#IIP-XX Streamlining future land sales

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

solar pulsar
#

This proposal aims to establish the parameters governing future land sales, thereby superseding the "Land Plot Sales" section outlined in IIP-39. The proposal outlines the following parameters:

  1. Minimum duration between land sales.
  2. Size of each land sale.
  3. Sale format, which will adhere to a Dutch Auction format.

Feedback is appreciated.
I will gladly change the size of the landsales or the parameter of the minimum duration between land sales, exchange it completely with another parameter or add aditional parameters.

Keep it simple and rational ladies and gentleman 🙂

Detailed proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRWPEkRPtplPUYzu1Xwr-4JcMrHL72t7eU7ANFn8HRnkhqBdOfWRTXd1IfhPpKD2qQqYHlFhLd77cum/pub

#

Poll for roi% of last landsale investors until next landsale gets unlocked:

  • a) 25%
  • b) 50%
  • c) 75%
  • d) 100%
ancient stump
#

$1.5b in fuel sales.....

#

2029?

#

i prefer releasing the next 20K plots in batches to let the market absorb the increase in supply and let the landowners adjust

solar pulsar
ancient stump
#

i agree on using sales revenue as a milestone, but we prob need to watch for OB revenue to kinda estimate a good target

#

we can argue that axie infinity did a $1.3b rev a year. i personally cant really see it happening this bull with so many games out there, and the new narrative of AI and RWA

solar pulsar
#

its more of a "get a nice revenue" thing than a let "sell land asap" thing

ancient stump
#

thats good. My concern, if we do really well this bull peak and we hit that target, sell 20K plots, then comes the bear market

#

its good that the landowners have made most of their investment back

solar pulsar
ancient stump
solar pulsar
ancient stump
#

i mean you do still have the NFT value, it has been holding up more than i expected. what if you take the floor price as a consideration too?

ancient stump
#

the team hasnt talked about selling the T5, so im speculating that a good time to sell is the bull peak, in 12-18months post halving

solar pulsar
solar pulsar
low flare
#

If we go in with this approach. I think somewhat like jag. If you get 50% on fuel sales plus you still got the land value equal to what you bought it for. That’s plenty for a second land sale. Let’s dale for simplicity sake that with a new land sale you get diluted x2. Then you get your land value halved and plus 50% of fuel sales. That gets you break even. The thing is I wouldn’t know how to keep the land value kinda of steady. Because the first notice of another land sale, people might start selling their lands before the next land sale.

#

whats the objective of land sale. what objective has the next land sale has for the project? capital raise? bringing more players? i think we should ask ourselves this first. i know initially kieran wanted lands to be somewhat an industrialized part of the whole illuvium games. but things can change.

ancient stump
#

the only reasonable objective is sales revenue. team has said that they want to bring more players, but i just dnt get it. i see it as dilution

low flare
#

its hard to talk about this, when we know IZ is still in a tough spot. i think we might get a lot of clarity once game is out. balance patches are out and once we start seeing fuel sales. having another land sale before we take on the many issues many community members fear to encounter is just like shooting yourself in the foot.

#

like mininum duration for next land sale, should be first we adressed most or at least the biggest concerns of IZ community.
Size of each landsale, i honestly dont know
sale format was fine by me. but i wont go over it again personally. i almost died of fatigue lol.

#

i thought about the next landsales being less efficient lands. so if you want to bring in more players but you sell lands less efficient. keep the amount of lands but lesser lands with each land sale.

#

i also thought about new lands. like new resources, if new lands have new resources (some same resources, some new)

#

that way you get new players, less dilution on resource, and fairly good price on land sales.

tropic cypress
#

The proposal seems reasonable @solar pulsar

My only consideration is what about consistency? Say your threshold was 75% but it was like 70% in month 1 and then 1% for the next 5 months, diluting land at that point would be a bad decision.

I'd say add 2 thresholds, you have a total ROI threshold, being 75% or whatever you determine and then an APY threshold being like 10% or something (based on the original sale price). So if Land is at the point where it is consistently profitable, you know dilution isn't too bad. Eg if the land sale is $70m and the land is currently generating $10m every year, then you know its got a good APY and dilution isnt too bad. Better yet if its generating $20m then dilution would mean a 10% apy after the next land sale.

#

No point selling more land unless the current land is performing well as a revenue generating asset every single month

solar pulsar
# tropic cypress The proposal seems reasonable <@483379436901761025> My only consideration is w...

Yea, thought about that too and it is very reasonable and i can certainly add it.
Target was to give Landholders and potential new landholders in the future some security for their investement, so they unlikely to sell and likely to buy, which should increase the value of Land... But also to give as much flexibility to imc as possible as soon as possible.

Keep in mind tho, thats only a "no landsale period" it doesn't mean landsale has to happen immediately after the threshold is met, it is still up to imc to determine now is the time; a landsale will generate great revenue because Land is attractive people have money because Markets are up and we can use the marketing for the Next upcoming game or whatever. If the APY is low, there's no point in selling more Land anyways because it won't generate great revenue.

tropic cypress
solar pulsar
split pond
#

I don’t see a need to ever do another land sale. Just increase the amount of fuel each of the structures make when needed making each current plot more valuable. Problem solved. The ILV token has been significantly diluted due to the low number of them available at their initial release. Why do this to land as well? It’s a premium product. Just add some additional gameplay features to the free to play plots. It reminds me of secondary offerings on the stock market, typically with micro cap stocks. DILUTION SUCKS. If they wanted 100k plots, they should’ve done it in one sale.

ancient stump
solar pulsar
split pond
# ancient stump i think the premise was we are going to onboard so many players. to maintain the...

Idk what you’re talking about. To maintain what price? Land prices? We should want land prices to go up and ILV to go up by increasing the number of people who play overworld.

It’s really this simple. Another 20,000 land plot sale will double the number of plots over a few days. Land equity will get crushed.

I’ve only heard of 2 reasons why we should have more land sales, and both are unconvincing. One, there won’t be enough fuel being generated and prices for fuel will get too high, but this is solvable with an increase in the amount of fuel structures produce, possibly through an update with higher tiers. Two, land sales are a big source of revenue. Well, in that case, there is by no reason to cap it at 5 land sales, do 10, 100, 1000. Im not even totally kidding. Each additional 20,000 plot land sale will become less meaningful on land equity as the percentage supply increase is less with each sale.

There are a lot of ways we could increase revenue. Let’s do a cash shop with holographic rhamphyres. Someone might say “but that would lower the value and meaning of them” and it’s like yeah, exactly.

split pond
solar pulsar
# split pond Idk what you’re talking about. To maintain what price? Land prices? We should wa...

There are 100k for rarity reasons i guess, wasn't here when it got proposed. But it also makes sense, if you do too many Lands it can feel Like Unlimited dilution and prices will Fall to 0.

I have a Big chunk in Land, and totally understand your Argument. I'm also open to Change Stuff up in this proposal, thats why i created the thread in #1020759212172775464 . Like we could talk about that landholders get Discounts on the next sale or stuff like that.

ancient stump
solar pulsar
#

#f2p.... Don't need to sell more Lands to get Players.
Also if you want more Players you should cap the number in any Way.

#

It's an even worse excuse than balancing fuel to get more revenue/attention 😄

ancient stump
#

what should we do with the map tho?

solar pulsar
#

I wouldn't Change it, in no scenario

ancient stump
#

it was designed for 100k plot

#

for reference, sandbox has 122K plots, bayc 45k plots. I dont know if land narrative is still relevant in this cycle or in future cycles

#

i prefer no more land sale unless we can prove that ILV has many players and can retain them. and our revenue decouple from crypto cycles

solar pulsar
#

I feel it's all about how you implement it, if you connect it with gameplay and Lore in a gaming universe, i guess it can be.
If you do it Like most others and just seell a cheap game with AT it's best a very little apy it probably won't

split pond
#

The only way to do more land sales without too much of an issue, would be a slow bleed, like everyday at noon, one plot is sold, for eternity. And it could be a daily event, or 10 plots a week, every weekend, or something.

ancient stump
solar pulsar
split pond
solar pulsar
#

Like if you care about not getting diluted, why would you bring up a solution that gets you diluted harder... Which takes away more Profits of you... It just doesn't Make Sense except you come up with human behaviour where even they pay more they feel better Kind of stuff

split pond
solar pulsar
severe moss
#

I like the idea of basing it on ROI, at least partly. Something that has been discussed a lot before but nothing was ever official. Glad to see it discussed in an IIP idea @solar pulsar

tame whale
#

I’m glad this is being discussed. I’m not sure what percent it should be at but it seems fair to take the price of land in to consideration. Maybe 50% roi is enough.

solar pulsar
tropic cypress
solar pulsar
tender garnet
#

Just read at the encouragement of @solar hinge (late to the party). My initial opinion if we want to be equitable to the current Landholders would be to put a threshhold in a placed tied to "moving average sales price of Land" requirement before new Lands can be issued. And if we really want to be fair, allow existing Landholders the option to buy at the moving average price before going to the public. This is how a stock company would treat its equity holders.

next river
# tender garnet Just read at the encouragement of <@179925123065708544> (late to the party). My...

I understand where you're coming from and that's actually dictated by by-laws of a company not necessarily a requirement. Even so, land here is not comparable to shares of stock or security in a company.

Moving past the whole equity / corp comparison, I understand there are fears from current land owners that they will be diluted once another land sale happens prematurely. The current guardrail for this is that it needs a proposal or imc approval to happen. This means it goes through the DAO still. And from my perspective, I don't see how we would pull this lever when the current state of fuel both on demand and supply is still a problem.

It might not mean much to the community but I firmly believe that both labs and the dao (through its council) would have enough common sense and discernment not to push a land sale in this current situation or environment.

Lastly, we need to be agile and not be constricted by arbitrary duration or LO revenue projections. If any financial metric should be use then it would have to be holistic and not just land owner revenue

tender garnet
# next river I understand where you're coming from and that's actually dictated by by-laws of...

Comforting remarks coming from you. I was asked for my opinion today on this issue. So this was the best common sense and substantive reply that I could come up with. Land NFTs to date are the worst-performing assets I have made in my journey thus far. Since ILV has lost 86% of its value divided by BTC in the last 500 days, my fear is Land is headed towards 99% weakness to BTC in the next 500 days if the trend does not radically change. “This is what it is” as the old Farmer might say. Here to help where I can.

next river
#

Appreciate your thoughts and feedback. I'm here to understand everyone's concerns as well. If the current proposal is lacking id welcome to explore other conditions people might want to propose. Just need to balance it that that we can't expect land owners to get their roi before land sale happens.

tender garnet
#

@solar pulsar @solar hinge Given Scrubs response, I am willing to help in the drafting of an IIP or ICCP. This thread has been open since May so I would suggest its time to "get off the pot." Hope the analogy can transcend all cultural barriers Atlas_Love

solar hinge
solar pulsar
# tender garnet Just read at the encouragement of <@179925123065708544> (late to the party). My...

I've considered this as well, for the same reasons. However:

  • It can be manipulated through wash trading, which could either push the MA up or down depending on the manipulators' intentions. This could result in either reduced revenue or make the land too expensive to purchase during the "landowner presale."

  • The land sale I had in mind (similar to the first one) was intended to be a significant marketing and revenue event. In the worst-case scenario, there might not even be a public sale if some whales choose to manipulate prices downward and buy up all the unsold land during the "landowners presale." This would almost nullify the marketing impact. For sure it would reduce the amount of land available for the public sale using the Dutch auction format to a certain extend, and each piece of land sold at a lower MA could decrease the total revenue generated from the land sale.

solar pulsar
# next river I understand where you're coming from and that's actually dictated by by-laws of...

The ICCP wouldn't reduce agility; it would simply extend the current lockdown period (which is 4 months) to a certain degree. After this extended period, the IMC and labs would still have the flexibility to choose a date for a land sale whenever they see fit. They could initiate it immediately after the lockdown or wait another five years if they prefer.

It's also important to highlight that when it comes to revenue or the interests of token holders, the DAO has never decided in favor of landholders. The recent patch with the drastic fuel cut is just the latest example of this trend. Sure it doesn't mean that couldn't change in future, but there's nothing wrong in providing some security for current landholders and potential new investors in land, ensuring that their interests are better protected.

Additionally, using a holistic revenue approach would be the wrong choice for determining the timing of a land sale. For example, the amount of merchandise sold shouldn't influence the decision to launch another land sale. The focus should remain on factors directly related to land and its value, rather than broader revenue metrics.

next river
# solar pulsar The ICCP wouldn't reduce agility; it would simply extend the current lockdown pe...

Extension to 4 months from open beta is a non-issue and my argument regarding holistic approach has caveats. Obviously, revenue from merch or even beyond should be excluded. Revenue is one part of the equation, DAU or MAU of paid players could be another. My point was simplistic in a sense that we shouldnt just be catering to land holder ROI as the only metric. We need to take into consideration all other factors that makes the decision to do a land sale to the benefit of the whole DAO not just one part of it.

solar pulsar
tender garnet
#

Frankly, if there are no fungible fuel tokens, no free market exchange, and no ability for Labs to deliver on stated deadlines and deliverables for features of ILZ, then there are NO "Landholders." There is no commodity being produced but some kind of manipulated voucher system redeemed by a balancing pool. Land NFTs become nothing more than a 'junior inferior stake' in the ILZ DAO with no voting rights, only participation in 5% of the subset of the revenue, and a hold period of over 32 months w/o any RevDis opportunities. Maybe the best thing, given this environment, is for the Land NFTs to be converted into the ILV or redeemed by the DAO Treasury at par with the original purchase. @next river @tropic cypress what you think? 😉