payment upon the release of Illuvium Zero."

What bonus again?

[restive thorn]

Okay well, I'm focused on how we create the best incentive structure to scale the games and the dao the fastest.

Holding a massively dilutive event over the most important stakeholders of our economy is not the best strategy imho.

Land owers should be the most motivated people to onboard in our system as every new player is more rev for them.

Removing this disincentive will accellerate more players to our scalable games (ow, arean, and beyond) and solidify land as the economy hub of Illuvium.

and we give up hardly anything and the community will celebrate for years to come.

[green cove]

I don’t disagree with anything here.
I simply stated that landowners will get 5% of all future games in response to your comment about Micheal Jordan’s not taking quick money and getting equity in the brand.
As Illuvium grows so will landowner revenue

[restive thorn]

okay sweet.

I'm saying that the land sales are dilutive to that 5%

We will lose equity with more land sales.

and for what benefit?

marginally more players on land, but less players on the rest?

and a couple diminishing capital rasies that we might not need?

[severe plaza]

I agree, this proposal just shows why representatives for each game would be an improvement to the DAO

[green cove]

Current land owners will lose when more land is sold, but to be fair we always knew 100k plots was the plan.

[golden pasture]

Agreed. Since 5% of in-game revenue was promised anyways, this 5% set aside from the revenue into the specified pool cant be defined as a bonus.

Lets see what the writers aim for specifically and whether they agree to re-phrase this into something that cant be pulled out of context as some form of compensation.

[woeful dawn]

Why 10 months to distribute?

[restive thorn]

Right but is it still the best idea.

The situation has changed; we held back land because we wanted to be the option to make more money.

Also the full vision and execution of the games at launch was not reaslized.

We are in much more certain times and can think through the various future scenarios we would sell the land into.

Can I outline those for you? as I see them

[rare willow]

im still not clear on the 5% of all digital goods sold from previous iip? do we still get the 5% even if we dont start playing?

[ashen obsidian]

the plan was also get the game out weeks earlier than ow and arena. things change i guess.

[woeful dawn]

I understand the need to fairly distribute through gameplay, but why is the duration gameplay of OB not enough? Why add 10 months?

[golden pasture]

It says 10% "bonus" returns on your fuel right? Not 10 months.

If land ends up producing 5x per month more than was used in the first months then it would be done in 2 momths right?

Why 10% is chosen is probably to not get T4 landholders to suck up the entire pool before T1 gets there.

[restive thorn]

Please also note that the community made a number of sacrifices to fund the dao thought the darkest part of the market, before the VC would take the risk.

[green cove]

The next land sale will need an IIP, in theory we could go 5 years until we get enough support to pass an IIP for the next sale. Keeping that as an option I think is better than just saying we’re going to cap at 20k

[restive thorn]

GIve that to us now and you will earn an army of 10,000 suns.

wait and your like, maybe we need to screw you later.

[green cove]

I understand this and I’m not saying there shouldn’t be anything done, just that the 100k plots was a thing when we bought into the first 20k

[restive thorn]

We supported, we backed, top to bottom, day and night. Everyday, everytime.

We don't want a maybe.

It's a bull, time for some risk after playing defence for 2 years.

[green cove]

If we start getting Fortnite kinds of numbers in a few years dont you think selling more land could be beneficial to the DAO?

[restive thorn]

No, maybe we tax landowner to pay for some additional marketing tooling or budget.

a couple land sales are going to do what for our 10 year PNL?

[frosty rain]

it's like a bonus payout for stakers, paid of the shoulders of landowners.
So i guess it's good for a part of the DAO.

[restive thorn]

---

what would selling team coins have done for the dao on the last raise?

in a normal situation the team would have taken dilution on a raise as is typlical when runway is used and product is not launched.

[woeful dawn]

You are right (I think). But let's be honest, I don't think that lands will be SELLING (not producing) 5X than during Open Beta and its big marketing push. Especially if Zero ends up being released say 4 months after.

[restive thorn]

---

i don't think we should have done that.

But I'm just showing it's the same.

[green cove]

I would 100% agree with you if we bought into the first 20k and then afterwards we were told there were 80K more. But we all knew there 100k total planned.

[restive thorn]

we would have more coins and more earning potential in the dao bc more coins.

[frosty rain]

what was said or isn't doesn't change the fact 😄

[green cove]

True, but dont you think there’s an argument to be made that when we bought in the first land sale we knew the plots would be inflated at some point?More of a self responsibility thing.

I actually remember holding back a little bit during the first sale thinking I would save more funds for a future sale when prices might be cheaper.

[golden pasture]

That could be very well true. But it never stated 10 months. It is based around how much fuel is produced and 10% was the writer's best estimates to balance plot tier access to the pool i guess.

[woeful dawn]

#1227003710840766484 message

[spare delta]

Releasing the game weeks after the sale 2 years ago was also the plan. Plan changed

[woeful dawn]

It addresses 1 concern at the cost of delaying payment. like @spare delta said

[civic tusk]

yes JP is the liason to the IMC

[golden pasture]

I think we are now all on the same page.

It is a decent IIP to resolve one concern at the cost of delaying revenue. Im looking forward to the next, adressing the other concerns.

[green cove]

Yeah. Again, not saying nothing should be done.

[frosty rain]

true, i also thought i have a free market to play, hold fuel back for specifc amount of time and sell when prise is high, or that zero is the only source of fuel.
Turned out that wasn't the case, was either wrong info or eliminated with folow up iip's.
Many thing's already changed and will change, future landsales not being debatable and just say cou knew or should have known is wrong imo

[restive thorn]

The game was also supposed to be launched, there was never supposed to be land, or beyond.

So many good things have changed.

I have also supported all the delays and expressed that many times. They were the best call.

[frosty rain]

https://tenor.com/view/well-there-it-is-smile-happy-gif-11898489

[green cove]

The 5% of FUEL was always a thing. If landowners were getting 100% that would have meant RevDis wasn’t a thing. I think there was some confusion when it was stated FUEL is only generated on land it meant that there was no other way to generate that FUEL for that 5%.

[spare delta]

No offense but you are not saying much are you? Why not just state your opinion on what you think the problem is and which solution you think will be good?

[restive thorn]

Do not give us self responsibly. That's insulting.

We funded this.

I voted to defer funds everytime to give the team more runway.

[green cove]

You are correct. Just trying to stick with facts right now. Keeping my opinion on the proposal at hand to myself until I can speak to the IMC about it.

[spare delta]

Nono, no confusion, it was specifically said that way before the land sale.

[frosty rain]

yea in IIPS... watch the marketing of illuvium.

[green cove]

I dont think it’s insulting to say you bought into the first 20k knowing there were 80k more to go.

I am not saying you should take responsibility for the game not releasing earlier

[restive thorn]

Will you take dilution in your coins to fund the dao?

given delays and missed deallines

---

in the scenario where we have a hit?

NO

you should not

[green cove]

What was? That all in-game revenue would go to landowners? It would have never passed because every ILV staker would have been against it.
The introduction of land was basically the ILV stakers saying okay instead of 100% RevDis we can give 5% to the landowners for the benefit of the DAO

[spare delta]

"I think there was some confusion when it was stated fuel is only generated on land..." No confusion, hell you can go now to YouTube and find Kieran specifically say fuel ONLY generated on lan

[green cove]

The argument here is not to sell more land, it’s to not cap at 20k in order for those 80k lands to be sold in the future when the time is right through a proposal passed by the council.

[spare delta]

Fine, what ARE you saying?

[slim arrow]

Arguing we should just airdrop the unsold 80K land plots to existing holders is the same position as arguing we should just take treasury ILV tokens and drop those into a new yield farming pool. It's an argument that the DAO should forgo future revenue to pay existing holders. I can understand why it might seem appealing, especially to many who have been waiting a long time and want to see some ROI on our land, but it's a pretty short-sighted approach. The IIPs and all council discussions I've been a part of have all stated that future land won't be sold until there is reasonable demand (and we have a hard timing cap where it can't be sold after open beta to enforce that even further).

[restive thorn]

What is that situation? where we have a smash hit or even a decent hit?

Land owerns take dilution so we can pad our stats?

with one off raises?

that cut the value of land in half? probably before a bear market

[green cove]

That’s where the confusion lies. Only land can generate the FUEL which gets 5% of the in-game revenue.
If FUEL got all of it where would the ILV stakers get their RevDis from?

[spare delta]

Ok this is just a dumb conversation now. I'm done, we both know that we are talking about no point in continuing

[civic tusk]

is there a compensation IIP coming or this just it?

[restive thorn]

---

how does the community keep funding the dao and not get the participate in the raises, and get their only equity diluted where we got a chance to buy first.

Explain that to me.

[civic tusk]

u retail

[restive thorn]

What's the actual argument based on how things will actually play out?

given the context and full understanding of the present situation?

it's not the same thing at all as distributing treasury coins.

[woeful dawn]

No words from Kieran. This and that's it.

[ashen obsidian]

And then other people get voted in and change the plan. There is no security that the 80k land will get sold earlier than later. That's why I said give it to the holders and let them decide when or if they get sold.

[green cove]

The solution is only sell more land when the revenue shows it’s a good time. This will be decided in a proposal that needs to pass council. If it’s not a good time a proposal won’t pass.

[woeful dawn]

Got to love how @waxen lodge upholds the values of community engagement and decentralization when he doesn’t post in the feedback-ideas channel, doesn’t consult with all members of the ICC or even the IMC, and decides to already attribute a number to the IIP as if it was already passed.

[restive thorn]

That's not an explanation of why it makes the most strategic sense, given where we are today.

[ashen obsidian]

That's what the council is saying now. But if other people get voted in and give it a go?

[restive thorn]

considering the future situations we will most likely be in why will it make sense to sell more land?

[green cove]

I like options. You cap at 20k and there’s no option to sell more. You don’t cap then there is at least an option in the future to sell more, but we could go on indefinitely without selling more still

[restive thorn]

Still not a logical argument for why it makes sense.

We do lose something from not doing this now.

[green cove]

As I just stated, not capping at 20k gives options to the DAO. I think anyone who is voting for what’s best for the DAO would rather see options in the future than making a decision pre-maturely

[civic tusk]

usually the good time last for 1 year, then 1 year of really bad time , 1 year of ok time, then 1 year of better time.
maybe we should take the revenue in the bull peak and half it

[restive thorn]

---

There are tons of options.

IIP to increase the supply of ILV if we need to raise again and dilute team and VC's by 10%. Airdrop, to everyone so zero dilution.

[golden pasture]

You could have bought ILV prior to staking unlocks, where you knew the token was at 600K circulating supply and would go to a max of 10M.

You also bought land during land sales where 20K/100K were sold. I dont see a lot of difference. Only, ILV didnt gain any extra utility, while your land will progress and become more powerful and diverse as you play on it and updates come out before the next wave of lands is released.

[restive thorn]

---

That will hold the team more accountable.

Do we want to play like that?

No.

[civic tusk]

idk why we are discussing land supply tho

[golden pasture]

Good question 🙂

[ashen obsidian]

Idk. Let's say millions of players come in and ask for another land sale. We 8500 holder are to small to say anything.

[wide heart]

This proposal addresses only one aspect of multiple solutions needed for Zero. The notion behind this proposal is to make landowners WHOLE not a slice. So for the whole pie there would also need to be:

1. Our P2E plots will be able to be played as F2P for airdrop points and we get to keep our progress once Zero goes live

2. Landowners receive monthly fuel airdrops equal to the estimated fuel generated by each tier/month

3. Landowners receive rewards equivalent to that of Beyond in relation to land tier as had been discussed and any other incentives.

If the whole pie could be satisfied, then there would be more support. Landowners need to go along with the OB ride and not just in a compensatory way. Having all slices in one propsal would ensure timeliness and efficiency.

[exotic pecan]

The idea that council is going to push premature additional, large land sales is one of the biggest boogeymen that's ever haunted the conciousness of the DAO. No one is talking about having major land sales any time soon, or likely ever.

The last proposal on the subject was last epoch, when it was specified that in addition to fuel production balancing, micro sales of land could be used to balance production with demand.

This proposal also isn't about selling additional land. It's about how we'll handle paying land owners in the event that IL:Z isn't live prior to Open Beta. One of the major complaints in that area was that doing a distribution based on land tier doesn't reward active players. This proposal aims to rectify that, by tying land's earning potential to gameplay.

[green cove]

If we start with 100k players and work up to 1m the land revenue would have likely gone up 10x. At that point maybe it would be time for more land.

[restive thorn]

because this is about land value

[civic tusk]

its irrelevant to this IIP

[spare delta]

Why are we discussing how to handle a possible delay? Is IZ part of the ecosystem or is it not? Would we launch without Overworld or Arena? This whole discussion shouldn't even take place

[ashen obsidian]

Same discussion when you mod token channel 🤣

[civic tusk]

good times

[golden pasture]

As long as it only clarifies the aspect of distributing and not "compensation" i think the only point of concern in this IIP is the delay of revenue.

Lets get on that. Who needs revenue right when the beta starts and who is fine with delaying it to gain varying amounts based on how active they play?
Poll?
Revenue quick!
Revenue based on activity

[spare delta]

Do you want to get f*cked this way? Or this other way?

I have not yet heard 1 good reason why the 3 games shouldn't launch all together

[exotic pecan]

I think there are problems with trying to tie distribution to player activity prior to Zero being in a finished state. Everything needs to be handled server side for that to be possible.

[restive thorn]

@calm drift you are the only one who has really been on both sides.

if you think I'm out to lunch, I'll forget it right here right now.

---

personally, it will never make sense to be that we can't make this adjustment.

I get it's significant.

We really need to refrain from rewarding the community with something meaningful because, in the future, when we print money, we decide we are going to dilute the only thing the early community got to buy first.

So that we can improve our yearly PnL buy what 5% or 10%? every few years for 3 more times?

idk how anyone is like ya that makes sense.

Why shouldn't the landowners do exceptionally well? I've said all the money and support things everyone did enough times.

---

sorry I think all the landowners and ppl who supported this project deserve to win if Illuvium wins.

---

I only own 1 mega city for the record.

---

it's the best stategic move. period.

[civic tusk]

tbf we bought and held land knowing we will get diluted

[restive thorn]

and we can change that, right now. just like every other big improvement.

[civic tusk]

can try

[slim arrow]

There were three primary pieces of feedback we heard:

1. We want to be able to play the game and have our gameplay matter to fuel rewards. Don't just airdrop us stuff.
2. We want to be able to play sooner. Land came out a long time ago and we definitely don't want OW and Arena launched first and not have Zero ready.
3. We want more stuff. This came in a variety of flavors (more fuel revenue than the 5%, more value to our land by eliminating future land plots, land plots dropped to us, fuel airdrops, ILV tokens dropped to us, etc.) but is generally coming from a place of understandable frustration at land plots sitting idle.

*This proposal addresses point 1 in a pretty clean, low cost-to-deliver way. There's some marginal skewing of fuel going a bit more to lower tier land plots vs. the originally planned structure but it's pretty good.

*This doesn't address 2. There isn't an IIP that anyone can pass to speed up the launch of land. The development of product is ongoing and needs to be carefully and securely integrated with the broader economy.

*Point 3 is not addressed in this IIP. I know it's the one getting the most discussion but it's the one that should be most cautiously approached. In my view, I would be very leery if ILV owners band together and propose to reduce land plot revenue to 2.5% from 5%. It should work the other way as well. When a product is launched that has a direct relationship to the DAOs designed revenue structure, making post-launch design changes (especially just a direct shifting of funds from one group to another) should be rarely if ever done. The only exception in my mind is for some sort of existential threat to the DAO.

[civic tusk]

how about the delay compensation?

[restive thorn]

equity not compensation

[calm drift]

I own land as you know, and I'm just not sure how airdropping the remaining land to landowners doesnt dillute and tank price further? Could most land owners not sell the extra 4x amount of plots they receive, thus tanking the value of all plots in general. I'm really not partial either way though honestly and not sure if this answered your question about my thoughts. But personally I don't feel screwed over (being on team bias aside) I think I just thought of it as a risk asset like anything else in crypto.

[woeful dawn]

There is a solution to point 2, which leads to also solving point 1 and 3. Nobody wants to consider it.

[civic tusk]

ill be honest, if theres a land airdrop i will list it asap

[restive thorn]

I'm saying no more land sales but airdropping would not be dilutive either. yes all land goes down but you have more.

[slim arrow]

Can you clarify what you mean here Jag? You mean someone specifically deserves compensation because the games took longer to develop and no revenue is coming in yet? Or you mean there should be additional compensation if Zero is not ready as early as OW and Arena?

[civic tusk]

https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1226758651285340245

[restive thorn]

it's also not about being screwed over.

I won't feel screwed over.

I honestly think we have the right people and community in place and we earned a victory that scales with the success of Illuvium.

[civic tusk]

the latter

[wide heart]

Why are we still talking about land dispersement and supply? 🤦‍♂️

[woeful dawn]

I agree with you, but I think the way Zero was marketed, being a game, is more than a typical crypto risk asset. Playing was sold, not just NFTs of 5% rev.

[restive thorn]

By keeping more land sales, we are communicating that the community needs to give more to fund the dao.

I'm asking if that's still true.

[civic tusk]

i dont think airdropping plot is reasonable or possible to get passed

[wide heart]

Johnny seemed to think making P2E plots playable as F2P until ready to go live was doable... we are still waiting on confirmation if that's possible... that would address point 2

[frosty rain]

what's your thoughts?
#1229420814986772510 message

[restive thorn]

I agree, that's why just no land sales.

[civic tusk]

yea no more land sale is more reasonable

[restive thorn]

Does anyone here think the community did not step up, a number of times to make sure this project is still standing?

[calm drift]

I'm fine with that personally. But I do worry about how it scales if the game is wildly successful. Why not just pause and delay additional land sales until we really figure out if they are needed instead of a hard no drawn in the sand.

[restive thorn]

80k more land will translate to maybe 25k actual players bc whales.

[slim arrow]

Will definitely be happy to share my thoughts (and Aaron/Kieran will be as well) during the town hall in a few hours. I have concerns about the idea of just giving people money when products are delayed. Delays aren't good but even the best run software organizations have delays. I'm more open to cosmetics or in-game speedups or something similar. I think the speedups is a clever idea as it effectively would help players catch up a bit more to where they would have been if the game had launched earlier. I also don't think it will likely reduce total in-game speed-up spending by much either

[frosty rain]

they never "needed"
only question is if stakers want the money of additional landsales

[restive thorn]

why dilute the diehards for that?

we will need other gameplay mechanisms to scale land gameplay regardless.

[ruby linden]

Just from looking at this discussion: I wish the DAO would have never sold land and developed a Zero game just for the few.

It just sucks to see the community fight over internal revenue streams, instead of focusing on fun games for mainstream and mass adoption.

All this crypt airdrop and money talk is just misguided and will fill mainstream gamers with disgust.

[restive thorn]

More land is not an answer to scaling our player base OR managing demand for fuel (this is a math problem).

[slim arrow]

Sorry, which one are you referring to with this mate? I've read every comment in all the threads but don't recall which proposal you're speaking to offhand.

[slim arrow]

I suppose this would satisfy some. Those who want to just play but don't care if it's connected to the real-world economy for sure this is a win. That said, I'm not sure how that's different than just them playing with a F2P plot but maybe Johnny knows something I don't

[restive thorn]

inventivizing landowners with permanant equity, will turn them into rabid dogs who want to onboard as many players as possble bc it will mean life long earnings.

OW, arena, and beyond are where we can scale at launch.

[civic tusk]

yes, i think the majority is expecting speed-ups and not additional revenue.
the speed-ups airdrop need to scale with plot Tier and proportional to the duration of the delay

[calm drift]

Turn them into?

[woeful dawn]

Delaying the big launch. Focusing on polishing everything and finishing Zero. OW, Arena, Web, Illuvidex, Marketing, overall more testing and more would benefit from delaying launch. There's just so much that can and needs improving. This launch is rushed and it's uncalled for.

[calm drift]

I can see this side of it at least. But still, I bought land hoping to get other lands in the future land sales I guess too.

[wide heart]

If we are able to keep our progress once connected to chain it's definitely helpful

[restive thorn]

If we are wildly successful, we can tax landowners to make sure they are fully incentivized to support onboarding via marketing

[wide heart]

So we get aridrop points, strategizing our plots, and saved progress ready to go for real world economy

[restive thorn]

Selling more land is a disincentive to landowners and onboarding, especially if we don't need the money to fund the dao.

[wide heart]

It's better than having to play catch up once zero goes live

[restive thorn]

Last time I got this worked up was the land sale when I tried to convince the community, council and team to divert funds to the dao.

[wide heart]

Can you guys take the land sale/dispersement idea to it's own thread so we can stay focussed on this proposal and the alternatives?

[restive thorn]

no

[wide heart]

It's self serving and doesn't offer solutions to current issues

[restive thorn]

You are allowed to believe that, and I'm allowed to think you are trying to pick up pennies when the train is leaving the station.

[slim arrow]

I was the most vocal council member on launching Zero before OW and Beta last epoch (I'm probably the reason the timing guideline was inserted that Zero be out 4-6 weeks before OW/Arena). I believe that having Zero live first to let players build up their bases is better for a more stable, emergent economy. So please believe me when I say that I strongly support the idea that I don't want an OW/Arena launch with no Zero.

However, we aren't operating in a world where just because we want it to be ready it is guaranteed to be. It could be the case that Zero is ready a bit earlier than OW and Arena. It could be at the same time. It could be that it's several weeks later.

Illuvium desperately needs to launch the games. Not because they need it for runway (we were able to address any mid-term risks to the DAO with the latest capital raise). But because there are dozens and dozens of games that will be launching in a similar time window. Illuvium has a chance to capture mind-share going into the summer because there are still very few 'good' quality games out. But every month we delay that number gradually increases and it gets harder and harder to capture players. Additionally, we know that iterating on the product will take time. Better to start that as early as possible.

Launching Overworld which is the primary revenue driver and Arena which is the primary asset sink are essential. Launching Zero gives us a fully interconnected economy but isn't mandatory to allow us to get players into the ecosystem. For this reason, I think that allowing Zero players to capture their fully entitled 5% as they play as soon as Zero is possibly able to be released is a good option. Not a perfect one but a good one given the realities of game development.

[wide heart]

If there are better solutions then offer them up... otherwise it doesn't help... but maybe that's the intention

[restive thorn]

it is a better solution.

do you want 1 ilv now

or

more ilv every year that scales with the success of the game?

---

do you want permenant equity, in the gaming brand you helped co create?

or

do you want a quick one time payment, that it's pretty small bc we can't afford much.

---

what will you children want you to pick?

be the chad you know how to be.

[ruby linden]

I understand your reasoning, but please also understand that land holders are scared, because of the reasons you mentioned, land will be low priority for a long time (or forever) and once the DAO has millions of new players, land holders will be seen as a negative to the DAO and might even loose the exisiting 5% revenue.

[ashen obsidian]

Something Kieran said many times, we are 3 years ahead of other web3 games. And now we need to launch because other games are launching too. 🤔

[restive thorn]

I'm suggesting we take the equity.

offer the team some grace on IZ delay

and

launch the game asafp and not lose any earning in the short term either.

[wide heart]

Agreed.

Solutions that can be realistically packaged for landowners with that mindset is a win.

[green cove]

Don’t take all the credit for that last epoch. I was pushing for IZ to release before OW as well 😏

[slim arrow]

Haha. You were indeed. That's why I said "probably" is that I suspect you might have pushed hard enough even if I weren't there.

[green cove]

I think we’re both been big supported of land owners this whole ride. Im sure we can figure something out here.
But no decision will make everyone happy.

[slim arrow]

I can certainly understand that. The biggest solution to this is where the DAO is going. The more robust the F2P element of land is, the better we can capture the mobile market and onboard tens of thousands of mobile-only gamers into the Illuvium ecosystem. I know it feels bad in the short term but if we get major adoption in F2P land, it's the most bullish thing for P2E land. This is why we supported the team going hard after this market.

[severe plaza]

Wow now I'm disappointed... So the reason we're rushing Q2 launch instead of launching the game when it's properly done is we're afraid of losing players to other web3 games? This so much bullshit. You can delay an entire quarter and this game is still so far ahead of everything else it's mind boggling you are saying this.

Can you please tell me an example of a web3 game that's launching in Q2/Q3 that you're afraid will take players away from Illuvium?

[restive thorn]

People literally don't believe it's possible to stop land.

once they grasp what it will do to land value and earning potential, people will see it's a massive win.

they are arguing bc they see it as a distraction or the most part.

Tell me you think I'm wrong and that it would not be more valuable than anything else in the long run?

[woeful dawn]

I strongly believe that the narrative that we need to hurry up to catch a diminishing number of players is flawed. Please bring forward facts of increased seasonal gaming activities and I might consider this argument.

[restive thorn]

Then tell me the community didn't earn it.

[ruby linden]

In theory I agree, but I have no idea what these F2P elements, that would encourage casual mainstream gamers to play Zero are.

[slim arrow]

Sure. This is a bit off-topic but games like Wildcard and Dimensionals (who to be fair is more pivoting to Web2.5) and even some of what Parallel is building will absolutely pull from potential Autobattler players just off the top of my head. In Q2/Q3 launch modes

[restive thorn]

---

I'm so shocked there isn't more appreciation for the community from the team.

I get there have been rough patches, but the real ones back you guys the fuck up.

search 'best fucking team in crypto' see who pops up.

[green cove]

Are you referring to something you mentioned earlier? Can you explain what you think would be more valuable in the long run? Capping at 20k?

[restive thorn]

yes

[severe plaza]

With all due respect our game isn't the autobattler it's the overworld. Players will play the arena because they play overworld not the other way around. Your examples don't compare to what Illuvium is in any way.

[green cove]

More valuable to current land owners yes 100%. More valuable to the DAO, I’m not too sure.

[restive thorn]

who made sure the dao is still standing through the darkest part of the bear?

the community and the team.

[severe plaza]

Are we not aware how important launches are?

[green cove]

I think you have me all wrong here.
Im not saying land owners are not important or don’t deserve more.
Those point are separate from not capping land at 20k

[slim arrow]

It's not only about catching a diminishing number of players. It's about getting our player base built up with as little CAC as possible. Pulling players locked into other games is much trickier than finding those who are open to the industry but still waiting for a good game (any good game) to come out. We've got thousands of players (or at least bots ) playing in dozens of games because they're bag-holding. They're rotating into ever-improving other options though.

[woeful dawn]

Same goes for the narrative that we will get a bigger mind-share by launching first or along-side other games. That's not how the gaming industry works. We'd get the most mind-share by having quality games. Period.

[restive thorn]

So if money and scale are not really good arguments, why would you not invest back into your biggest supporters to inventive align the dao to the max.

[slim arrow]

It's both. I agree with you that Overworld will be a bigger draw than Arena (IMO) so I think we're on the same general page here. That said, creature capturing without a pvp aspect only captures part of the market.

[severe plaza]

web3 gamers are just a tiny fraction of the potential gamers this game can potentially have...

[restive thorn]

You're going to sell me more stuff.

Just to keep what I already have.

have everything we have been through?

after shoveling money at this project, before the vc?

after the treasury is full and we have a path to success?

[green cove]

I think you can definitely give back or invest back into the biggest supports without capping land at 20k. You’re looking too deep into my opinion here.

[restive thorn]

I'm saying we earned the best option.

[slim arrow]

Sure. And I'm not sure why we think launching a P2P land plot game that is literally capped to current land owners has any impact in our user adoption. The question coming to us is should we delay OW and Arena to wait for the paid Zero players to be connected. I don't think it's relevant at all to our broader player acquisition strategies. I agree that the F2P content for Zero is highly relevant (mobile especially as I mentioned above) but that's a development issue and one that is underway.

[woeful dawn]

I don't believe that. Not with the huge expense that's going into the big airdrop. (Big marketing BEFORE polished and finished games) If you want little CAC, focus on your games dev.

[green cove]

On the basis of a 2 year delay?

[restive thorn]

your fundamental view, is we are not worth it.

that is clear. That's okay.

i'm suggesting you alter that view.

---

i'm saying it's time to win.

We earned it.

We funding the dao.

We backed you 100%

---

is earning 5% more of our Pnl in 3 more years really that important.

---

Your hedging

---

I'm all in.

[green cove]

I’ve been one of the biggest supporters of landowners over the past couple years through my words and my actions.
You can say I don’t think landowners are worth it, but that’s completely wrong.

[restive thorn]

so it's not about the delay.

i don't care about the delay.

delay again

---

we want the equity

we earned it

[green cove]

No one else was worried about the 5% landowners should get for all future games and current games like beyond until I make a proposal to clarify it. @restive thorn

[restive thorn]

okay thank you

[green cove]

I’m not looking for a thank you. I just want you and other landowners to know I’m not against you. I’m for you.

[severe plaza]

Fair enough. I'm still hoping IZ launches before the OB. And I want to see how the economy is set up in PB4 before I shed any more criticism.

[restive thorn]

okay so

it's a risk

you don't get to hedge with more options.

I'm asking you to bet on us.

bet that the people who have been here will help get this done.

[slim arrow]

Me too. My biggest personal desire as I'm a hard-core base-builder guy personally and think the emergent economy is an amazing selling point for our ecosystem

[wide heart]

You know it's gonna suck if we have to play a F2P plot for airdrop while looking over at our plots sittling idle. That's gonna feel bad. So that's why it's crucial to find some way to make our plots work rather than an all or nothing.

[green cove]

I was open to writing up an IIP on this topic. Actually I did draft something up and o shared it with some of the community and council members.
This current proposal we’re looking at was drafted without any of my input.

[restive thorn]

Let's pick it back up.

Look I know most people are happy with picking up pennies.

But we all made it here.

We have enough runway to find out if this works.

Let's go for the thing that gives landholders the most value.

They made sure the dao was taken care of first.

---

Tell me that wouldn't be way fucking cooler.

Tell me Illuvium isn't about fucking winning.

[severe plaza]

yes I also see great potential in IZ, I hope one day it'll be one of the leading economic player-driven games in the blockchain space.

[green cove]

Sent you a fr

[severe plaza]

zz you're starting to remind me @smoky knoll

[ruby linden]

Or it killed Illuvium before it even started. How many countries in this world have a good economy ? What are the chances for the Illuvium economy to work ?

[wide heart]

I was just gonna say... where's battlecries... let's get things fired up

[restive thorn]

execpt I called every bottom and top on this coin for 2 years, and havn't gotten one gov perposal wrong.

[sick python]

ilz must be honest it is a very average game it will not attract many players especially in f2p....

people want to play ilz for the economy the potential to make money being a magna immobilié (says kieran ama)

[ruby linden]

And web3 people will rather play the "real" meme coin game than an Illuvium Zero game.

[restive thorn]

call me Hermione granger the way I'm time traveling around you boys

[severe plaza]

now you're sounding more like the genius @merry canopy

[sick python]

*especially when you learn that you don't really sell your fuel to players but just 1%

[ruby linden]

What I don't get is our go to market strategy.

We developed AAA games for a web3 customer base, that only cares about making money with airdrops, meme coins etc.

They don't care about AAA graphics, we could have gone to market 2 years ago to adress web3.

The only ones who care about AAA are mainstream gamers, and for them we have no marketing strategy.

[severe plaza]

this one is ez. If we would have launched back then with the games in the state they were we would just leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. We would attract the P2E farmers that would devalue our token to the ground and we would be dead by now.

[restive thorn]

you're new here. you'll learn

[severe plaza]

lol you joined the server 3 days before me what are you talking about

[restive thorn]

your first comment was may 22

[severe plaza]

and?

[restive thorn]

enough said

[ruby linden]

I am not saying we should have launched with OW or Arena 2 years ago, but we could have gone to market with web3 friendly simple games, if all we wanted is web3 "gamers".

I am actually in favor of AAA, but for mainstream.

[wide heart]

Basically... if this proposal isn't going to pass then someone needs to make a viable alternative. Otherwise the boat continues to sail forward with or without landowners.

[sick python]

ilz zero must become really huge, interesting 50/50 fuel economy with the dao (minimum)🤝

[civic tusk]

if this is the reason, i believe delaying 2 months to launch with IZ P2E is ok

[severe plaza]

wow we actually agree on this

[sick python]

Personally I wanted to play on my land to pay for the travel...

[severe plaza]

What's the point of spending 3 years making a game polished like hell just to rush it in the end?

All this time marketing you're going to release 3 inter-operable games but then just launch 2

[rare willow]

me too, we just find a way to compensate that accomodates landholders

[wide heart]

It'll be, 'Come one, come all!! For the launch of 2-1/2 interoperable blockchain games!'

[severe plaza]

I can already imagine the Star Atlas fan boys shitting on us for not being able to do the blockchain part of IZ

[civic tusk]

i just saw SA shooter trailer

[frosty rain]

The train of being early was leaving long time ago and it gets further away the more we delay, that is true.
However I really don't get why we need to push "desperatly" in june because other games are coming out, or deleay it in as you said worst case "several weeks".
I doubt there are dozens of game launching in a several weeks timewindow.

But that thinking like in your post is actually what concerns a big part of the landowners the most.
OW is crucial, arena is crucial we need to launch them asap, while IZ being low priority.
After launch it will be This balance patch and this ow update are crucial we need them asap, while IZ being low priority.
After that, the new game pitch is super promising, we need to expand the ecosystem asap, while IZ being low priority.

There will be patchwork stuff made to still keep the very very few voices under control, never being satisfied but silenced

and most likely, as soon as IZ is in a somewhat good shape, years down the road. Council thinks now its time to start more landsales 😄

[severe plaza]

IZ can be great but I think we need to help the team in making it so

[civic tusk]

yea i agree, without monetary compensation there is no urgency for the team to deliver IZ P2E.
several weeks could turn into several months or more

as long as i remember, IZ was sold as a very important part of the IBG, the source of fuel and blueprints.
afaik the peak hype of a launch is the first few months, with a delay, IZ could missed the whole launch hype.
that is unfair.
so now, the dao need to decide if they want to leave behind the landowners or wait for "several weeks" and launch together

[restive thorn]

equity is the most valuable thing bros

If we get the equity this is all small potatoes in the long run.

obviously we should retain the 5% as long as the game is live, regardless of IZ.

[ruby linden]

When you say equity: Do you mean we should get ILV for land ?

[restive thorn]

I'm saying no more land sales.

So every land ower as the ability to earn their share of the 5% of the in game revenue forever.

No dilituion of your equity.

You're land price won't go down from more land and you're earn ability won't go down from sharing with 4x more land.

[frosty rain]

several weeks they already said at landsale in 2022... why should anybody believe that it's just several weeks in worst case 😄
also if it is just several weeks in worst case, theres no reasonable argument not delaying and launching everything together, instead of a half baked, "rushed" economy

[restive thorn]

---

did we not fund the dao? did we not put the team first time and time again.

did we not also buy illuviatars and merch.

did we also not get to participate in the capital raises. Was land the only thing we got to buy first? yes.

Why is the only thing we got first and get good prices on going to dilute? Given the dao is funded, because of us.

We are in a good position, the idea of Illuvium is going to work with or without more land sales.

So what are we trading our equity for?

[ruby linden]

If we stay just 7.000+ land holders then we will loose the 5% as soon as we have million new players and ILV holders who have no feelings towards land holders. For them we are just a 5% value that is taken away from their RevDis. We provide no value to them, just a negative.

[severe plaza]

You're actually right here, all games should have the same attention.
Being IZ the backbone of our economy and seeing all other web3 games failing because they didn't have sound economic models doesn't it seem a tad bit worrying to you guys?

we're basically 2 months away from launching and we still have no idea what the economy looks like for this game

GL getting your IIPs approved in time for the OB

[restive thorn]

that's exactly why we can't wait for 500k more people to do this

we do this now or it never happens

---

We got this here boys.

We can get this.

[soft marsh]

I also think one of the main issues and why people are pissed is because what was initially promised and what was delivered .. this is what Kieran said:

'I also think it is fair that we build into the airdrop the additional ILV rewards that Beyond has received as a bonus to Landholders. Again, it wasn't that we didn't want to incentivise Zero players, we couldn't do it fairly. This makes them whole'

Where is the airdrop?? What airdropp? Also where are the ILV rewards supposed to be attached to the airdrop? What happened behind closed doors?
Council or part of the team pushed it back or Kieran just changed his mind?

[restive thorn]

we can do it if we back it

[restive thorn]

again let's no be bribed by short term money.

let's pick long term equity

[ruby linden]

We need to make OW and Arena a success and forget about the Zero economy for now. In the meantime we need to ensure we get paid 5% forever. I agree with zz cap on this. And we need to get the 5% from day 1 of open beta, not when Zero is ready for paid land, which could be years away.

[restive thorn]

---

the dao is funded, this is going to work or it's not.

we might as well have a valuable piece of something if it's gonna work.

[soft marsh]

It s not even a bribe ... it s principle.. saying one thing and delivering another
I don t think the discussion now should be around the other 80k plots honestly

[restive thorn]

let's goooooo!!!

[severe plaza]

well the process is slow. I've discovered that the only way to speed up the process is by getting ppl mad.

[ruby linden]

And it needs to be written in a durable IIP.

[wide heart]

Let's get an alternate proposal up ASAP or ☠️

[restive thorn]

I agree, OW and Arena are primary for success, we want to launch asap.

IZ get's the equity and earns the 5% for the whole time it's not live.

[frosty rain]

leave some feedback, and i change it up and push it forward
https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1226898258245455962

[restive thorn]

we need you brother

[wide heart]

Okay… working but will leave feedback today

[ruby linden]

We still need find a solution for blueprints while Zero is not available.

[severe plaza]

This is just my opinion, but more than any compensation what I want as a landowner more than anything is to be able to start working on my lands without getting them wiped. They don't even have to be producing fuel as an erc token or wtv, since I'll be using it to level up the buildings. I just wanna start playing the game. is that asking for too much?

[ruby linden]

Absolutely agree. I also want to build with PB4 or at least OB.

[severe plaza]

Since you say IZ is not an integral part for the launch of the OB why then don't you let us start working on our landplots and whenever the blockchain part is ready just turn it on?
We paid for the land and we get the same treatment as F2P IZ players? Is that fair?
In web2 games when you pay an extra you usually have access to the game's early access before it launches.

[slim arrow]

The system isn’t secure and can be gamed currently when it’s not running server-side. That’s why we can’t allow economic integration and also why we can’t have a situation where we let everyone play and then don’t have a clean slate with a wipe at launch. If someone maxes out a land plot while its client-side only and then dumps a bunch of fuel immediately after launch because we didn’t wipe all the plots then we have a real mess. This issue is exactly what Kieran’s proposal is here for. To allow gameplay to decide rewards but in a secure way

[severe plaza]

ok... That's a let down. Thanks for the answers.

[ruby linden]

Can we split the airdrop and have a second one just for Zero, when it is ready for paid land? If Zero can be gamed currently then it should not be used for an airdrop either.

[restive thorn]

Keiran's proposal plus no more land sales.

good compromise.

[frosty rain]

As far as i understood IZ f2p for pb4 will already be serverside

[ruby linden]

But if it can’t be gamed because it is server side, then why can’t I keep the buildings? Not the fuel in storage, but the buildings and their levels.

[frosty rain]

Johnny is exploring if it is possible, talking with IZ Team.
We need to wait for his feedback, maybe it's possible or maybe it's too much work to justify it or not even possible.

[wide heart]

I will add… it is in the council’s and team’s interest also to aid in a path forward for landowners that is satisfactory… going into ob season with this unresolved energy is going to dampen some of the hype. Make landowners really whole so things can move forward in the best light possible.

Aka… landowners have power.

[restive thorn]

slightly out of context but it should not be forgotten that the community stepped up and backstopped the dao before anyone else.

We did that, and that was some real shit. That is a huge reason why we are in a good place.

[woeful dawn]

Having paid for our game 2 years ago and still not knowing when it will be ready, I wouldn't exactly consider that "we are in a good place" 😅

[restive thorn]

We do have enough money now to see if our core game thesis plays out.

IZ economic hub that supports and drives gamers to OW, Arena, and Beyond, which should be our most consistent and sustainable revenue drivers if this is all going to work.

Those core games are close; if landholders take the equity, then that will be meaningful and worth further delays in the long run.

As well as be the best investment in maintaining the best incentive structure for gowth.

Compared to a year ago we are in a killer place.

[spare delta]

did we?

[restive thorn]

remove the millions we funded the dao with and look at a year ago and we have a much different story on our hands.

Yes.

[spare delta]

oh my bad i missunderstood what you meant

[restive thorn]

---

what would have happened to the token price if we were months away from depleting and prices where going straight down.

[spare delta]

yes indeed

[restive thorn]

---

would we have been able to raise at the price we did?

No.

---

we fucking earned this shit, same as the team.

---

do not accept peanuts when we have equity at the heart of this game.

Protect it.

[spare delta]

the thing is, overword and areana need each other. Zero needs them both.
neither overwrold or arena need Zero. That is what needs to change, or these type of discussions will happen forever

i mean they used to, untill iip39 of course

again, i cant help but feel scammed about this

[restive thorn]

There is only one solution from my pov.

[digital magnet]

Didn't you take these into account too? #1229420814986772510 message

[wide heart]

Anybody have any burning questions after this proposal... Town Hall in 3 hours... better get them questions submitted. Otherwise zero may get glossed over. Last count was 15 zero questions out of 50

[slim arrow]

For sure we did. Regarding point number 1, the fuel airdrops should absolutely be used to fund Overworld runs for landowners. This provides that option for players who want to use their own fuel or the option to sell it for those who intend to market sell their fuel directly.

Regarding point number 2, the team is working to get things up and running as soon as possible. If you see above regarding the server vs client side security topic, I would be happy to not have to do a reset but we have to ensure it’s actually a fair launch for everyone.

[digital magnet]

Cool thanks! Yes, I understood the client side issue from Johnny. It's too bad, I had thought they were further along in that aspect

[slim arrow]

Keep in mind that development is continuing as we speak. So it could be that the server side dev works progresses far enough that this is all a moot point. We want the community to have the latest info though and understand why these items might be delayed

[stiff shoal]

Its 10% per sale. Its still the total amount held back, just not distributed all in one go

[silver rose]

Hey folks, I think we need to be clear that this IIP is not meant to address all issues raised by land holders. It addresses one and one issue only, that to do with making sure that revenue is distributed based on how much you play the game, not just owning land.

It is orthogonal to issues of how much land holders should be rewarded, or what new features should be added to ensure lands value. It doesn't say those things can't be discussed and added, it just targets one specific issue which some people think is important.

[keen orchid]

I think most of the pain points of the IIP was cleared up but here are my thoughts just in case:

1. IIP-49 seeks to address Fuel Revenue goes to landowners who play their land and not just own land

IIP-49 is not meant to address all issues raised by landowners. This was intended to repeal portion of IIP-45R where the distribution of land rev was to be done based on Tier regardless if the land was being played or not.

Distribution Based on Land Tier
The amount distributed to each landowner depends on their land's tier, which is determined by its base production capacity. The tiers are defined as follows:

Tier 1 (T1): 1 unit
Tier 2 (T2): 4 units
Tier 3 (T3): 12 units
Tier 4 (T4): 36 units
Tier 5 (T5): 120 units

Distribution Method
The funds will be airdropped directly to the wallets of landowners once the distribution is triggered.

This may also mean that the other issues can be subject of separate proposals so that they can be addressed separately.

2. Compensation = Airdrop

As per the town hall, Kieran has clarified that the 'compensation' mentioned would come through as part of the 'largest airdrop' mechanism. To date, this hasnt been discussed in IMC as to specifics.

3. On topic of delays, as both a land holder and ILV, i feel this. I bought ILV thinking the game will be out in a year same with land. So while both have different situations, they are both in the same sentiment due to the unintended delays. I lost 90% of my ILV value at the time of purchase and my land is sitting idly for 2 years. Do I feel i should be given compensation for either? Short answer is no. If I felt that my investment will not be able to recover I would have exited or de-risked my investment. Im still hopeful that the team will deliver.

From what I have read so far, most are demanding reward/compensation just because of the delay. I have yet to read any solid argument why Land holders deserve as a matter of fact such reward/compensation. Im open to hear this in full detail.

---

What I hope will push through is that on OB Q2, Land owners are still able to play their land without a reset when P2E is launched so that they are able to develop their land. This enables land owners to earn airdrop rewards from the get go using their own lands while gearing up for the eventual P2E OB and have a good fuel production level to both supply the DAO and get the 10% bonus. This is assuming that IZ P2E will be delayed.

[civic tusk]

Questions:
Without the IIP-49, will Landowners receive the revenue monthly or they need to wait for revenue to hit the minimum of 500E?

Does IIP-49 covers all digital asset sales in the gaming ecosystem, or just fuel sales?

Why IIP-49 use the word "bonus" where it is not "bonus" but landowners entitlement?

[keen orchid]

Will need the min of 500E. With this new proposal, Im not quite sure how Labs will implement the payment. Im assuming it will now be on L2 and there is no need for a minimum.

Does IIP-49 covers all digital asset sales in the gaming ecosystem, or just fuel sales?

Only covers fuel sales. digital asset sales like wave 3 beyond (if it overlaps) will go through the usual system outlined in IIP-45R, ideally.

Post-Fuel Production:
Following the commencement of Fuel production, a Fuel buy-back system will be activated to manage transactions made with currencies other than Fuel.

Fuel Buy-Back Process
All in-game purchases using currencies other than Fuel will trigger the buy-back mechanism. The equivalent value of these purchases will be used to buy Fuel from the market at its current value.

Handling of Minted Fuel
The Fuel acquired through this buy-back system, minted by the DAO, will subsequently be removed from circulation (burnt).

---

Why IIP-49 use the word "bonus" where it is not "bonus" but landowners entitlement?

Its nomenclature but this can be reworded to avoid confusion. From my understanding its a bonus of 10% of fuel you sell. If this mechanism was not in place then it would have been distributed based on IIP-45R which as you put is landowners entitlement. However, this shifts it to landowners who are actually playing their land. This actually favors active players as they have the opportunity to get a bigger piece of the pie (pool) vs just receiving an outright amount based on the plots and tiers.

[civic tusk]

Yes, please. It is more a "claim" than a "bonus".
As mentioned in the IIP, it is a "Delay in Fuel Revenue Distribution". The "pool" is withholding revenue. The IIP itself does not remove landowners entitlement, whereas a "bonus" is something that is added on-top of the 5% entitled to landowners.
The landowners sell fuel to "claim" their witheld revenue.

In regards, to the duration of the "claim", is there a specific calculation why the IIP use 10% instead of a smaller or higher percentage?
My simple calculation, it will take 10 months of competitive playing for landowners to fully "claim" their witheld revenue.

[keen orchid]

You are correct that its a 'delay' but this is an unintended consequence to ensure that the revenue is going to the active land owner players and not just by owning land thats gathering dust. So its a matter of what is more acceptable to the DAO? Get the revenue asap but significantly lower cause youre sharing it to the 20k plots and based on tier as per IIP-45R? Or its shared only with the active land owners playing their plots?

[keen orchid]

I would say @waxen lodge and/or @silver rose would be best to answer why 10%

But on the calculation, did you use an exponential or compounding curve? How about the variance of production output differential between tiers? Im not a math guy but I think there are certain factors to consider. I highly expect T3 and T4s to get majority share of the pool and it wont take 10 months to deplete the pool based on their production output.

[civic tusk]

I just use a simple linear calculation
The example from the IIP, the pool size is $4.5m
Assuming constant total monthly revenue of $40m
Landowners revenue in month 3 is $40m x 5% = $2m
The claim of the pool in month 3 is $2m x 10% = $200k
Time to fully claim the pool, $4.5m divided by $200k = 22.5 months

That cant be right

[silver rose]

I think the best factor to use in the calculations is the delay between OB launch and Zero launch, 10% at a 2 week delay (assuming constant volume of Fuel sales) means 100% paid out over 20 weeks. Shorter if revenue grows (longer if it shrinks).

Originally Kieran had 2.5% (~6 years assuming delay was 8 weeks for example)... I don't think the math had been done at the point. I said ramp it up to 10% or more for a start. But I don't think we should consider that value final.

Maybe better to have a payout time frame rather than percentage. The percentage could then be calculated based on the actual delay and actual sales.

We did want a reasonable payout timeframe to give everyone time to ramp up and play. Rather than a short time like say 3 months which would favour higher tiers a lot. Maybe 6, 9 or 12 months as a target?

[civic tusk]

So, it is basically 10 months of claim for every month of delay.
Based on my experience, the peak hype is during the first months of launch, so i would assume revenue may go down with time. The example in the IIP suggest that too even tho it's only 2 months of figures (not a trend).

Yes, i agree a payout time frame is better.

[silver rose]

Peak hype but maybe not peak spend, in any case, a specific period will be clearer and easier to understand for all.

• @waxen lodge

[restive thorn]

---

On the topic of land sales, Kieran says that we are going to forgo 100 million of revenue for the dao and we hear that concern.

To forgo 100 million in revenue would mean land has done a billion in revenue on it's own. Assuming an extremely low PE of 10 (average PE for stocks is 15 and tech is usually 20 or more).

This would also mean that the dao is has pulled in 200 billion with it's 95%.

We don't we formalize numbers as the metric of success that we can sell into.

More land will not be sold with a PE of less than 20. Over a 3 year period for the average piece of land in each tier that's in the 80% percentile of production. In addition, the price of the average land has to be above the last sale price by 50% for 6 months. Finally, this assumes that micro sales of land are still the strategy.

That forces the dao to perform to be able to sell more land, protects pricing and therefore the revenue the DAO with earn in the long run from land.

---

This is because people are only going to be able to buy with eth moving forward and not SILV and land will be in production so pricing will converge to realistic numbers.

Also protects us from the DAO deciding to sell into a ton of non material hype that is going to cause over production possibly for years.

---

This this is fair and a reasonable compromise.

https://tenor.com/view/chicken-run-ginger-do-we-have-a-deal-deal-gif-15541778583694327841

[green cove]

I like how the issues I was bringing up over a year ago are starting to be noticed now 😏

[restive thorn]

You're ahead of you time brother

[green cove]

I was never in favor of a top rail because of this reason. You can’t really do a bottom rail because money doesn’t come out of thin air.

[severe plaza]

horrible idea

[restive thorn]

lmao - please explain for the class?

[severe plaza]

Nijafe just answered you. I don't like the top rail-guard either but it's a good safety measure for the time being. The bottom rail is just asking for disaster.

[restive thorn]

no the bottom rail is for land price/production

not for fuel

[severe plaza]

ah I misunderstood then

either way I'm against price manipulation

let the free markets decide what's right

[restive thorn]

it's actually the way to get the most value for land and so revenue for the dao

The more valuable land is the more the DAO can sell it for

it's just saying the DAO has to be patient

[neon oriole]

There will be a top rail for land? You mean like in the auction T1 started at the top rail of 2 ETH.

[civic tusk]

imagine
price cant go up
but price can go down exponentially
with more supply of plot
and lower demand in the bear

[restive thorn]

no lol

it means the dao just can't sell land whenever they want.

Land has to be valuable for them to sell more

do you understand the concept of PE?

[civic tusk]

but PE in the bull is not permanent

or sustainable

[restive thorn]

right

I'm not opposed to a higher one for the bull

but do you want it to be lower or non existent and the conversation to be open during a bull?

changed it to a 3 year period

---

We should also add the price of the average land has to be above the last sale price by 50% for 6 months.

[digital magnet]

I really like having the %. It's very straight forward for players, they will know exactly what they get whenever they sell fuel.

They just may not know when the pool is going to run out. This could be easily solved by posting the remainder periodically.

Also, the exact % could change once we know exactly when P2E will launch. It could also change again months later as we see how revenue numbers impact the timeline.

[civic tusk]

you agree with needing 10 months to fully claim for every 1 months of delay? Meaning, you need 30 months to fully claim a 3-months delay

[digital magnet]

That's too long 😄 Guess we need to see how long the delay will be and set a % then. 10 months is probably the max it should be overall.

I think 5-10 months is reasonable, though there's probably a strong argument to be made that people won't want their funds held so long or we should be getting interest lol

I'm just very used to waiting at this point

[drifting cloak]

When it comes to land sale, revenue equals the sale price of land plots. If the dao sells 200mil worth of land, it is a 200mil revenue. Nothing to do with PE.

[civic tusk]

hes trying to price next land sale with PE

[drifting cloak]

And yet, protecting the casual player base from extreme price manipulation is infinitely more important than a potential loss of some income for short periods of time for land holders. Having a long, healthy project will bring much more value for land holders in the long run. Top rail at the beginning, when no one knows the balance is a must.

[restive thorn]

You can't have it one way and not the other.

Landholders will be massively outnumbered in 1 year and we have no voting rights with land (which should honestly also be addressed)

[frosty rain]

Extreme price Manipulation is almost impossible to happen, due to how the other Systems in iip-39 are Set up, how IZ mechanics are Set up and due to human nature of greed.

[drifting cloak]

And yet, it will happen. No one needs to protect players from extremely low fuel prices. But we need to protect them from extremely high price hikes.

[restive thorn]

okay, so with that logic, why isn't the same applied to land, obviously protecting from price depreciation from oversupply.

Also protecting the dao from any emotional decisions, so that we do maximize the amount of revenue we make from land.

[drifting cloak]

It's all well then, the top rail should not be in play if everything goes right. We would only need it in the (unlikely) scenario of extreme price manipulation.

[severe plaza]

this I actually agree, I also think landowners should have some sort of extra voting power.

[frosty rain]

We shall see, but most likely yes🙂

It does Set a Base price for fuel tho... Not Like it doesn't impact the Market just because price doesn't hit it

[drifting cloak]

That's fair, but I don't think anyone is suggesting another land sale anytime soon. I have seen nothing from the council that would suggest they will not consider land holders interest when it comes to allowing the next land sale to happen. With that said, some sort of requirement you are suggesting could be a good idea.

[drifting cloak]

I really like the pricing model this allows the dao to do. When you are agreeing to buy x amount of fuel for y dollars (which is the top rail price) and getting a positive surprise of some bonus fuel almost every time is a genius tactic. Everyone loves getting something extra for "free"

[restive thorn]

right it's protecting against the masses that are coming.

this really does get full alignment.

-Dao gets max revenue for land
-landowners are sure the DAO won't elect some new idiots for one epoc that try to slide a sale through or anything else. and devalue land significantly.

[frosty rain]

I know, i brought it up 😛

[drifting cloak]

If this was your idea, hats off to you ser!!

[drifting cloak]

Yep, I will vote for something like this

[green cove]

I completely agree with you. My stance is that there are better ways to do this than having a rail in place such as FUEL production adjustments.

[drifting cloak]

You could be right. As long as we have some sort of protection I'm fine with it. Just give us the damn game already...

[restive thorn]

I don't think we would have an issue regardless. ppl are profit-motivated. someone or many would 'cross the line' in any landowner group trying to corner the market

You are right the real issue will be production adjustments

[green cove]

If prices get too high I’d rather see an increase in production coming from landowners vs a rail.
Increase the production and everyone still gets their fair share.
Have a rail then the DAO needs to print FUEL and distribute those additional funds back to the landowners.

[frosty rain]

They are in place aswell, right...
Redundant Systems to Make a safe place for rangers

[restive thorn]

you guys are massively underpricing volatility as a feature

[green cove]

In an IIP passed last epoch I suggested that production increase if FUEL prices get too high. Ani proposed to sell more land to increase the supply.

[restive thorn]

the selling more land to combat demand is the worst idea

[green cove]

I also suggested if prices get too low we decrease the production of FUEL on land, but if you can’t just take land out of circulation.

[restive thorn]

i have no idea how we let that happen

[frosty rain]

In iip-39 there is a short term fuel balancing System mentioned, aswell as automated landsale System... I guess you both got what you wanted 🙂

[green cove]

Yeah they were both included. I just like one better than the other 😂

[restive thorn]

That's exactly what I'm talking about, using land to balance demand is a complete disregard for landowners and doesn't even solve the problem. Just delays it

[frosty rain]

Don't Like the term "short term" and don't Like the landsale System.

But a System for fuelbalancing is definetly needed, otherwhise it gets out of Hands since playernubers can increase Way more than the limited 100k lands. Just wished it wouldn't be short-term

[restive thorn]

The only issue is that the price for things in-game would have to adjust too. That makes it more complicated

[frosty rain]

Normal if it comes to IZ... Never experienced anything else when proposing stuff

Most of the Times it's Like 2 guys... Sometimes it is an expanded Group of 5 😂

[green cove]

Let’s say Tavel cost 100 crypto. If that 100 cryptos went from $5 to $10 we increase the production on land, then the price would trend back down to the $5 if that’s what we thought was the best price for OW players.

[frosty rain]

Why not balance demand instead of supply?
If you manipulated supply you also manipulated Building Speed of the landplots

[restive thorn]

right but to get the $5 worth of value from the player the cost of travel would need to go up in crypto

inflation basically

[green cove]

What do you mean balance the demand. How are you going to do that?
The demand is how many people want to play.

[frosty rain]

Demand is also how many Units of fuel a activity costs

[green cove]

I asked about that too. I guess it’s like a lore thing.
They don’t want travel to cost X crypto one day and then a different amount another day.

[frosty rain]

For real?
Like rather mess up ingame economy of IZ than Messing a bit with lore? 😅

[green cove]

A reasoning was if you fill up your gas tank in your car it’s always the same amount of gas, but the price changes

[restive thorn]

lmao that's not going to last long

[restive thorn]

no body really does till it's live

but you can't do inflation and not have prices rise

like we know this

no way we solved inflation lmao

---

prices are going to fluctuate rapidly somewhere (or there will be a major failure somewhere), all the price controls are going to cause it to happen where the problem doesn't exsist

[keen orchid]

Wasn't it seatin?

[restive thorn]

---

lot's of examples of price controls trying to keep prices low leading to poor outcomes

Price ceiling actually have caused shortages in the past, but it's never really been done with a digital economy so will be interesting

[frosty rain]

He brought it up after i wrote it in Chat and claimed it's his 😂

[keen orchid]

Hahahaha! So we gave credit to the wrong person lol

[frosty rain]

didn't care... but now he's coming again with it i thought i mention it 🙃

[severe plaza]

let's give credit where credit is due, you deserve it! 👏

[restive thorn]

will be interesting to see if the ceiling causes shortages in fuel due to it being a disincentive to maximize fuel output.

jec.senate . gov/public/_cache/files/7171cb80-ef0d-4058-b3e6-f20fe608745f/the-economics-of-price-controls-final-092122.pdf

If land can only be so profitable, it will dampen it's price appreciation and investablity.

**So the top rail is actually an instance where we are putting a group above the dao, because land being less valuable will lead to less returns on land sales in the future.

ALSO

Less direct revenue to the dao because it will not earn more when people are willing to pay higher fuel prices**

if think everyone can see that, and that's ultimately why we need the protection for landowners also.

---

from the world bank's report on price controls

documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/735161586781898890/pdf/Price-Controls-Good-Intentions-Bad-Outcomes.pdf

---

it's kinda hilarious that the only reason we have the upper rail is because vet

---

I'm sure he was right

and was the best economist we have and knew how the system would work before it was live, disregarding some basic ideas we have learned from real economies.

[restive thorn]

hence

I can't find anyone that even says price controls are a good idea or an example of them working well.

can anyone else?

[frosty rain]

Well it wasn't just vet, there were more people routing for rails.... Team AT some point for sure aswell, since in the first IZ IIP was a bottom and a top rail.

[civic tusk]

it's good for the players
we dont want high volatility in the beginning.
the launch hype driving prices up, then people holding the bag after the hype dissipate. or in the bull peak when everything pumps.

[keen orchid]

To be fair, the top rail was always intended to be a temporary solution until the ecosystem is stable.

It's a simple supply and demand. Not knowing the demand for fuel it's difficult to understand if supply is enough to meet it. The top rail ensures that the volatility of the fuel prices don't go overboard. It was never intended to be a permanent solution but a way to ensure it doesn't cripple the OW players because of lack of supply and/or high prices

[restive thorn]

I'm just noting how we are picking an opinion of player experience over the DAO and landowners.

We don't know what will create a better player experience; we are speculating that stable prices are better and accepting the cost to all the other participants in the ecosystem.

---

Doing doing so despite it going against hundreds of years of of the most relevant economic experience.

[civic tusk]

ILV is a product and players are the customers. The key to a good P2E is sustainable growth of new players, if prices rise too quickly, you will get newcomers priced out. We want steady inflow of players investing the time and money into the ecosystem.

[restive thorn]

You do see how that's a speculative view right? That's not a guarantee.

volatility is a feature not a bug. The burden of proof should be disproving that fact

not the other way around

[civic tusk]

I played a flywheel call crypto valley. Price went up too quickly pricing out the shrimps. A good flywheel need a good amount of shrimps.
I got priced out in big time too, before you know the music already stops.

Remember when axie was $600 each

Or stepn shoes $1.5k a pair

[restive thorn]

does our system work like any of those games?

no

we don't have nfts gating entry

we don't have our gov token as the only token

[civic tusk]

yes we do the illuvials

[restive thorn]

you don't have to buy an illuvial to play

[civic tusk]

what

[restive thorn]

What?

[civic tusk]

our revenue is from fuel and tx fee.
people spend fuel to get illuvials and tx fee from trading illuvials

so yea i hope people buy illuvials lol

[restive thorn]

and skins

I said you don't have to buy an illuvial to play the game

[civic tusk]

u need illuvials to mint skins

[restive thorn]

are you suggesting we have price controls on all parts of the ecosystem?

[civic tusk]

Depends, u want a quick pump and dump or slow roll

[restive thorn]

I want a sustainable open economy.

not a tightly controlled one that limits growth

[civic tusk]

web3 degens are the nastiest speculators

[restive thorn]

and we need them

[civic tusk]

they tend to pump and dump

3 months and they are gone

see who holds the bag

[restive thorn]

So you think we can build a successful economy and manufacture perfectly up and to the right pricing at a stable rate?

[civic tusk]

fuel price ceiling give a stable barrier to entry

anyone can farm OW

it will put price cap on illuvials too

[restive thorn]

it will create a price discrepancy with the rest of the economy

that will favor farmers not players. The dao will suffer

[civic tusk]

you cant, no one can

[restive thorn]

great, so let's not try

What will happen if the price of illuvial rises and the price of fuel does not rise?

[civic tusk]

more supply

[restive thorn]

more supply of what?

[civic tusk]

illuvials

[restive thorn]

so the dao will lose money

while ppl arb the difference

yes

you are right

---

we agree

[civic tusk]

yes

thats the idea

its capping our revenue potential

[restive thorn]

So the DAO can afford to give illuvials away for a discounted price?

That's insane to me

[civic tusk]

in the hope that we get more players

[polar briar]

https://tenor.com/view/game-fun-friends-winter-kids-gif-2711938541201540330

[restive thorn]

@calm drift can this be a topic for the next land meeting?

So people that just 'farm' illuvials to dump on the market will benefit at the expense of the DAO and landholders.

[calm drift]

Yup will figure out the next town hall asap

[restive thorn]

ppl will just bot this

[civic tusk]

best way to extract is the first 3 months

[restive thorn]

?

[civic tusk]

during peak hype

just farm and sell, dnt hold

[restive thorn]

so you want a system that favors degen who know the intricacies of the systems.

verse

the players that just want to collect them all.

[civic tusk]

then it usually simmer down, if the game is good, it will come back

[restive thorn]

---

I say no.

[civic tusk]

it's literally every web2 and web3 games

[restive thorn]

---

with dynamic pricing the economy will stay in sync and the arb will not be large enough to farm.

you only play if you decide the illuvials are worth the price.

---

that favors genuine players

[civic tusk]

if u ask me, i prefer no railing because i want max profit during the first 3 months, but i understand the merit

[restive thorn]

---

also pricing won't get out of sync so corrections in asset prices will be less severe.

---

it doesn't favor gamers. it favors traders and farmers

[civic tusk]

based on experience the speculators tend to drive prices too high at the begining and ruining things for the "true gamers"

[restive thorn]

We need to stay focused on our situation, I'm not aware of any game that has our unique set up. Explain in detail how the other situations are relevant if you want to address their significance here

[civic tusk]

this is good example if we dnt have rails

[restive thorn]

bro - that is literally completely different

[civic tusk]

same thing, u need yield to buy seeds to earn money

[restive thorn]

I don't know how you can make a direct comparison between a literal ponzi and what we are trying to do here.

We don't earn ILV for a reason.

also, there are going to be price spikes. You yourself said it's impossible to create a perfect up to the right system.

Creating an inefficient market is a sure way to create bubbles

[civic tusk]

Buy Fuel to get illuvials to earn eth. same thing

[restive thorn]

I'd argue there is a ton more to our system than that, but maybe I'm the hopeful one

[civic tusk]

i had that dream too

[restive thorn]

lmao - then you're just delaying the problem with the top rail

how is that going to keep all prices in the ecosystem low?

speculation will just move to the areas without controls

---

all while the ppl that farm the most win while the dao, landowners, and genuine gamers lose.

[civic tusk]

yes

[restive thorn]

how is that good?

[uneven merlin]

I'm all for this proposal AS LONG AS I can be developing my own land during OB and not have to reset.

To me, I feel like many lands are "dead" and I'd rather get a larger portion of the funds via my activity level than if they were evenly distributed to everyone for 0 effort shown.

Land fuel revenue share was always supposed to be based on activity (hence why t1 is different than t4) so why detract from this?

Yes it sucks that there is a delay, but I don't feel delaying 2 games for the sake of a 3rd is reasonable. (we didn't delay Beyond did we?)

[restive thorn]

I don't think anyone is arguing against that part things anymore. everyone is on the same page there

the earn based on activity

[uneven merlin]

I figured, but after reading for 2 hours straight to catch up I started skipping lol

[restive thorn]

This is crazy to me. The burden of proof is on you jag

[civic tusk]

Proof of what

[restive thorn]

Why will that be the best choice for the Illuvium ecosystem?

[uneven merlin]

Why are you still against the proposal then?

[restive thorn]

there are other issues, there proposal only covered one thing.

[restive thorn]

@civic tusk

[uneven merlin]

So this proposal is fine? Why downvote then? Do you want to add more to it or make it contingent upon a future proposal?

[restive thorn]

Yeah, I'm not supporting anything till more things are cleared up. Personally. This is proposal is suggesting something that is a given at this point. and really just one line item.

[uneven merlin]

So get more specifics added like the answer to, "AS LONG AS I can be developing my own land during OB and not have to reset. "

I get that.

[restive thorn]

it really looks like there are members of the community who want cheap fuel so they can farm and earn illuvials for cheap to sell for eth. Before other people are aware of the dynamics of the economy.

at the the expense of the dao, landowners, and relative stable pricing for the rest of the economy.

---

I don't support this.

[civic tusk]

do you agree with 10 months to claim for every 1 month of delay, meaning u need 20 months to claim 2 months of delayed revenue or 30 months to claim 3 months of delayed revenue?

[restive thorn]

---

it's the exact same argument @slim arrow

can we really afford to give away our ingame assets for cheaper than they are worth?

---

if it's true for land it's true for Illuvials.

---

I'm adjusting on land sales (pending other protections) but the same standard needs to be held for all in game assets.

[civic tusk]

nobody knows for sure.
but farmers are DAU.
we need them to make money and keep making money for us to prosper

[restive thorn]

not if we are selling them assets for cheaper than the market price

since when are we optimizing for farmers???? I'm sorry but what.

That's not the plan.

[civic tusk]

the price ceiling is for the benefit of players

[restive thorn]

I've clearly expressed how it's not and you agreed, where did my logic breakdown?

---

it's to the benefit of players that want to farm for money, with less risk because of an artificially created arb.

[civic tusk]

yes, players make profit, players happy, we make revdis, hopefully

[restive thorn]

So we built this whole thing specifically designed to benefit people that are trying to extract money from our ecosystem?

[uneven merlin]

I 100% agree to it. Let's keep the engagement incentives for as long as we can until the game is far more fun to play.

[civic tusk]

gotcha

[uneven merlin]

The game right now isn't "fun". It's a linear optimization game that taps out at a certain point. Maybe in 10 months they'll add events, quest lines, story line, who knows that will now keep those players that were barely still in it for the "bonus" (not really a bonus, but whatever).

[civic tusk]

idk what the team or founders were thinking but i speak for myself, well we are paying people to try our games, and we have 750k ingame rewards left after the airdrop. so idk man im just here to pump bags and make money. hopefully for a long time if we get this right

im always honest, if i want fun, ill play web2 games, but im here to play games and earn

[restive thorn]

Well forgive me if I don't want someone that thinks like this having a hand designing our economy that we want to last decades.

hard pass from me

[uneven merlin]

So you're admitting that you don't really care if the game is fun as long as you profit. Not really fighting for the DAU, because the core success factor for Illuvium is fun

[civic tusk]

to last decades we need funding that can do that, how do u think we can raise for 10 years worth of runway? We need higher token price and high DAU

[restive thorn]

We don't need to design for people that's goal is to extract money from the system.

In fact, we should design to avoid these people

---

The top guard, creates a price arb that benefits people looking to farm and extract value from our system at the detriment to the DAO.

[civic tusk]

this is web3, most players are degens who just want to make money while playing games like me. web2 adoption is still gonna take time.
so we have to be realistic and even kieran admitted that.
a fun game will make the grinding feels less like a job, good for retention, but earning is the main driver

[restive thorn]

AND

will artificially suppress the price of Illuvials, our most prized in-game asset. Which with also affect the dao's earning potential due to missing out on trading fees.

[civic tusk]

write an IIP to remove the airdrop and leaderboard rewards

and the top rail while ur at it

[golden pasture]

But dont touch beyond rewards! I like those a lot!
Also yeah that was my final off-topic remark. Have fun :]

[civic tusk]

but i thought ur in it just for fun not token reward

[restive thorn]

that is debatable, but incentivizing people to try our ecosystem is different than designing our core game for benefilt arb seekers.

Free rides to try our game for a limited time vs. game breaking designs

[civic tusk]

how about leaderboard rewards, TFT has no token rewards why do we have to give away token?

i dont see riot giving away their shares to the players

[restive thorn]

Did the rewards affect game play?

no

[civic tusk]

you prob missed the whole smurfs attack

people using multi account to win tokens

[restive thorn]

right and we needed to fix that

so I'm pointing out a value extraction bug in our core game, and your like no that's a feature.

because I believe I can profit from it

[civic tusk]

its part of the game

[restive thorn]

it shouldn't be

not when it costs the dao revenue

and makes the experience in the rest of the ecosystem worse

---

anyway good chat - I'm glad I understand clearly your motivation and the real reason this was called for.

[restive thorn]

lmao - wow maybe I'm wrong. https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1055081063644397629

We are really going to just sell all our ingame assets for cheap to button clickers

I don't see how this makes any sense

[hybrid depot]

I believe it has often been clarified by people supporting this, that something like this would have to be higher on the cost side than regular overworld runs to be a positive feature.

[restive thorn]

we really need to be careful with that - that could screw over all our real players who will actually be invested in the game.

I don't like it at all. aarons comments make me think he does understand gamers at all

that's actually terrifying

[hybrid depot]

Yeah, there is lots to consider, e.g. bonding curve and how this could impact that, would be a main concern for me that could go wrong. The whole idea of a simpliefied way for people to exchange money to Illuvium assets, maybe because they don´t have a pc etc. seems like a positive fundamental idea.

[restive thorn]

It could be very game breaking

should be a entirely separate thing - it's so different than what we are building with the core game loops

---

we can't have 5 game styles in the same game

[severe plaza]

there's an illuvidex where you can exchange illuvium assets for money...

[hybrid depot]

I don´t think it is that different, you reduce the time needed part by spending more money, people could hire players to do that as well, assuming bots don´t exists, as those would be cheaper than hiring players.

Having a super speed on getting these could cause issues with bonding curve certainly, so need to deeply look at it and figure out any risks.

[hybrid depot]

yeah, but people also buy real world tcg packs for retail price instead of the cards online for cheaper
opening packs is something people like

This is a differrent topic though, we can chat about it in the other thread if you guys want

[restive thorn]

So we are going to add a way for whales to accumulate without playing the game.

so we can make more money in the short term

at the expense of real gamers

[severe plaza]

anyone that understands supply and demand and web3 gaming knows this will destroy the game loop very quickly

[hybrid depot]

It is an idea, nothing set in stone, didn´t even have an iip for it yet.

[severe plaza]

just do it for the rocks and plants and everything is fine their price tends to zero

[hybrid depot]

also again whale could hire people, they don´t have to play

[restive thorn]

i know, and I don't think it's your fault. I'm just expressing how it's against our core principle of gamers first

fair launch - you have to play to get the assets

[severe plaza]

someone playing is very different than clicking a button and puff you got loot

[hybrid depot]

If you choose a price high enough for it to be net negative roi, how would this be negative?

[severe plaza]

doesn't matter the price brother... Alpha illuvitars hello?

[restive thorn]

then why build it?

[severe plaza]

what matters is the supply and the demand

[restive thorn]

why would ppl play?

if there isn't roi ppl won't do it and we shouldn't build it, it's a pure roi strategy

[hybrid depot]

sure, e.g. you could say this would only be available x day/weeks after a launch, could limit how much total that way and lots more additions to solve concerns

[severe plaza]

it's so funny how we're building a game to destroy its foundations

[hybrid depot]

So you say if overworld runs are cheaper, people wouldn´t use this other feature at a higher cost to loot ratio anyways?

[severe plaza]

if it's cheap you devalue the average value of an OW run!

by massively printing illuvials

[restive thorn]

can you explain this more?

[hybrid depot]

Overworld runs costs X, the other thing Y, Y>X, time spend in overworld=game experience and better return

I understood you meant if overworld is better return in nfts people wouldn´t use the other option.

[restive thorn]

right so the ROI is there for a whale

so they will

when did we lose sight of what we are building here. i don't get it

[hybrid depot]

can you explain that? I´d assume they would just lose money in the long run this way.

[restive thorn]

time = money

They are spending money to get that time back

so they can do other things and be extremely profitable

hold for longer and dump a larger bag later

[hybrid depot]

So you´d pick a Y enough greater than X to make up for that part?

Also we come back to hiring people/bots that can reduce your time as well in standard option.

[restive thorn]

---

the time element keeps it even. you have to actually play the game.

You have to do the work.

[hybrid depot]

Yes and as we have established, you can reduce time to 0 anyways by hiring people if you just want to spend far more than other people and reduce your time spend at the same time.

[soft marsh]

Sorry but i have to also state my opinion again on this .. turning OW into an online slot machine i think it'll devalue the entire ecosystem

[restive thorn]

But that's way less cost effective and hard to scale

[hybrid depot]

I think that is fair as well, some people don´t like gacha systems etc.

[severe plaza]

thank God, finally ppl that understand the problem.

[hybrid depot]

All of this would depend on the prices.

e.g. if a overworld run is X$ and the other option is 100times that, would you think this would devalue anything?

[soft marsh]

Just like in Beyond for example a whale buys thousands of disks to just 'search' for the most valuable assets, he just then throws away unwanted assets on the market for half or less of the current floor price... making people who grind for those illuvials seem like their time was just wasted

[restive thorn]

if it's not cost-effective people wont do it

and if we limit it sooo much that it's limited to certain amount, why do it at all?

[dreamy hinge]

can you maybe do a resume on a word page to see all your proposals. I'm still trying to figuring out all of the information and many topics are discussed

[restive thorn]

All it's doing is bringing forward revenue that we would earn later.

[restive thorn]

I'll try

[dreamy hinge]

Appreciate it🙏

[soft marsh]

Fair enough.. but at that multiplier i think very few will even try it.. you'd just have to find the sweet spot for this. But for this to happen i think we need a lot of data, in at least 6 months of the ecosystem being live.
In this way asset price can be observed, value from an OW run could be estimated and then and only then i think this feature can be implemented and properly priced

[restive thorn]

All I know is the top rail, and an idea like that will meaningfully affect regular players.

it will incentivize whales to arb the price difference (paying with the increased price) and accumulate an outsized portion of illuvials.

[hybrid depot]

Yeah, there is lots to be looked at and figured out for sure.
I think it is unfair to simply present this as "any version would be bad".

There are people who just wanna swipe lots of money in a game, because they have it and why not, giving them an options seems beneficial.

[restive thorn]

there is a dex where they can buy everything

[severe plaza]

the whole reason to justify this idea was to bring OW to mobile. Aaron said in the town hall that the OW might be playable in mobile. So why destroy our game assets like this? Just create automated runs for rocks and plants and it can even be the same price as a normal run and voilá it's a great addition to the game.

[restive thorn]

that's a great point it will affect secondary markets negatively

[hybrid depot]

sure, but again the real world example of people buying packs in tcgs knowing it is worse than buying cards they want on ebay or other platforms.

[restive thorn]

whales won't have to buy off secondary, they can just farm and secure illuvials are a discount to secondary

[severe plaza]

Viper buying cards online doesn't take ANY effort!

that's a bad example

[restive thorn]

That's much different, it's all illuvium platforms. same eco

ebay is sketchy

[soft marsh]

I never said there aren't benefits to this (even if i personally don't like it). I can see the value in it (more people playing, more revenue etc) but at this point i think it would do more harm than good.

[hybrid depot]

I don´t follow this sry.
zz cap said if it is negative roi compared to secondary people won´t buy, this isn´t the case in working economies that are similar to ilvs is what I said there.

[soft marsh]

Yep 100% .. and i previously agreed on this solution also. Seems a good compromise .. you can even add shards to it as they will be an integral part of the ecosystem as well

[hybrid depot]

yeah the online blockchain version of this is strictly better than tcgs in a sense of reducing counter party risks

[severe plaza]

you're lowering the ROI for the OW normal runs with this as well until both the normal and the automated runs are not worth it

[restive thorn]

ya - ebay blows, no one likes using ebay. That's the reason

[severe plaza]

the faster our game assets devalue the faster it will detract players from paying to travel

[hybrid depot]

yeah, people use cardmarket or tcgplayer in reality, better platforms, doesn´t change the point though

[restive thorn]

We won't have that problem though

[severe plaza]

Viper we have Beyond as an example, why do you think everyone is opening d1sks in the beginning of waves?

[hybrid depot]

Overall I don´t say this is great and has to happen by any means. But the points of no matter what prices you choose or what extra limitiations it will harm the economy seems not like a proven fact to me.

[hybrid depot]

you only have d1sks, you dont have d1sks + gameplay with less money same rewards option there

[severe plaza]

that's true but you're missing the point

[restive thorn]

If we were trying to build a mechanism to allow whales to accumulate assets and pull more revenue forward in time, then this idea makes sense.

at the expense of real gamer's experience and our secondary markets having LESS liquidity and price discovers.

---

i don't see why we would want that.

[severe plaza]

everything is highly valuable in the beginning until the supply increases to put sell pressure. Everyone just opens d1sks and sells whatever they get to go and open more d1sks. Rinse and repeat. With a disproportionate supply when compared to the demand this brings prices to the ground.

[hybrid depot]

Your example here could be solved with extra limitations though.

[restive thorn]

But then why do it?

assuming you mean price

[severe plaza]

lower asset prices is less incentive to travel to the OW

I don't get why this is so hard to grasp

[hybrid depot]

e.g. you can limit when it is available, can make it harder to bulk buy, can gamify in some mobile friendly way

if this is negative for secondary isn´t 100% said either, maybe it onbaords new players and they fill out their teams after getting some iluvials this way and it helps secondary liquidity and prices

[hybrid depot]

This wouldn´t directly 100% lower assets prices, I think this is the assumption we don´t agree on.

[restive thorn]

whales would not have to buy on secondary.

so prices would stay lower

on secondary

and less trading revenue

[soft marsh]

Well we have Beyond as a tested thing for that ... it didn't bring any new players ... and the assets value plummeted

[severe plaza]

are you sure it won't?

I'm not making assumptions this is pure supply and demand economics

doesn't matter if the illuvials have a bit more lvl

there will be more than what ppl need

[soft marsh]

In Beyond no one has bought from secondary to become 'a new player' ... so again if we go down this road we have a very negative example in the illuvium ecosystem that this feature should not be implemented

[severe plaza]

at least in the short term

which puts sell pressure and devalues the average OW run

people payed 5x for the alpha illuvitars wave 1

[restive thorn]

beyond is a different beast bc no bonding curve

[severe plaza]

what's their average sell price now?

it's not 5x

and they are even "special"

in the automated runs it would even be paying more for the same assets

[soft marsh]

Doesn't matter really .. it is just an example of overfloding the secondary market with unwanted assets at very low prices...

[restive thorn]

true

[soft marsh]

If we take into account the bonding curve then yes it makes things even worse

[restive thorn]

whales buying from real gamers off secondary is a critical aspect of our economy

We need to think extremely carefully before changing this aspect of the economy.

and honestly our core values as a gaming studio.

[soft marsh]

people who grind the OW will be way behind those that just 'click-farm' the OW

[restive thorn]

it's a massive diviation

---

I've only gained confidence that we need fluctuating fuel prices because it's also an anti-botting mechanic. You can not just hire someone, bot the game, or have a simple button clicker.

You have to think, does it make sense to buy fuel at this price? You have to pay attention to the in-game economy. For example, what can I sell this tier of illuvial for? and simple for casual regular gamers - do I want to pay this price for more illuvials. yes or no?

I am still in favor of a gaming studio that is building for actual gamers.

---

not farmers and whales.

---

We have a real decision on whether we are going for the apple or android strategy?

Apple has less users but dominates profit because the experience is premium and dialed to their core users. They can charge more and people keep coming back.

Android has more users but less profit because they are selling a cheap, flexible experience experience that is lower quality to as many people as possible.

---

We are the only gaming studio in a position to be the apple, (thank you @warm hazel).

I vote for high-quality experiences designed for gamers that people are willing to pay a premium because it's so good.

Not chop up our experience, and cut our margins to get as many players as possible.

---

The guard rail - cuts our profits, and is designed for people for ppl to farm (hiring people, botting, or just mindless playing) our assets for cheaper than the price the market will pay. It will lead to a surplus on secondary, further limited trading profits, and allow whales to accumulate illuvial at artificial prices. Also, it's value extractive as these people are looking to make eth and pull it out of the ecosystem.

The mini OW game idea - Will cheapen the experience of the whole ecosystem for short-term gains, basically pulling revenue forward. Also, it would allow whales to accumulate Illuvials for cheaper prices than off-secondary, limiting liquidity and price discovery on secondary and lowering trading fees. stable fuel prices will only facilitate this action, because they won't need to understand or participate in the rest of the ecosystem.

[silver rose]

The guard rail wasn't something I wanted either, bring on the free market wild west, but its not like the counter position in the IIP doesn't have merit.

But I made the Fuel Exchange requirements to meet the requirements of the IIP like I'm supposed to.

It should be noted that we consider the current Fuel Exchange a 'minimal' Fuel Exchange as it runs on backend rather than on chain. This is not as bad as it sounds, Illuvium Zero doesn't run on-chain so the source of truth is always the backend anyway, but it would still be cool, and is a planned future improvement, to make a fully on-chain marketplace (maybe on zkEVM or similar).

Maybe this would also be a good time to remove the rail (with appropriate IIP of course).

[restive thorn]

I'm all for it. How can I help?

[silver rose]

I mean it might be a bit early to do more than talk about it. Making an on-chain exchange is a new project with probably 4-6 months work in it. I don't imagine we would want to start that work until OB is out and running smoothly.

[restive thorn]

ya - makes sense.

So you think wait to remove the rail till then too?

[restive thorn]

on the dex did you ever see my idea on the bridge?

Because i think the two idea should be considered together - especially if we are looking at evm

[silver rose]

The current Fuel Exchange cannot work without a rail.

[restive thorn]

but we can set it every high or no?

[silver rose]

As per the IIP users buy fuel for a fixed price and are then awarded bonus fuel.

(behind the scenes it is still buy orders being filled by sell orders, but the way it appears to users is not like that)

There are also security concerns with average sell price being too far from the rail (there are market manipulation possibilities).

---

I do think, and we have planned, to have frequent rail price review initially. If stuff is selling for the rail price then the price is too low and should be increased.

I imagine something like a weekly ICCP for the first few weeks, then monthly after that.

[restive thorn]

So why can't we set it much higher?

just because the matching engine isn't sophisticated?

ppl could spoof or front run in some way?

[silver rose]

The firs thing is about how it appears to user. Lets say average sell price is $1 per Crpyon and travel costs 2 Cryptons, lets say we set a high the cap like $5 (not real values just simple ones to be easy to track).

If a user goes to the interface to buy 2 Solon they will be shown a simplified interface as per IIP which shows:

Buy [2] Crypton - Price $10

When they click Buy they will get 2 + 8 bonus (10 as you would expect). But the primary interface as per IIP is based around the idea of presenting users with a simple fixed price.

---

I can't share details of the potential security risks for (presumably) obvious reasons.

My preference would be to keep things as they are, get something out, make sure we quickly flag issues where more than a small percentage of fuel is being bought at cap price so we can adjust. And then move on to the on-chian.

[restive thorn]

this is in the case of no rail being hit?

[silver rose]

It always shows the fixed (rail) price, with any additional amount of fuel due to sell orders fulfillment being a 'bonus'.

[restive thorn]

so people selling below the rail price?

[silver rose]

Sorry I don't quite get what you are asking here.

[restive thorn]

the additional amount of fuel due to sell orders fulfillment being a bonus?

[silver rose]

yeah

The Fuel order is always satisfied first by Fuel Sell orders, cheapest first, with the expectation that during normal operation all the sales will be from sell orders. But its presented to the user at the rail/max price. and the total is split in to:

"what you paid for"
"what you got as a bonus"

[restive thorn]

will landowners see the books?

[silver rose]

Yes I included as part of the requirements a formal general ledger with all details of all transactions and events.

The minimal requirements are as follows:

We also plan to make the entire ledger available via an API, but it might start with a periodic CSV/export download.

The ledger includes more information than the minimum public visibility list, a bit long to paste the whole set of requirements here (there's a lot), but something like:

EventId | SellTransactionId | SellerWallet | BuyTransactionId | BuyerWallet | Timestamp | EventType          | ETH Amount | Fuel Amount | Fuel Type    | Price   | User          | Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1       | 1001              | 0x1234abcd   |                  |             | 1213131   | CreateSellOrder    | 0          | 100         | Solon        | 0.015   | System        |
2       |                   |              | 2001             | 0x9876zyxw  | 1213132   | CreateBuyOder      | 0.063      | 3           | Solon        | 0.021   | System        |
3       | 1001              | 0x1234abcd   | 2001             | 0x9876zyxw  | 1213122   | SellFuel           | 0.06       | 4           | Solon        | 0.015   | System        |
4       |                   |              | 2001             | 0x9876zyxw  | 1213122   | LossDueToRounding  | 0.003      | 0           |              |         | System        |
5       |                   |              | 2001             | 0x9876zyxw  | 1213132   | CompleteBuyOrder   | 0.063      | 4           | Solon        | 0.015   | System        |
...
22      | 1001              | 0x1234abcd   | 2005             | 0x0000eeee  | 1213133   | SellFuel           | 0.06       | 4           | Solon        | 0.015   | System        |
23      |                   |              | 2005             | 0x0000eeee  | 1213133   | CompleteBuyOrder   | 0.15       | 10          | Solon        | 0.015   | System        |
24      | 1001              | 0x1234abcd   |                  |             | 1213133   | CompleteSellOrder  | 1.5        | 100         | Solon        | 0.015   | System        |

(This is not the actual ledger, just my example that I included in the requirements)

---

I can see that you are typing... I need to go, but will wait for a few minutes to answer any last questions (not last as in forever, but last for right now 😉 )

[restive thorn]

lol all good my dude

I do want to run the evm bridge as a onboarding strategy by you sometime. It might work well with the evm dex

[silver rose]

👍
Alright I'm off, ciao.

[restive thorn]

@slim arrow Can you see how we are selling our most valuable assets at below the price people are willing to pay for them?

I agree it's too late to change this now.

Given your own line of argument for not giving away our digital assets - this should seem unacceptable.

Players in our ecosystem successfully lobbied to create an arb exploit, which will directly lead to lower revenue for the dao and landowners than the market would pay. It will also have negative consequences on our secondary market and limit price discovery.

I don't think that's something we want to continue to happen.

---

How are landowners going to be compensated for this missed revenue? We will literally have a parcial ledger of all the missed revenue.

on top of all the delays and everything else being discussed.

---

The council needs to reflect deeply on this and adjust for the decision making that lead to this decision.

As well as swiftly find solutions and guidelines to ensure landowners don't continue to be second-class participants in our ecosystem.

---

This should be your top priority.

[silver rose]

Sorry couldn't help but keep reading. This does not follow: Can you see how we are selling our most valuable assets at below the price people are willing to pay for them?

We may risk selling Fuel lower than the price people are willing to pay for a small amount of time, but that would flag via review process and we would update quickly.

The expectation is that after a bit of ramp up time no Fuel is selling at max cap.
(And again if it did we would quickly adjust the max cap price... we can even create a pre-approved ICCP/IIP process to enable this adjusment to be done without a council vote so as to make it very quick... daily or even faster)

[restive thorn]

Landowners will race to zero if there is a cap price.

There is no price discovery

There is no relationship with the secondary market

[silver rose]

I don't think that follows at all, there is demand not just supply.

[restive thorn]

If the price can't go higher than 5, landowners will compete from that point to zero

while players get larger bonuses meaning missed rev - right?

[digital magnet]

Won't all fuel be sold at the upper rail until P2E plots are up and running, selling fuel?

Sounds like easily 2+ months after OB from the townhall

[restive thorn]

yes, but landowers will be competing and selling at prices below the market price

[silver rose]

Yes but thats a temporary solution which will also set the expectation of Fuel buying players to pay a certain amount. If anything that is a counter argument to what zz cap is proposing.

[digital magnet]

We just won't have any idea if it's underpriced well into OB

Or will there be theoretical calculations that can be used?

Based on what you expect land to produce vs what is being bought

[silver rose]

"Well in to OB" is not very clearly defined, the intent is to get p2e out quickly. After going through the latest status update (see zero channel) and seeing how close it is I'm working with the team to see how quickly we can get a slightly cut down feature set with real land connection and Fuel sales.

[digital magnet]

That would be awesome. I heard Kieran say he's offering bonuses too which is excellent! Otherwise he made it sound like around 6 weeks though, so I'm just assuming that for now.

But yeah, your status updates were really helpful to see what's going on, thanks for that.

[silver rose]

I'll put forward the idea in an IIP as it will probably involve releasing a slightly reduced feature set (with the intent to release those missing features over future weeks). But the last few weeks have seen really big jumps in Fuel Exchange and backend, and I'm feeling like it will be pretty good news. Kinda stupidly the UI is my biggest concern at the moment.

Anyway, let me not commit to anything without going through a thorough discussion with the team.

[restive thorn]

Ya that sound great tho

[digital magnet]

Awesome, love your support

[silver rose]

Alright bye, for real this time!

[restive thorn]

okay - I need help understanding how it's not clearly missed revenue for the landowner and the dao, though.

but another time is great.

Seems clear landowners are going to be selling below the market rate, and that there is no option for price discovery, once iz is live.

[digital magnet]

People will sell fuel at the upper rail at first (unless they just don't understand it). Only when it starts taking too long to sell will people drop their price below that.

[restive thorn]

we will be climbing over each other to get filled

lower and lower

[digital magnet]

Then price has been discovered.

[restive thorn]

I'm sorry but no

[digital magnet]

If the upper rail is really too low (I think this is the scenario you're concerned about), then buy volume will be enough at the upper rail that we'll all be able to sell at that price

And anyone who sells lower is just shorting themselves to get that sale seconds sooner than other people

[restive thorn]

We would still be missing out of a ton of revenue in that situation, there would still be an arb, and then the problem would reemerge as I'm describing it when it's raised a little.

and there will be a ton off people that sell lower and get rekt in your example also

before the rail was hit

[digital magnet]

Yeah, it will be a guess for launch. Revenue will most likely be lost due to this, but it is unavoidable with a delayed P2E launch. Once P2E is here they can re-evaluate and try not to loose more. Not sure what else can be done?

[digital magnet]

The rail will be the only price when OB starts because all fuel will be bought from the DAO, none from land owners.

[restive thorn]

I only see one solution, for the short term.

Once land is live, players pay the price, but landowners don't use the book.

Eth is just pooled, and the amount of ETH you get is proportional to the amount of fuel you create.

So no bonus for players, and no landower book where we are competing to zero.

---

that would minimize lost rev, or the majority of it.

and probably not take as much dev work.

[digital magnet]

There's no competing to zero if demand is there at the upper rail.

[restive thorn]

yes, landowners compete below the rail price

[digital magnet]

You can sell at the rail price

[restive thorn]

the difference of the fill price and rail price is a bonus to players

[digital magnet]

DAO produces unlimited fuel at the rail price, but fuel from land owners will be sold at that price first

[restive thorn]

not if someone is listing their fuel lower

lowest price filled first

[digital magnet]

only idiots will undercut the market that bad, and it will be snatched up so fast it doesn't impact me

[restive thorn]

It's going to happen, it's a market.

even if it's 20% that's a massive amount of rev for all landowners

why?

why are we forced to sell at a discount?

---

this is what an exploit looks like

[digital magnet]

I don't think you understand what it will look like

[restive thorn]

what am I missing?

[digital magnet]

Go look at tradingview, no one is undercutting sell prices by 20% to make sure they're able to sell

[restive thorn]

go look at an orderbook

yes they do

it's the name of the game

[digital magnet]

so everything sells at 0?

[restive thorn]

not what i said

[digital magnet]

you said we're competing to zero, right?

[restive thorn]

yes in that direction

no it wont hit zero

[digital magnet]

what will it hit?

[restive thorn]

below the price players are paying by anything over 0% is not okay with me

10% below rail

too much

5% too much

50% too much

[digital magnet]

why?

[restive thorn]

---

why do landowners need to give that discount?

---

it's an exploit

[digital magnet]

the rail is protection for buyers, selling below that isn't actually a discount for buyers. It's price discovery behind the scenes, but in the UI it shows up as they're getting a good deal with some bonus fuel because they didn't buy at the rail

It's just to make gamers feel good about spending money

[restive thorn]

I get it was pitched as buyer protection, but it's really buyer discount and arb opportunity

at the expense of the dao and landowers

[digital magnet]

The buyer discount (and lost revenue) only applies if the upper rail price is used and buyers are willing to spend more than that, not if they're buying for lower prices than that.

This is why lost revenue is possible in the beginning when the DAO produces all fuel and sells at the upper rail. We won't know if just as much fuel would be sold at higher prices or not.

[restive thorn]

The difference between the fill price and the rail price is a bonus (discount) - which translates directly to lost revenue for the dao and landowerns.

[digital magnet]

No, that's only a marketing ploy

[restive thorn]

No it's very real

how is it just marketing?

it's just shows how landowner interests where completely disregarded in this proposal and iip. That landowners should pay for this marketing

[digital magnet]

Say 10 fuel is sold for $10 at the upper rail. Eventually as P2E rolls out and the order book system gets into place, prices may stabilize at $9 for 10 fuel instead, right?

[restive thorn]

ok

[digital magnet]

That's behind the scenes. What the user sees is you're buying 10 fuel for $10 still and you just got ~1 BONUS fuel (11 total) because your awesome land owners are selling at a discount today!

[restive thorn]

That's the ui and that bonus coin is paid for how?

Because a landowner sold it below market price.

[digital magnet]

Because the buyer is still spending $10, but they're actually buying at the $9/10 fuel pricing

from the order book

so they get a little more than 10

obviously not an even 11

[restive thorn]

I get the UI for the player.

Do you see the landowner sold at a discount to provide that cheaper fuel (bonus) to the player?

[digital magnet]

No because we already agreed that prices may stabilize at $9 for 10 fuel in the order book system. #1229420814986772510 message

[restive thorn]

does rail price minus fill price give us the discount that players recieve?

10 - 9 = 1

[digital magnet]

yeah, basically, but it's shown to them as bonus fuel I guess instead of a discount. Same thing essentially, as long as you recognize it's not actually a discount or a bonus, it's just what the current market price is due to the current buy/sell orders

[restive thorn]

Okay I understand the experience for the player. They are like 'ya! free fuel"

---

what is the experience of the landowner?

[digital magnet]

$10 of fuel is bought off the order books at $9 per 10 fuel, so they will sell 11.111 fuel at market price

[restive thorn]

I'm not sure what you mean by $9/10 and 'market price'. Rail and fill for price makes it easier but happy to describe them in different ways.

[digital magnet]

market price is the price where the order book sell orders and buy orders meet

maybe just the lowest sell order in this case

[restive thorn]

so the market price is the price landowners get filled at?

[digital magnet]

yeah

[restive thorn]

okay got it, so..

landowner sells 11.11 fuel for at the market price of $9.

which is cheaper than the price the player was paying and represents free value to the player, which is a cost to the dao and landowners.

---

we did not invent a way to create from value for marketing purposes unfortunately that would have been sick tho

---

it's an exploit

[waxen lodge]

Wow, im going to need Chatgpt to summarise this channel each day

[restive thorn]

---

The only solution, I can see, is pooling all eth, and distributing to landowners based on fuel created each day (or some timeframe). removing the bonus for players and the order book for landowners

and

manually move the price up and down to explore demand at different price points.

until

we can build a free market dex.

I'm sure there are other ideas.

[waxen lodge]

I have always written my IIPs with a number it was just force of habit, usually the IMC edits it for me 🤣

[restive thorn]

feel free to ignore my earliest comments I was needlessly upset - just there are some things we need to do to correct things from my pov

[waxen lodge]

Initial Pricing Concerns: Initially, all fuel will be sold at a predetermined upper price (rail price) set by the DAO until player-to-earn (P2E) plots are operational. There is concern that this initial phase might set a price expectation among players that could influence future pricing behavior.

Market Price Discovery: Once the P2E plots start operating, landowners will begin competing by selling fuel, potentially below the DAO-set price. This competition is expected to lead to true market price discovery, although there are concerns that it might result in selling at prices too low, affecting revenue for landowners and the DAO.

Price Undercutting: Some participants fear that undercutting in the market could lead to significant revenue losses. They discuss whether selling below the market rate might be detrimental and explore the possibility that initial higher prices might not reflect true market value.

Proposed Solutions: Suggestions include pooling all earnings and distributing them based on the amount of fuel produced, which could help stabilize prices and ensure fair distribution among landowners. Another idea is to manually adjust prices to explore different demand levels until a more robust decentralized exchange (DEX) can be implemented.

Governance and Strategy Discussions: The conversation also touches on governance issues, like the need for better communication and involvement of community members in decision-making processes.

Is this about right?

[restive thorn]

let's gooo gpt!

That's only like the last couple hours since johnny was here lmao

[waxen lodge]

I guess what I would like to know is how do Landholders feel after the AMA?

Firstly, as Johnny said, that IIP was meant to solve one issue, not compensation. So I hope that is clear now.

With that said - do we agree that landholders should get an additional % of the airdrop up to the value of IB rewards as one piece of compensation?

Do we agree that the idea of not selling any additional land, or airdropping the remaining lands to existing holders will require an IIP and therefore shouldn't muddle the conversation at hand right now?

Are we more satisfied that IZ isn't actually as far off as you think?

[restive thorn]

better after the IIP

-ppl are good with your iip, some concern of the 10 month period

-good on land sales (but want controls to be in place. Land has to be more valuable than the last sale and PE of land should be 20, as the condition to sell more land. This maximizes rev to the dao and protects landowners.

-very happy with land progress.

-There are the outstanding items from people about compensation - can't summerize this off the top of my head.

-then the big one from my pov is the discount the landowners are covering to give players the bonus. That represents additional lost revenue. GPT summarized that well.

[digital magnet]

AMA was good, Johnny's comment here and his detailed updates on zero status were really helpful too. #1229420814986772510 message

Airdrop will be awesome!

[digital magnet]

Should discuss @keen orchid's suggestion here too as I think the time overlap is a big deal and this won't impact ILV holders #1227003710840766484 message

[restive thorn]

oh some concerns about not being able to use fuel to play from land ow

[digital magnet]

The player is still paying $10. Sorry, got timed out and couldn't answer lol

[digital magnet]

I agree with this one, but can accept answers in the town hall plus extra airdrop. Seems fair enough.

[restive thorn]

if you mean extra fuel airdrop to play ya seems like that's what ppl wanted.

[digital magnet]

And I think the equivalent of Beyond Leaderboard rewards will be included in airdrops too

[restive thorn]

but the landowner is getting $9? just to be clear on your example