ICCP-XX Restructuring of holo-airdrop-points

[viscid sonnet]

Posting on behalf of @zenith marsh

Following my post in feedback ideas https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1250961154583302225 ⁠I propose to change the holo-airdrop to be more consistent with the previous point structure to value the time users already spent in our eco-system.
Full proposal below.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z4G8BIRBAcOibUqmSKdV5RXQ9KCDnBErB7YBARvqcjg/edit?usp=drivesdk

[zenith marsh]

edited one part because the point wasn't well defined
"The factor between airdrop points and invested time should be aimed to roughly be around 1.0 – 2.5 between changes (Meaning if users receive 10 points per hour during one patch, that would mean the next patch should hand out 25 points per hour at a maximum)."
If this change has any impact on the opinion on the upvotes of @thorn zephyr or @dense sphinx please reconsider your choice.
Furthermore I added a short summary to be closer to the normal proposal structure.

[thorn zephyr]

all good 👌

[mighty plover]

Thats a hot one. No matter the end result this discussion has been a great proof of how effective our governance system can be!

Tbh its hard to know exactly without the droprates and ratio

Anyway you got my 👍 , Im confident that the IMC will be able to take the best decision based on this and the Teams perspective and data

[fervent swift]

so what. we continue to play without knowing the final rules and see what happen at the end of the beta ?
it's a bit of a joke since the start how this airdrop is managed for a project that big.

[rustic adder]

This is just getting silly...There will always be people complaining that "this update helps x player base more than me"

Whether you were early grinding PB4 or just joining today. It should not matter...

I think everyone needs to remember the team is trying to force certain player behavior. This is a "BETA on TESTNET" They are applying and updating air drop points in a way to generate engagement want to test.

We are playing for free. Everyone should stop complaining about changes, unless it actually makes a bad gameplay effect. This is just ridiculous and makes the DAO look bad to anyone who is just entering.

when we actually pay for fuel, nfts, etc. Air drop should be very concrete and updates can be scrutinized.

[zenith marsh]

1. I agree it should not matter if you joined today or three years ago. Everybody should get a fair amount for their time investment

2. It is ok and even demanded to update the airdrop system but it should be done in a logical manner

3. As written the gameplay effects are negative because the gameloop is destroyed with this announcement

4. I agree this makes Illuvium look bad for that reason this ICCP is very important

5 I cant trust the team to behave better during mainnet if this is how they treat their core playerbase

[rustic adder]

I think the only thing I need to address in your comment is the gameloop? How is it destroyed?

Potentially the best way to get points in the current system is to get a holo and fuse it up. This means you will need to collect everything as you get holos.

Unless you are taking the safe route and want to fuse only 3 holos at a time for a hundred % chance. In which case you may get less points to someone who decides to risk it. I imagine towards the end, some gamblers(including myself) will be fusing holo rhamphys for a chance at a holo rhamphyr

Some people will play it safe and some will risk. It allows for two types of playstyles that we WILL see on release.

Since the points scale with stage significantly.(Same with how the NFTs price will scale with HOLOs) I think it is a much better representation of how the main net will play out.

I'm still not convinced an IIP is necessary for anything. or that the team has done anything igregious. I think they could be more clear that the airdrop would change(potentially dramatically) but I all I care about is long term success. I feel confident that if they are forcing us to pick up holos that is because it is the behavior they need to watch and adjust for the live game.

[tight jacinth]

I do think the Holo rewards are a bit over the top but the high amounts are bringing attention to Illuvium. It's on social media. It's here, it is everywhere. I don't think it is critical enough to change and go back on because that would make Illuvium look bad imo.
It's testnet and new things are going to be thrown at us along the way, things are going to be changed and I think we just have to roll with whatever comes our way.
Like Caveman pointed out, if they are leading us in this direction I am going to assume there is a reason. They have a month and 11 days to work out every kink that needs to be worked out. People are upset when they feel they are missing out of airdrop points how will they be when it is real ETH that they paid to play the game?
I don't think now is the time for community or DAO to try to micromanage the team. Let's let them do their job.

[thorn zephyr]

its marketing and we get it, it attracts new players, its good, its what kieran does best and he excells at it. Now there is a very thin line between benefiting newcommers and disregarding the effort that the most loyal players did

[zenith marsh]

I was very diplomatic with this. The truth is the team mislead people to think they worked up a good amount of points with their 100+++ hours and afterwards out of the blue they took the rewards they already had in their mind away.
I am mind blown how that is even defendable! The arguments against this are without any substance. The team mislead their own playerbase.
We could have attracted new players without smashing veteran players in the trash bin. I am happy to let them do their job if it isn't damaging their playerbase.

[tight jacinth]

But can't we still play and get the airdrops?

[thorn zephyr]

maybe you can, maybe some don't have the time, thats irrelevant

[tight jacinth]

But it's already done. How do we go back and not make it worse?

[zenith marsh]

I lost my trust and it seems some other lost their trust in the consistency of the management. For me this is a do or break situation. How many times behaviour like this will repeat if we don't stop it here?

[tight jacinth]

True, that is a good point, as some people did take time off right for when it started.

[tight jacinth]

Makes me sad to read this. I'm going to go get some irl work done and think on this.

[thorn zephyr]

its only sad if there is nothing we can do about it in my opinion, if we can have a word on it and team listens its actually good

[zenith marsh]

sure, good argument. Implying that I don't have a life or something. I gladly add to this ICCP that I won't get any airdrop ever if that helps protecting this project from arbitrary decisions. No problem. These are my numbers @thin hamlet please delete every capture from me from the point system.

[rustic adder]

Some people could not play at the beginning this is a bad rational in my opinion.

But back to @zenith marsh

Look here's the deal. I imagine they will keep changing the airdrop structure as the next month goes on. And as someone who already has over 300 hours I could care less.

Look they still need to test out Arena the new gauntlet mode eventually . I'm sure they will add larger air drops to those also down the line. They need to move players on to the next thing testing path. That will inheintly hurt some who grinded early. but this is still for the better ment of the project.

The only thing they could have improved on is mentioning in advance where they would be testing so we would know. And potentially spilt the air drop per testing segment. But they also need to leave flexibility to change in case something came that they didn't expect

[tender swallow]

Doesn't open beta per definition entail a lack of consistency? I for one think it ought to.

And again, we play with fake money and get some real money back. I think team can do as they please and knows best what's good for the longevity of their game.

[tight jacinth]

What? I wasn't implying anything. You have totally misread me. I just looked at the clock and realized I have spent my day playing the game and chatting on Discord and I really do need to get some stuff done, it wasn't directed at you at all. I just wanted to let you know that I will be thinking about what you said and trying to weigh this all out in my mind. That was it. No attacks. No arguing.

Was explaining why I was disappearing from the conversation for a bit, that was it.

[zenith marsh]

yes, a open beta on its own does. A airdrop doesn't. This seems to be the main problem here.

[zenith marsh]

exactly for that reason it is important to structure the airdrop system a bit. This is the exact reason I included future airdrops loosely into this ICCP. You can adjust the system but you should be able to adjust in a way that benefits new and old players alike

Is it really asked to much to be a bit more considered while adjusting the airdrop system?

[tender swallow]

Not really, it's still your fake money and their real money. Things would be different if this were to happen after the 25th of July.

[zenith marsh]

that it might happen after the 25th of July is partly a point in this. If it is too hard to adjust the system in a way that benfits everybody now why it should be suddenly possible after the release?

After 25th we are still in beta. Many changes to come.

[tender swallow]

I'm just going to repeat what I said yesterday if I continued here. So I won't. Let's agree to disagree again 🙂

[rustic adder]

For main net it makes sense, but for testing purposes If they made air drops 1000points per hour to test something important because the team needed to. Then that makes sense to me. Once again we have not spent any money here.

I would totally support and even help co-sponsor a proposal that requested clear airdrop check points for main net. With snapshots on specific dates. 100% behind that.

[zenith marsh]

Like the 2nd part we 100000% need this.

regarding the first part: You could get people to test something if you just take the current points and double them. You don't need a factor of 1000 and increase the variance among players as much as you can. It would have the same effect in regards of new players without upsetting everybody else.

[rustic adder]

Were you in the chat on the first day of this patch? Did you see how all the new airdrop farmers were frustrated and wanting to leave the game because of the changes? They thought the OGs had the major advantage because it was way harder to get T5 S3s. Then the team made the announcement and probably went so high to try and retain those players.

It is a very difficult to make everyone happy and it is always better to add extra incentive towards the desired testing behavior. I think the team took the right step. I'll stop there as I think I presented my opinion the best I can. and try to let other voice their thoughts.

I am happy to see you and other pushing IIPs and using the governance system 🙂

[zenith marsh]

yes, and I created this https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1250811253081903217 to make the first step for a fairer system for new users. As I said I am willing to give up on all my points if that helps the project. I want fairness not only for new players not only for old users but for everybody. For that reason I want to correct the massive overstep the team took here. There is a way to protect the interest of veteran players and to give new players some sort of catch up mechanism. I want the team to do better in this regard.

[thorn zephyr]

i literally said ''its irrelevant'' at the end of the sentence

[rustic adder]

Lol sorry miss read you comment 😅 my apologies

[thorn zephyr]

lol all good

[zenith marsh]

1. sorry for leashing out a bit against you in one of my comments above. Even if I misunderstood you, I should have kept my cool.
2. I can see that this a relevant concern because the team can't affort to lose face. I went with a corrective way over one airdrop phase during testnet, because somebody argued, that it would be hurtful, if we split the reward into several phases, in that regard, that people have uncompleted lines, because they weren't prepared for this. Maybe, it is the best to take that hit, split the airdrop into three phases of 10k each and be happy about it. I could compromise with that but ofc. I can only speak on my behalf.

[tight jacinth]

Thanks for the apology. I am glad you said something though as it gave me a chance to explain instead of having you think I was being snarky towards you.

I keep on thinking about what you said. What made me sad is to read you lost your trust, you've been here a long time. I think that's where the difference is between how we view this. I haven't lost mine. I'm really not sure that giving this many points for holos was a good idea but at the end of the day I am going to trust the team is doing what they are doing for a reason and have a plan. I don't think we can go backwards on this without more harm than good but for mainnet we definitely need clear rules set out and no changes to them.

Thanks for the conversation. I hope this doesn't make you leave the community or Illuvium.

[viscid sonnet]

@pearl violet can the ICC request a report on how the intro of holo points have been affecting the leaderboard to make an informed vote.
Thank you

and maybe a projection of the effect based on encounter chance, capture chance and the bonding curve

i am also requesting a list of the top leaderboard participants to get their sentiment/feedback on the intro of holo points

[minor cloak]

we need an airdrop leaderboard to boost the competition

a page like the beyond launch party would also be nice, to see the newest black holo captured. But that isn't necessary, just something it would be nice to have.

[viscid sonnet]

they said end of month

for public use

im asking for their internal one under nda

[minor cloak]

awesome!

[minor cloak]

gotcha 🫡

[shy escarp]

Proposal rejected?

[viscid sonnet]

id like to wait for more data from team

[zenith marsh]

I would love to see the daily cumulative playtime over the last 10 days. Just curious how the holo announcement influenced the dedication of our playerbase. Furthermore, DAU numbers would be interesting as well.

[thorn zephyr]

this is the way.

[shy escarp]

Interesting. A very good observation

[viscid sonnet]

@zenith marsh i still havent received the data i requested from the team.
if you want to go ahead for a vote, i can upload it to github

[gentle pumice]

I agree with this. I'd lean slightly towards nerfing it but really dont think its worth forcing the team to do it (voting no). Changing it will cause more drama than its worth and there are some very good arguments for making it as high as they have (marketing, testing, still good for everyone)

[zenith marsh]

Yeah, go for the vote @viscid sonnet. They will decline it in the IMC but at least we tried and they have to think about this stuff again.
For me it is still crazy how this gets addressed as it would be a small issue. I see that it is get more difficult with every day that passes to roll back on the announcement (Community issues weren't important enough to be addressed right away? The issue wasn't important enough?). I guess, a compromise aligned with the rough outline of the standard operational procedure (SOP) explained below could be a good choice.
We are basically talking about a "time rug-pull". Even after several days we got no reaction from the team about this. We got a lot of cheap arguments that belittle this mess. A rug-pull is demanding something (money, time), promising something (a game, airdrop points) and just break your promise. For sure, this is a little stretched but way to close to give any sort of comfort.
people got promised rewards for their time
invested time got multiplied with a factor of 0.01 after two weeks to soft reset progress
people are rightfully upset about being mislead
lets talk this down because it was free money to begin with, so, no harm in going back on implied promises.
lets talk this down. Nobody will notice that we have 0 respect for peoples time.
lets talk this down. Nobody will notice that we broke our word.

Who protects us from this in the future? Especially after 25th of July.
Aside from this vote we need another vote in the near future to protect the community from arbitrary behavior.
I won't write a proposal for this but maybe somebody from the team should do that to regain trust.

IIP-XX Standard operation procedure (SOP) for future airdrop campaigns which include in-game activities.
Every future airdrop should following the procedure described below.

1. Assign a airdrop amount x (can only be increased)
2. Assign a time periode y (can only be shortened)
3. Create a first point system
4. Explain that the airdrop will follow this SOP
5. After each major balance change to the game or the point system a snapshot is taken
6. Every snapshot *should * be announced 48h in advance
7. Every snapshot will work as a sub-time-frame to calculated a portion of the rewards for every sub-time-frame
8. The sub-time-frames are weighted based on their duration
9. Every user gets a potion of each sub-time-frame based on their contribution during each sub-time-frame and based on the weight of every specific sub-time-frame
10. Because the amount of sub-time-frames can change over the course of the airdrop the rewards are calculated at the end of the campaign.
11. The Drop can be paused for a short time if a severe reasons like exploits/cheats accure. The paused has to be added to the overall time frame. The pause can only be for the duration of 2 weeks max. Afterwards council/Community have to agree on this to prevent the campaign to be frozen permanently

Example for the 30k airdrop prior to launch:

• airdrop 30k
• duration 7 weeks
• point system
• announcement
• announcement 48h prior + snapshot prior to hollow change
• resulting time-frames:

1. normal Illuvial hunting (2 weeks)
2. Holo hunting (2 weeks)
3. Gear crafting (1 week)
4. Arena/gauntlet (2 weeks)

• 4 leaderboards with the weights 1/7 for gear crafting and 2/7 for the rest
• users get a points based on their contribution within the leaderboard with the weighting factor of that leaderboard
• distribution after the timeframe y is up

With that the team would have enough freedome to what ever they want by just creating a new sub-set and nobody can be stripped of their effort retrospectively.

Also I would be interested in the data requested here. Was this at least worth it in regards of new players and activity? Cant imagine this but maybe I am wrong on this one.

[viscid sonnet]

ok will do

[pearl violet]

Waiting on you ser

https://tenor.com/view/computer-busy-cat-typing-gif-12426372

[viscid sonnet]

uploaded this proposal to github
iip-58
@pearl violet

[pearl violet]

https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1252532552728580127

[viscid sonnet]

thx rich

[viscid sonnet]

any chance the ICC will be presented with a report on how the holo points is affecting the leaderboard?

or if the team would like to comment on this matter?

[nova spade]

Who even approved these numbers in the first place and though they were a good idea?

[nova spade]

and what was the reasoning behind it?

[pearl violet]

We just talked to IMC about it yesterday after several texts about yes

We can meet today if you want

[pearl violet]

The data team and admins

[pearl violet]

They actually are doing well for what their intent was

[nova spade]

Was the intent to market it, create hype and than change it a week later to normal numbers? Would be cool to hear from someone that decided the numbers what the thinking behind it was.

edit: this is an honest question, I’m not trying to bash anyone

[zenith marsh]

making the game less fun? Breaking the game in regards of leveling and capturing? Creating a jumping simulator? Getting some new players who are only interested in the airdrop? Pushing your core playerbase away so they aren't willing to pay anymore if game reaches mainnet?

I know these questions sound salty but this is all I can see. Maaaaybe you got some exposure but for veteran players you sold your credibility and looked more like a scam project that wants to get twice the marketing effect out of the same amount.
I just don't get it. That this is supposed to be worth it.

[pearl violet]

Opinions are something everyone is entitled to yes

Beautiful thing about DAOs, really accentuates this

[viscid sonnet]

ill send u a msg

[nova spade]

Does the fact that we are a DAO makes it cool to make deliberate mistakes just so we can fix them?

Would still be cool to hear what was the intent of this silly numbers and the reasoning behind them.

[cyan flicker]

obviously to attract new players even tho we are already in the middle of the airdrop

[thorn zephyr]

jumping simulator got me 😂

this was a pure marketing move, plain and simple. If not i'd love to hear good reasoning for such exorbitant points. Curious to see how the voting goes

[marsh kernel]

#📯〕council-chambers message

[zenith marsh]

good points! I believe you meant "IIP-58 Coherent and Consistent Airdrop Structure" not "IIP-57..." ?

[marsh kernel]

Ah shit really hahaha, good catch

[marsh kernel]

An embarassing oversight, thank you

I posted the link to my reasoning here, given I didn't go too heavy into 'community sentiment' in this particular instance, and I'd like to remain transparent about that

[shy escarp]

Mainet is getting closer and closer every day. You are procrastinating a lot with this balance of HOLO points.

If you do it late, you will only spoil everything even more, and the F2P game system is already broken enough, not to mention the guys who played 14 hours a day and now someone can catch up to their 500k points in a couple of hours because they are more lucky.

Also someone noticed that you have errors in your codes. 3 dark holo illuvium T2S2 appear in one fight. Which gives an instant 54k points in just one fight.

[zenith marsh]

thank you for explaining your decision. I totally agree that some points like the damaged testing environment got not enough attention in my proposal.
Especially after launch the airdrop should make some sense in terms of the existing gameloop. Also I get that the team needs freedom to test certain mechanics and that it could cause some difficulties to roll back on the current system on a marketing level (not rolling back obv. has its own difficulties as seen in the community sentiment).

After initiating this proposal I realized that this IIP is good as asupervisory concept but as a long term solution something like I wrote in this message #1251221577119432805 message could be a better solution. I guess with all the "should" and none binding phrasing in IIP 58 a inclusion could be possible? In the end it is important that the airdrops are coherent, understandable and secure for old players and offer the oppertunity to attract new users without damaging the game- and testingloop. I think a SOP like described in the linked post could do that but ofc. any other solution that includes these principles is welcomed.

[marsh kernel]

I definitely understand that making sure airdrops remain consistent and established as possible is important. Far less important in testnet, but for mainnet this sort of stuff won't go over well. We have seen how players reacted to much of Big Times decision making

[zenith marsh]

I guess, aside from the marketing effect they are trying to reflect the target values for holos/dark holos with these values. Sadly, the spawn rates for holos/dh are/were way too high to be in line with the points for completing a certain tier/line. Also, the paying component is missing atm which causes a major imbalance as well. I still think that they could have tested this in a better way without causing all the other issues we already discussed here. Also not a fan of increasing the variance during testnet this way. In the end being more consistent is still very important regardless of the reasons.

Btw. 3 council members approved. Do we need to wait for the last vote for IMC to vote on this or can we already start?

[nova spade]

@somber crown I honestly don't understand your point so I have a few follow up questions if you have the time to answer them?

You say that this marketing move is great because it brought a lot of players. But then you say that people aren't playing the game because of airdrop points?

Then you say that there are people that are enjoying the game and playing the game because the like it, but we shouldn't reward them, we should reward airdrop lottery?

You think it's fair that T5S2 holo is worth the same as 2000 hours of playing and testing the game?

Is marketing and bringing people in just for airdrop more important than players testing the game and playing it?

How does this lottery help test the game? Is there something we don't know? Why there aren't any incentive to play Stage 1, 2, 3 regions? Why there aren't any incentive to forge weapons? Why there aren't any incentive to do other things that will help us test the game in variety of ways? What does lottery help us test?

[somber crown]

I'm saying the hook is the holos, then people stay for the fun game they didn't know about. We don't need to financially reward players who are playing the game for fun, their reward is a good time, anything extra is just extra. I do think the rarest holos should be worth hundreds of hours of gameplay, thats why they are rare. People who spend hundreds of hours playing a game they also just enjoy playing will be that much more likely (and excited) to find the rarest things. The marketing around this is bringing in players that come in and do all of the other things, they aren't just coming in and farming for holos, that's just what got them initially interested.

That is at least my opinion, not saying it's the only way to look at it. I can also use myself as an example. I have over 60 hours in-game in the past 7 days and have not spent any time looking specifically for holos.

[nova spade]

But that's where I think you are wrong, our marketing hook isn't the holos, it's the airdrop points win $$$ if you catch holos. And then the join the game, the realize that nothing else is worth any airdrop points apart from holo, and are there even trying the game at that point? Are they testing it?

Everything I'm saying is - we need to test the game, that's why we're on testnet testing the game - if we're giving away money - don't give it away to players that will come and only catch holos, try to encourage gameplay that will test everything.

For example - how are we currently testing mining and are the drops from that okay? How many people are going on a mining runs in stage 1 and 2, how many people are forging something that they don't find useful currently with monopoly money? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe we don't need to test those things. Maybe we just need to test that holos can be caught.

But to me, this airdrop lottery points system is so wrong and I still haven't heard one reason to think differently. That the only reason I was asking you all those questions. I just wanna see the other side - but still not seeing it.

[somber crown]

I think my point is that we are already getting data on those things. The introduction of holos didn't stop people from doing the stage 1 and 2 mining runs. I do them every day and others I talk to are as well.

[cold jungle]

i agree i think the points are way to high for halos and especially dark halos i have been playing about 400 hours and with 1 run people can just pass me and 100 points for an hour is too low i understand wanting to get people in to play but the people that big airdrops bring in are not long term players they are paper hands that are gonna dump all the ilv and rewards they get and leave the game meanwhile the people been here since the start are left holding the now diminished bags after getting a smaller reward allocation. what is the point of getting in early and holding if i could the same just coming in at the end... no incentive for the real believers... so what these noob paper hand airdrop farmers are crying cause they cant catch up they should have been invested for 2 or 3 or 4 years like the rest of us who held through the bear... they are only here to dump on our heads yall giving up long term stability for short term hype and its gonna screw us real holders in the end

[nova spade]

Also what's with people that were only able to test the game first months and can't play anymore. They are useless.

[cold jungle]

yeah thats the other thing, i hate how the private beta was supposed to be a set number of points equal for everyone and then they made a vote to change it to how many hrs and how many illuvials you got like the open beta is. i know personally i didnt go as hard grinding private beta cause i didnt want to burn myself out early so i played about 100 hours in private and took it easy if i would have know it was gonna be tallied the other way then i would have just started grinding immediately so i am pretty salty about that cause i feel like i got screwed i have done nothing but hype this game and support it so why are new airdrop farmers more important i think mixing the airdrop and the testing was a huge mistake

[dusty valley]

I'm in the fk airdrop farmers camp too but the answer is quite obvious, the current investors are already maxed out, need to draw fresh blood. So even if we retain 10% of the scumbags it's still something. Also more exposure. It's a marketing gimmick after all

[shy escarp]

One day when the game is completely dead, the Illuvium Team will realize it, and then it will be too late.

Real players before any popularity.

[viscid sonnet]

thats so dark

[zenith marsh]

hmm, I don't understand the feedback that the proposal is too concrete because the proposal isn't binding at all. I intentionally used phrases like "**should **be **aimed **to **roughly **be around" which makes most points in the proposal on a juristic standpoint obsolete anyway. I already wrote it in that way to keep the final solution open.
Also this issue kinda aligns with the discussion regarding the training-center IIP. On the one hand we are supposed to write a IIP as concrete as possible and on the other hand it should be as none binding as possible because labs needs the freedom to figure solutions out by themselves. Maybe, it would help if the councils(+sponsor) write a counter proposal with similar points and phrasing they can agree on.
Once again, I think, with this proposal many solutions are possible. One solution could be once again this #1251221577119432805 message
For me personally it is very important that mistakes like this one are impossible in the future because we cannot afford to upset our playerbase to this degree on a regular basis. Therefore, it is important that labs understands what exactly the mistake was (I think we talked about this a lot already). Sadly, I am not sure if labs understood the damage these actions caused. Sure, maybe we hit a specific target number but also a lot of the damaging impact was ignored. Fundamentally, it is a mistake and too simple to just think about an airdrop as "free money" because people play a game that gets reset very soon which means nearly everybody would have stopped playing it after reaching a certain point. That means the airdrop basically is a sort of payment for testers which suddenly gets changed on a scale nobody expected. We had a lot more arguments from different people which I refrain from reciting here but I still want to say that a airdrop shouldn't be the same as a raffle.

[shy escarp]

Do you feel like no one cares what you write? 🙂

[zenith marsh]

I totally get where you are coming from with that. I definitely had phases after the holo release in which I felt the same but I can ensure you that is not the case. They care a lot about what is written here and it is a topic for the team. I had a call from @red badge on Friday during which we discussed how we can restructure the IIP in a progressive way for all sides. Since the IMC has a meeting today, I already rewrote the IIP based on that call and hope that the IMC will approve it after some further small changes. That being said the IIP in its current form aims to implement an airdrop structure that prevents future irritations of this sort.
Furthermore, I would like to add that the variance we have now will in some sort always be part of the game, because even during mainnet some people will get extremely lucky and find a rare DH. This variance will always induce an incentive for users to gamble on their luck.
Overall, all pro and contra arguments are seen and the IMC will aim to find a good solution which will be beneficial for the future of the project and its playerbase.

[shy escarp]

I sincerely hope that is the case and that the vote goes in favor of changing the structure around dark holo airdrop points

[thorn zephyr]

whats stopping you guys from talking in this channel?

would be nice for everyone to know where the airdrop is headed and whats being considered

[zenith marsh]

Fair enough, but I don't have more insight than I just presented. In the end the IMC will discuss how to proceed from here.
I hope that we all get some clarification in the very near future but for now the IMC deserves the time to discuss this matter among themselves.

[thorn zephyr]

thanks 👍

[cold jungle]

wtf dude no not at all what i want its not us or them we are all in this together i would much rather this game do good and succeed in the long run rather than me just making a quick buck now. thats not what im here for or have been here for everyone is expecting to get paid before the game is even out... in what world does that ever happen. there will be such a larger chance to make a good amount of money once the game actually has come out and has a big player base. come on yall. WHAT WE NEED IS BALANCE..... BALANCE people .... BALANCE!!!!!!!!!!! lol

[zenith marsh]

Ok, @red badge | Illuvimod helped me rewriting the IIP in accord to the meeting of the IMC. I think this a very good solution which will structure future airdrops in a way that prevents any irritation. The IIP will take effect with the start of testnet season 2 (crafting - see link posted by blickter below) and won't retrospectively change the airdrop structure because that would cause further chaos and potentially cause further upsets for players who invested a lot of time in hunting holos. I know this might upset some people but at least we can ensure that irritations like this can be prevented in the future. Inaccuracies like the point system for holos had to happen sooner or later. I think it is good that we discovered this stumbling block during testnet and that we as a playerbase were able to introduce a system that will improve the workflow (If this IIP gets passed).
Finally, I would like to remind everybody that the variance that got introduced with the holo airdrop structure will in some sort always be part of the universe because during mainnet somebody will find a dh t5s3 while others won't despite their efforts.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZJVYRWMYp6fd4GNqrPOdhGYTamvgCXfvSxqeOrJ4fvM/edit

[red badge]

https://illuvium.io/news/openbeta-testnet-airdrop-points-explained

[nova spade]

That's a joke.

Timeline is basically:

1. Illuvium announcing airdrop and saying: "Every moment spent in Illuvium counts towards your rewards. Your dedication will be rewarded, whether you're hunting for Illuvials, capturing, fusing, or just exploring."
2. Illuvium ready to introduce holos.
3. Someone probably suggested fair points for the holo Illuvials based on actual data and though behind it.
4. Someone decided: "Let's just make it a MILLION POINTS so it sounds better" so we can attract 5k more players for testing.
5. Realizing that not every moment spent in Illuvium counts towards your rewards. And that your dedication will only be rewarded if you catch holos, not if you're hunting for Illuvials, capturing, fusing or just exploring.
6. Realizing that people are not playing the game anymore as they should, so there is no relevant testing data, it's just speed running for holos.
7. Not changing broken lottery so that 5k new players that are here just for airdrop won't get mad.
8. Never saying anything about it publicly.
9. Ignoring all feedback and suggestions.
10. Admitting it's broken and needs fixing in the future.
11. Saying there is no retrospective change to airdrop structure after it was change 2-3 times.
12. No one is responsible.

I just hope we are collecting any relevant data from testing nowadays.
I just hope we are happy with marketing we got from this.

Hopefully it wasn't as big of a mistake as it seems.

[minor cloak]

there's a typo on the ILV amount, it says on top 30,000 ILV and then further below it says two times 20,000 ILV.

[red badge]

Likely got edited in after the last 10k got added. At any rate, this got posted to illustrate that there's 2 seasons, and that the start of the 2nd can serve as a good point in time to start a new subperiod.

@pearl violet Can likely fix it up later.

[minor cloak]

a doubt came with this if it was 20k for the 1st airdrop phase and 10k for the second phase or it's 30k in total for the accumulate of both phases.

[red badge]

I think the team has a post coming that will explain the transition better. I'd just wait for that to come out, I don't want to speak out of turn.

[red badge]

I appreciate that you're always critical of governance and systems, but you're making half the stuff up here, and you're absolutely catastrophizing the situation to try and make your point.

Obviously the team is collecting data from testnet.

Holo/DH points are based on data. It's possible they were weighted too heavily towards holo/DH, and ensuring there was an ongoing incentive to keep playing was a factor in that. This isn't a number out of a hat, it was set by Labs' data team, and the data gathered from Season 1 will help to adjust and make point values better in the future. Perfectly predicting player behavior and optimization isn't trivial, and getting everything 100% right on the first go is unlikely. That's a major part of why the testnet airdrop exists and why testing is being incentivized.

I'm curious why you're so hostile when feedback is actually being taken on board. Introducing subperiods for airdrops is a major part of what was being asked for. The part that isn't included here is retroactive action to change the rules again. It's not a leap of the imagination to suggest that making another change now would result in more people getting burned and frustrated by the change. So instead, let's do it like this proposal suggests, and have a cutoff where people are paid out, and going forward, use subperiods for any change to the ruleset.

A big part of my concern is that we're looking backward at what went wrong and how we can work and rework point values, when we should be staying focused on the future. We have game launch upcoming, and there's not infinite time before that happens. So there's a need to be agile, test all the systems that need testing, iterate on those systems, and get something fun and fair in place for Mainnet launch.

I mean, if the concern is that you think the team hasn't noticed that people aren't that happy with holo/DH focused airdrop rules, that's absolutely been heard and taken on board.

[cyan flicker]

don't like it really too much.
Most of it is common sense and an iip shouldn't be needed for it.

Imo events in future shouldn't be changed except there are bugs/exploits.
Events should be planable from the community members and not be one surprise after each other.
If i read it right, any future event could be completely changed during the event it just needs to be announced before the change taking place. (No time period mentioned for the change announcement, so could be 1h theoretically)

[red badge]

If Labs were min-maxing to upset people, it could be an hour. In practice, it won't be, because that's not anyone's goal. Acknowledge that a fixed time period for communication about changes is a good idea, but realistically this should be happening days out from the change.

I think there's a lot of value in formalizing this - It may be common sense to you, but it got missed during the holo/DH addition, and passing a proposal to ensure it doesn't happen again is valuable.

There's been loads of feedback threads about this topic already, so setting up a system to prevent the problem in the future is pretty literally the best thing we can do with governance. Make it better in the future.

[nova spade]

It so much easier to not have to make half the stuff up when you having a conversation with someone.

But when everyone, and I mean everyone is ignoring the most important topic currently, then it's hard to have a conversation.

There was almost 0 times we heard anything to dispute anything that is being said. There were numerous questions and there were 0 answers.

Why are we a DAO if no one should care about the project? And if you care you get ignored?

---

Let's be honest here, I'm not saying that all of the numbers and just made up. I'm saying that multiplier (or factor) was invented out of thin air.

There is not a lot of reasons to have that high of a numbers compared to everything else...

---

I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm merely expression my own opinions on the matter. I guess it does sound like that because I'm talking with myself. But I'm here expressing my opinion because I care, not because I hate.

I'm mad because no one ever admitted it was a mistake, and it was. I'm mad because now we're saying that there is no retrospective change when we changed it twice already. There was so much wasted time after realizing the mistake so that now we can say that it's too late to change anything.

To be honest, this is not a revision of the initial proposal, it's a whole new proposal.

---

And for the last part, I think you are 100% wrong in blaming me on looking backwards. All I'm doing is looking forwards.

There was a mistake and now the testing doesn't make any sense. In order to fix testing in the future we need to fix this mistake.... How is that not being focused on the future.

---

I don't think this will solve anything. I think with this we'll just payout the newcomers that came for airdrop and try to fix testing for the last month before the game release.

I honestly hope the last two weeks weren't wasted and that we're happy with our marketing idea and with data collected from testing.

[cyan flicker]

yea, the main point was actually that there shouldn't be changes during events at all in my opinion.

The mentioning with the possible short time announcement was more to point out that this proposal acutally only fixes the time already spent in the event is valued and people don't get wrecked, but events still will stay surprise boxes until it's finished

[cyan flicker]

Absolutely agree to that Part 🙂

[pearl violet]

I assure you the last two months or weeks aren’t wasted from a data standpoint. 100% gathered a ton of data that we never had before considering it’s on chain

[pearl violet]

lol so many things are wrong here

Just purely made up

[red badge]

I spent time with Ligy to try and understand the key objectives of the proposal, in his opinion, because he's the sponsor, and we worked from there. If you feel it's way different, that's unfortunate, but I did my best to pull the key points and actionable items out and distill them down.

No one is being ignored, but maybe the communication that feedback is being heard needs to be more clear. Feedback is being heard.

Our economic model means that we want to acquire new users and retain existing users. I understand that you feel the holo/DH points lean too far towards acquisition and not far enough towards retention. Feedback heard. What we shouldn't do is demonize new users - We want new players joining us. We need new players joining us. They aren't a lesser group in any way.

[nova spade]

I believe that. I'm sure we have. I'm just saying that last two weeks were useless imo and it's all fake data that has no real value.

Once we go live people won't be speed running to find holos. People will play the game and mine and harvest and forge and everything else.

It was shared that we're still not happy with where we are in terms of mining/harvesting odds and the pricing and recipes for forging. I don't think holo lottery helped with that.

[pearl violet]

So you’re not happy with the system so you make up a slanderous timeline that makes the team look incompetent?

But out of love?

Just confused

[nova spade]

I'm not saying anything about user acquisition and user retention. Everything I'm saying is testing the game that will be live in a month so it can be the best possible game. I think that should be the main focus, but that's only my opinion.

[red badge]

Agreed there, that'll be what matters at the end of the day. Good games drive everything.

[nova spade]

Do you agree that there was an announcement of the airdrop and that after the recent changes all of that became almost worthless?

Do you agree that we didn't get any answers from anyone about what was the thinking behind the holo points and what was the aim? All we got from anyone is from you saying that we are happy about how it turned out or something like that.

Do you agree that from the outside it feels like all the feedback and suggestions are being ignored (not just from me)?

Do you agree that we are now saying that there is no retrospective change to airdrop structure after it was changed twice?

---

Why is being critical bad? Why can't we use that to improve?

I'm here every day for the last 2 and a half years plus. I've been involved with and have read more proposals than a lot of people that were in a council. Sometimes I'm not saying anything because I think there are others that have more experience on the topic and I listen to them. But sometimes I join the conversation.

Just because I'm vocal and I have an opinion doesn't mean I hate.

You know what a great example of that. Perry. When I was being vocal about Illuvium Beyond he came out, had a conversation, defended his opinions and decisions. While I got hated by everyone for making a noise, all I was trying to do is help improve.

With this. There was no one ever that came and defended the decision. No one said anything about it.

If people have concerns and you ignore them, is that good practice? Or am I just a hater because sometimes my opinion is not the same as the teams?

[red badge]

It's really hard to spin this: #1251221577119432805 message
Into: I'm just asking questions/giving opinions because I care.

Making up timelines to try and make the team look incompetent aren't the actions of someone out to improve the status quo. The more vitriol that gets spread by stuff like this, the harder it becomes to sit down and find common ground. It's just basic golden rule stuff. Would you want to sit down and have a reasonable conversation with someone who said those things about you?

Ask questions, look for answers, challenge assumptions. Those are all good things.

Making up slanderous stuff because you're unhappy doesn't need to be part of that.

I'll be here either way because I'm a robot, but most people are not robots.

[pearl violet]

No on the the first three, and the last question we did change 1 time based on some early user sentiment and making the system easier for our data team overall. I’m fairly sure myself or Perry addressed this somewhere. And no being critical isn’t bad but making shit up is

As for the second change we added dark holos and holos

Which needed testing

And an incentive to get new players just happened to fit with that

And then this part would come to end and we change again which was expressed

It’s test net for a reason

[viscid sonnet]

guys

this is entirely a different proposal

can it be posted in a new thread so we can get the sentiment on this revised proposal

[nova spade]

Let's do a real timeline then.

• Things happening...
  .
  .
  .
  .
  .
• Being done with this topic as the final change and ICCP is decided.
• Me being a (female dog).

I wasn't spreading and making any stuff up and I wasn't mad until it was all over. Now there is no more conversation so no one is sitting down anymore...

I may have went over the line and I apologize if it offended anyone.

But if the biggest problem in all this is me getting out of line with one made up post that is obviously there just to be mean because we got ignored then I'm super happy with that. But I think there are bigger problems than that. But super happy if the only problem is me being a little girl crying.

We have less and less people engaging in conversation about governance topic? Why is that? Is that good or bad?

[viscid sonnet]

@zenith marsh

[zenith marsh]

This is getting kinda ridiculous. The initial proposal used the abstract you see below and everything else was written in a none binding style to leave up the solution to the IMC. Now we get a solution that at least prevents future problems and the process starts again because the simple summary went in a wrong direction? The sentiment about this should be pretty clear. Preventing = good, too less compensation = not so good but doing further damage = bad also. It took over a week to get here and season 2 is around the corner. How drawn out are this processes supposed to be? We stripped ourselves of better solutions by drawing this out this long but ok, lets vote for 7 days again until we reach IMC

[red badge]

It's 100% your choice as the sponsor Ligyron, per ICCP-10 the sponsor is the decision maker. This can be taken to a vote at your discretion. If you want to post this as a new proposal, you have that option.

https://snapshot.org/#/ilv-gov.eth/proposal/0x25695bdb88e6c0633510517e64ee1b2e0e6f11fd4f8426365c50575372790eaa

[viscid sonnet]

it's entirely up to you to post a new thread or not.
i just cant get a sentiment if the community wants this version or not. but generally i agree with dividing the airdropo into parts if theres a change of rules mid season.
i suggested something similar to the council, pre holo and post-holo.

[zenith marsh]

ok, fair point and I totally get where you are coming from with that because the imitate correction of the airdrop system isn't included anymore. I just read ICCP-10 and still think that the initial intent of protecting the playbase against abritary decisions (in the future) is still intact.

Sure, some comprises got made along the line because the argument of further damaging the project by reworking the system retrospectively are kinda strong and had a lot of support.

[viscid sonnet]

just to confirm, the revision is no longer proposing a coherent (lower) points for holo and future ways to get points, but it is dividing the season into sub-periods?

[zenith marsh]

I guess the sentiment is shown in this post from soda #1255051116404801658 message

[viscid sonnet]

yes this revision is more similar to thag post

its a good point, im starting to accept that maybe changing the holo points is too late

most people already focusing on holos

[zenith marsh]

the coherent part of the point system is implemented with in the introduction of subperiods, yes. That also means the team can change everything in a new period. Sadly, the a retrospectively cut would have damaged the project potentially even more.

[zenith marsh]

yeah, that is the point. :/

[viscid sonnet]

yea im enjoying my holo points which is more than 2x my lines/sets points

idk how i would feel if it gets nerfed

[zenith marsh]

It is a hit, I am denying that. I got hit by that a lot myself. I guess I have less holo points than set points
But at least we know it won't happen again

[nova spade]

I have a really important question.

A new subperiod means that the timing for the new ruleset will be announced ahead of time, a snapshot will be taken of existing point values, and players will receive airdrop points based on their performance during the sub-periods corresponding to the rulesets during those subperiods.

What happens if players just create a new account and transfer everything there in the new subperiod?

Or rewards will be only from catching, mining, harvesting? As everything else would be silly...

So no fusing, forging or anything else won't be rewarded? And therefore it won't be tested as much?

[viscid sonnet]

all right im uploading the revision to github

[zenith marsh]

"4) Exploits and bugs are exceptions to this proposal. A pause in airdrop points, or other actions might be necessary to rectify extreme scenarios. In this event, the overall spirit of this proposal should be followed retroactively, utilizing snapshot subperiods to reward **legitimate **players as fairly as possible."

[zenith marsh]

I would consider the first point as cheating. I don't really get the other two points.

[viscid sonnet]

theres a snapshot coming to prepare for preseason 2.
if they do similar points calculation for pre season 2, transfering to a new wallet doesnt matter.

[zenith marsh]

Thank you for all your help

[nova spade]

So basically, we will ban trading?

[nova spade]

But maybe Jaganite is right.

[red badge]

Snapshots look at a point in time, and assets can't be in two places at once.

The idea is that you get rewarded for what you got DURING a subperiod, under a specific ruleset.

[viscid sonnet]

based on the current points calculation, i think the P2A is based on collecting. meaning owning and holding (hoarding?)
so it doesnt matter if u transfer it

[nova spade]

But if in subperiod 1 I caught 5 Illuvials and I get rewarded for them.

In subperiod 2 I can transfer them to another account and now I have them there and I got them in subperiod 2.

[viscid sonnet]

yes

if the calculation is the same

everyone else would have a lot of illuvials too

[nova spade]

But then I'm getting points twice. As I'm not getting rewarded on my first account for Illuvials I caught during subperiod 1.

[zenith marsh]

this is definitely something that the team needs to keep in mind

[viscid sonnet]

thats why it depends on how they calculate the points for future subperiod or seasons
if they just snapshot wallets and counts whatever in your wallet on snapshot time then

[red badge]

It's also dependent on what conditions exist for collecting airdrop points. Duplicate conditions in later airdrops would definitely run into that issue, but the conditions for airdrop points don't need to be the same.

[nova spade]

That's correct. I don't think we can exploit mining, harvesting, forging and fusing... But having Illuvials can easily be exploited.

[red badge]

Fusing seems like the toughest scenario, since you could theoretically use like, 2 Illuvials captured before a subperiod started, 1 Illuvial from after it started. Not impossible to work out, just needs to be defined clearly for each ruleset.

But, this isn't a proposal about the ruleset for the next airdrop phase, it's about what the conditions are for the rules to change at all.

[nova spade]

But for example you would get points just for fusing. You didn't fuse before, you fused during subperiod 2. Just because your Illuvials are old doesn't matter.

[red badge]

We should see the ruleset before we get too excited.

[nova spade]

My point was: is there any reason to have this proposal with multiple different subperiods if they can easily be exploited and if we can't test anything.

But I guess there are things that can still be rewarded...

[red badge]

Yeah agreed that the way points are determined matters a lot. I think Rich mentioned that there will be a post coming today, it will make more sense to talk about this after we've seen that.

[zenith marsh]

good point, but I think the team will be able to work around that. You could reward overall xp gained, amount of solved quests, only count Illuvials that were minted after date x and so on. I would say the IIP still matters 🙂

[viscid sonnet]

uploaded into github
IIP-58-R
@pearl violet

[real pagoda]

In my opinion, it is completely unprofessional and unfair to change the conditions for participants in the middle of an event. Something like this needs to be discussed from the beginning and not in the middle of the event.

[viscid sonnet]

ive requested the team to announce everything before we started, to avoid exactly this, but it looks like they are still figuring it out. i mean we still dont have a leaderboard/dashboard

[cold jungle]

This sounds good. I mean the proposal, not all the back and forth, because in the end, it doesn't seem to be changing anything. So the proposal sounds good. At the end of the day, it's a bummer that they introduced the halos when they did. It would have been a great way to incentivize people to keep playing once mainnet launched or to roll them out gradually. Because once the halos and darks came out, it basically made all the rest of the Illuvials irrelevant. I've heard people in the PB say, "I found a Ramphy," and everyone would be super hyped. Then a couple of days later, the sentiment flipped to, "Is it a halo?" No? Well then, big deal.

It would have been nice to stretch it out a little better because once the halo system came in, it would have reinvigorated the players, the airdrop, the game, and public opinion. Like, "Oh man, they have what now? Damn, this team just keeps making things better and better." But instead, all that excitement was washed away quickly. Anyway, we can't go back now, but I am still confused about the whole airdrop distribution. I thought we would get rewards from PB as the open beta rolled out. Maybe it's just me, but can someone direct me to where I can get clarification? Thanks.

[thorn zephyr]

did you ever get this?

im curious

[viscid sonnet]

Nope

[thorn zephyr]

Sad, also not surprised

thanks

[zenith marsh]

got this uploaded already? Couldn't find it in the main council snapshot area. @pearl violet

[viscid sonnet]

damnit rich

yea need to wait for him

[pearl violet]

Will do this morning

[pearl violet]

https://snapshot.org/#/ilv-gov.eth/proposal/0x60caa1f2f55039c23bed6c5ff0b0c6f6573aa24b0160042eda42e7022477b15b

@viscid sonnet @zenith marsh

Posted

[barren crane]

Dang that was revised expeditiously!

[barren crane]

Should this be posted here?

https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1252532552728580127

[pearl violet]

IIP-58-R : https://snapshot.org/#/ilv-gov.eth/proposal/0x60caa1f2f55039c23bed6c5ff0b0c6f6573aa24b0160042eda42e7022477b15b