#Amend IIP-39 to no land sales til 4 months post ILV Zero Launch

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

clever jolt
#

Proposal raised on behalf of @thick salmon
IIP-39 states that no further land sales would occur until a minimum of 4 months after open beta launch. In the case that ILV Zero launches after OW and Arena, this proposal would clarify that no land sales would occur until a minimum of 4 months after ILV Zero launches. This supports the original IIP intention to allow for original land owners time to generate fuel and develop their land for some time before any future land sales would occur, regardless of the scenario if land is delayed.

coarse wolf
#

4 months? No.

#

==========

On the topic of land sales, Kieran says that we are going to forgo 100 million of revenue for the dao, if we don't have more land sales, 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%.

Why 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.

carmine slate
#

While I'd obviously like to see a longer timeline, let's not make this a huge future prediction thread to figure out the right timing today.

Let's take the straight-forward, obvious edit proposed here and move on until a later date. 👍

ancient saffron
buoyant ingot
#

After waiting 2+ years, the idea of possibly getting diluted after only 4 months is another slap in the face. I know it can be edited later on, but I still think that agreeing to the possibility of 4 months now is way too forgiving. Not trying to make a future prediction. Just establishing what's already known. As the baseline that can be edited later on, I'd rather we used the waiting time from Zero sale to release.

ancient saffron
buoyant ingot
ancient saffron
buoyant ingot
rain goblet
#

Do we really need this?? Please don't tell me we're planning on having another land sale in less than 4 months after the game launch...

ancient saffron
carmine slate
naive yew
#

tbh, I dont think its necessary considering the OB that was intended here was OB of IZ which involves the whole P2E experience. But if the community would like to push this for assurance, I have no issues with it.

dusk fjord
#

dont we need an IIP to do a land sale or IIP-39 Land plot balancing will be applied?

naive yew
kindred fractal
#

Selling more land shouldn't even be being talked about at this point.
Let's get the plots we already have up and running and then talk about it.

light vault
kindred fractal
light vault
ancient saffron
light vault
ancient saffron
light vault
#

And maybe we go on a specialized plots route. I like the idea of opportunity cost on specializing on providing for ow or arena or a kart game or whatever . Also this way a land sale will have a mitigated effect on land price.

#

My direction of preference on illuvium zero is the economic simulator game ( I know it is very niche) but since we want IZ to be like the center of all the games why not make it this way. We can always make more mobile games.

ancient saffron
light vault
#

And then maybe MC can shine being able to diversify properly by being more efficient on space . Lowering risk as an overall investment.

light vault
#

Also would have been great if we had like different % on farming resources given the area our plot is giving trade between plots a whole new meaning.

#

We can still do it. Just not at this initial stage.

#

Sry for dropping a lot of off topic here

naive yew
#

So I'd like to make it clear that the 4 month period that was in the iip was in the off shoot event that illuvium goes parabolic in it's first year from OB and there's a need to address the lack of fuel supply being generated by land owners.

All of us in council will not entertain any speak of land sale unless certain right conditions are present.

Having said that, I understand that this gives little assurance to the sentiment of land owners now.

Rather than amending the duration/period, I would suggest adding specific conditions which should validate the need for selling any future land.

ancient saffron
# naive yew So I'd like to make it clear that the 4 month period that was in the iip was in ...

You don't need more land to serve a parabolic increase in demand, you can just balance it.

Like, what you do if down the road we sold 80k Land and 20k is left, because we went parabolic and have 60m DAU... Now all of a sudden we go parabolic for real and increase dau to 1.5b DAU. You just release the remaining 20k Lands for the 1.4b new DAU and be Like "well, whate else we can do?🤷🏻" ?

naive yew
# ancient saffron You don't need more land to serve a parabolic increase in demand, you can just b...

Your example is extreme. Why would we sell 80k land? The parameters of the sale would align with the demand and conditions. How I see it it wont even be a 20k land sale. It might not be a 10k one even. It would be trickle kind of sale. And one thing the community should keep in mind is that any type of land sale needs an IIP. This cant be triggered unilateraly by labs or IMC.

Benefit of selling land is bigger for the DAO as a whole as it brings more players and revenue (land sale plus in game sales) vs increasing just the output of fuel generation for plots which just benefits the land owners. If the issue is that land owners should have an opportunity to get back their investment, yes I agree that should be a consideration. Which is why certain conditions should be met.

ancient saffron
# naive yew Your example is extreme. Why would we sell 80k land? The parameters of the sale ...

Yea, i know. There has to be an iccp for changing iip-39, if not it's an automated mini landsale System thats going to kick of whenever council feels it should.

It was extreme to show that there are and should be other Systems in place to balance fuel with an increasing playerbase... to show that one shouldn't consider using DAU as the top metric when Landsales get triggered. If, it should be like the least weigthed metric, yet it was often the only reason i saw whenever a council member was talking about next landsale.

Also if you don't p2a forever, what is the data you actually get during the p2a Phase worth? Surely something, but also there shouldn't be decisions made drastically changing values of the ecosystem with that data.

Other stuff like the promised considerable Return of landowners should have, possible value a landsale generates with a more built out ecosystem (the more genres are covered the more DAU we have the more Land should be worth), longterm Goal of releasing 10+ Games and release Land proportionally to the size of the ecosystem etc. should be metrics council should consider.

Bringing up the reason Landsales bring in more Players is the worst reason i heared lately. Like thats x more people on the supply side compared to an increase of an unknown number on the demand side (worst case 0 on demand side) and opens the door to abuse as an excuse if dau number is low.... Like it doesn't even matter if we have high or low dau numbers we should release more Land.

carmine slate
#

Setting conditions that allow land owners an opportunity to get back their investment is a very complex task. I think if we try to do this now the community will likely be overly conservative.

Would take $1.444B in digital revenue for land holders to make back the initial $72.2M spent on land.

FP is also meaningful though. Per tier something like $817, $3266, $9798, and $29393 might be required to get the same valuation again, which we can then expect to be reduced proportionally by the number of new plots released.

So possibly some combination of a lesser amount of digital revenue generated, plus floor prices somewhat equivalent to land sale purchase prices with an added % for to compensate for the impact of new supply.

Anyone want to take a stab at this? 😁

carmine slate
#

I do very much agree with @ancient saffron though, it can't be based on DAU as that does not reflect gains at all. It also can't be based on fuel demand being stuck at the upper guard rail since land owners clearly have no control over that and no benefit from it. (price may be too low, fuel output of land may be too low, ILZ not being launched well ahead of OB reduces our ability to supply fuel greatly)

carmine slate
# carmine slate Setting conditions that allow land owners an opportunity to get back their inves...

Ok, I'm too deep now...how about something like this?

Requirements to release new land plots:

  1. Total Illuvium Digital Sales must equal dollar value of existing plots' mint prices + 10%
    AND
  2. Average floor prices of land plots over the previous 30 days must equal dollar value of existing plots' mint prices + (X * 2)% where X is the proposed percentage increase in land plots with the new sale. (to be calculated by taking T1 floor price * # T1 lands + T2 floor price * # T2 lands + ....etc)

Very open to suggestions/edits of the specific percentages of course. I'm sure people will feel they're too low 😄

#

This is in response to @naive yew's suggestion of setting conditions that allow land owners an opportunity to get back their investment before allowing further land sales.

buoyant ingot
dusk fjord
#

the criteria should be revenue growth

ancient saffron
carmine slate
dusk fjord
buoyant ingot
dusk fjord
light vault
#

Is there a reason to sell new plots before the next bear? Like raising capital for the next X years or new game development? Maybe if we test ground during the next bear we can make some decisions based on experience ( as useless as it might be, since few data point do nothing)

carmine slate
carmine slate
buoyant ingot
buoyant ingot
#

I'm not disagreeing with the DAO making more money during a bull run. I'm just saying account it properly.

carmine slate
# dusk fjord thats the issue with crypto games. what if we sold more plots in the bull and re...

If the conditions are set appropriately, land owners will be in a good place at the time of any new land sale (e.g. during bull) and need to choose to either hold or sell at that point like everyone else in other assets before the next bear.

Remaining risk is that of having too much fuel now for the market demand. This needs to be solved in-game. Either reduce production or increase in-game fuel costs. Most fuel supply issues long-term will be solved in-game and not through land sales.

dusk fjord
dusk fjord
dusk fjord
buoyant ingot
naive yew
# carmine slate This is in response to <@573486761292857346>'s suggestion of setting conditions ...

I'd say that it's too constricting to expect that land owners should roi or be close to it before another land sale happens.

I'm not an expert in this so I can't take a stab in terms of formulas but i do believe it's in the right direction where we use daily volume over DAU as it's not a guarantee that these are paying players.

I'd like to see something that incorporates daily volume + percentage of land owner fuel sold out of the total fuel sales or something like that. I'm pretty sure I'm missing more factors here.

carmine slate
# naive yew I'd say that it's too constricting to expect that land owners should roi or be c...

If the goal is to set rules around when another land sale can occur, without much certainty of what the future holds, then it will be near impossible to gain land owner buy-in without a part of it ensuring existing land holders aren't still in the red on their mint price when new plots are released.

When you say ROI, are you assuming an amount? I thought my suggestion required fairly minimal ROI and was about the least constricting you'll see a land owner propose, but it could be adjusted too.

When you mention daily volume, is this because you're looking at it from the perspective of how much fuel supply is available? If so, I do not think minting more land is the right approach to add fuel to the system as it should be balanced in-game instead until the whole economy really warrants another land sale.

dusk fjord
#

imo likely to happen, bull peak, everyone is hyped, people gonna vote for more land sale anyway

keen trench
#

i cant believe that we r already discussing another land sale, wtf are these 4 months? we would need like 5 years until next land sale

#

they just cant wait to burry us.

dusk fjord
#

tbf we know that there are 4x more supply when we minted/bought land
the earning potential of land is theoritically capped by this

keen trench
#

that is if land has value and the floor price is high, which is not the case. nobody has taken a cent, there is no game yet and we are already talking about selling more.

carmine charm
#

Next land sale only when the floor price has the average of 25% of the starting auction prices. T4 floor price 20ETH etc. We all know what will happen after the next land sale happens.