ICCP-XX Open Beta Fuel Parameters

[tiny axle]

Simple Summary:
IIP-39 specifies that fuel parameters must be defined in an initial state prior to open beta launch. This proposal sets those initial parameters.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16aeyu1JHKnWPnHtpGbq-65KWNy6w2Vjf7WYsyW0DT58/edit?usp=sharing

TL;DR: Initial parameters are set to the current testnet values. Parameters will be adjusted based on analytics by Illuvium Labs. Per IIP-39, changes will be run past the IMC prior to going live.

[fickle wasp]

Are the upper rails the same for each fuel?

prob unrelated, what about silv2, is it pegged to the upper rails or market value?

[grizzled star]

"These parameters will be initially set at the current values used within Illuvium: Zero and Illuvium Overworld on Testnet."

[fickle wasp]

wait so this ICCP is cancelling this:

and let the team decides without an ICCP?

@tiny axle

IIP-39 said:

those values must be passed in ICCP

is your ICCP taking that away?

this statement in this ICCP is incorrectly quoting IIP-39:

what IIP-39 spesifically asked for the value to be determined in ICCP

it does require proposals

[fickle wasp]

what is the supply curve per land plot?

those initial values need to be stated in the ICCP
the testnet values have changed during the testnet, and theres nothing preventing the team to change the values again within 9 days

"Per IIP-39, changes will be run past the IMC prior to going live."
This is incorrect, it need an ICCP

if we want to change II-39, first we gonna need a revision IIP-39-R

what are the current testnet values"
we have:

• travel cost
• auto scan cost
• capture cost
• forge cost
• fuse cost
• re roll cost

indirect costs

• energy to capture
• energy to mine/harvest
• ergon rift bonus

lets drill down to forge cost

• T1 S1 suit cost 50 solon to forge
• T5 S3 suit cost 32000 solon to forge
  has the IMC considered this?
  has the ICCP acknowledged the solon cost of each tiers and stages?

how much the IMC has played OW and IZ to determine these values?

[fickle wasp]

I just calculated the cost to forge 1 x Dreadmarsh Maul
assuming :

• 20%mining cost, 12% Duplicate Chance
  3 Ergon rifts
  6mins per run
  Cost of fuel : 0.36 eth ($1200)
  Play time : 7.6 hours

[flat path]

• would love to see the fuel production per land plot numbers, possible to share those?

• Can we expect that the team feels good about the pricing in general since this iccp goes to a vote? As Jaganite mentioned above in his calculation, the game feels very expensive to play. At least some actions are very expensive.

• With those values the team has set for now, is it intended we want to attract competitive arena play and people just farm/buy 1-2 overlapping decks with like 2 weapons and armors to stay versatile, or do we want to attract collectors who wana have everything.

[fickle wasp]

The P2A becomes whale-to-airdrop at these prices

[flat path]

probably more like you get 0.5%discount if you play the first 5 months.

[fickle wasp]

we have 4k-5k dau on testnet, including airdrop farmers and bots.
how many do we expect to have on mainnet with these prices

[grizzled star]

these prices are at the top rail-guard, which means they're the highest they can possibly be. Fuel price will be dictated by the free market. So we're only going down from here.

[grizzled star]

• " fuel production per land plot numbers"
  yes please!

[gritty radish]

I always reassured myself with the quote from aaron saying prices were boosted in testnet but now im not sure what to think about this

I didnt play OW since the patch because i can finally justify playing arena (survival) but i heard that we need to use mastershards more now and arent those like 2XX$?

We dont know ascendant rework but i remember the idea of a decent "competitive" team was 50-200$. Now with those price it looks like we aim to for highest possible price for skins (gauntlet) and leviathan modes only for whales

I get that web2 isnt here right now and some people have a lot of money to spend in web3 but with those price i cant imagine the games being attractive for most

[gritty radish]

Oh yea forgot about that, but still

[grizzled star]

the top rail-guard needed to be high in order to not suffocate the market. Free markets will find the right price for these things. It just means it'll be expensive in the beginning for us early players.

[fickle wasp]

mastershards need 2400 dust
and resplendant is so rare now

[grizzled star]

you now get shard dust from failed captures so...

[gritty radish]

Top rail is only +25% of baseline though, its not like it can go down x2

[fickle wasp]

it helps

[grizzled star]

how so? There's no bottom rail-guard

[flat path]

nono... it can go down 99%

[gritty radish]

I havent played OW since so its hard to comment but when i hear that a mastershard is ~200$ and that we need them even more now its concerning

[gritty radish]

Didnt know that, always thought it was +-25%, did it change?

[fickle wasp]

when can we expect landowners to supply the fuel

[grizzled star]

I don't get why ppl say we need them even more now since I don't think the capture odds were changed and you can now use 3 harmonic drone upgrades instead of only 2

[flat path]

however, with the state of zero there should have been a temporary top rail price they feel the value should be until zero has ramped up fuel productioin and set top rail as intended as soon as a specific amount of landowners are reularly selling fuel.
Now with those prices you risk to get miserable dau numbers

[grizzled star]

I'll be selling my fuel ASAP

[flat path]

yea with iip-39 or maybe even earlier proposals.

[fickle wasp]

at this rail yes lol

[grizzled star]

in the beginning prices will simply keep dropping and dropping until we find a bottom. Just like every other market.

[fickle wasp]

u def need master shards now that they nerfed capture rate chip

its cheaper to fuse the illuvials than catching them

[fickle wasp]

just so many failed capture
you'll run out stability

just lost a blotto using 2 resplendant, the pain

and i paid for auto scan

[flat path]

catchrates were always way too low.
The aim for dissapointing majority of times to maybe get a "huray i cought it" is the wrong approach if you have to pay for run, shards and evtl. additional premium features.

[fickle wasp]

feels like playing casino on rollbit

u lost the consumables too

[flat path]

don't think consumables will be used often.
You use them if you want to fast progress to catch those first illuvials or do other first stuff.
After that, consumeables are too expensive to use and people just copy meta decks from each other where they don't need consumables.

[fickle wasp]

well i need to use them in s3, the fights are harder

[flat path]

i don't 😄

[fickle wasp]

yea i suck

[grizzled star]

I mean the fights are indeed harder now with higher levelled illuvials. You don't need consumables if you're playing with an S+ team but you sure do if you're levelling up some weaker illuvials.

[fiery creek]

what is this math

0.36 ETH drops out of nowhere

Remember that (for illuvials) the bonding curve is currently hypercharged, not only for the duration of open beta testnet, but also because selling more than 1000 of fake ETH in fuel per day during Preseason 1

Cost estimate for Dreadmarsh Maul is ~ order of magnitude lower than what's presented here

[flat path]

is it intended to let the bonding curve as it is for launch?
on Illuvidex i see there's arround 3m illuvials minted, theres arround 200 illuvials if i remember right.
That would let us with 15k full collections for bonding curve being "hypercharged".

sorry for the off topic... just super curious 😄

[fiery creek]

What do you mean "as it is"? The bonding curve will reset as there will be 0 illuvials when we launch

So capture chance will shoot back up

[flat path]

like the strength it kicks in.
I assume there's a parameter for each illuvial by how far capture rate decreases for every illuvial catched.
Yea sure it will restart, but basically it's intended that after 15k collections the bonding curve decreases the capture rate by max factor?
Or will it be max factor before that 15k full collections or will it need way more illuvials cought to be on max factor.

[fiery creek]

'max factor' ?

3m / 200 is a bit naive, it differs per tier, stage. We heavily incentivized some illuvials more than others, early pre-season 1 was a very loose economy where stage3s flew into your lap

To get to this point on mainnet will take a lot

Not to mention the free master shards

[flat path]

yes i know... was just a very rough ballpark calculation for me being able to see a rough number of DAU needed to see the bonding curve kicking in hard for a very vague time period.
I know fusion will be way more needed than in AS1 where everyone just cought everything and the bonding curve will increase way slower in mainnet than it did in beta test.
But it did seem a low amount of cought illuvials needed for the bonding curve influencing capture rate on max multiplier. (think that is the word instead of "factor")

[fickle wasp]

can u please give us a more accurate math then?

[fiery creek]

Not sure if I can, dont want to give FA, ask council for me to relay it to you? Not sure

Also high variance

[fickle wasp]

it's just the total of selenium or celestium divided by the average of selenium or celestium per run using the assumptions to number of runs times crypton cost.
the add the solon cost

maybe easier to change the duplicate ore to mining cost

[fickle wasp]

was the IMC presented with a cost estimation to complete the collection?
can be a few scenarios:

1. S1, S2, S3 are caught
2. S1 caught, but S2 and S3 fused
3. Only S3 fused
4. Excluding T0
   Etc

[flat path]

It's at least a good thing that the only thing changes is actually all balance patches will have patchnotes.
It's not Like something is fixed if it gets approved.
So the Team is still able to keep balancing afterwards and has time to do until Launch 🙂

[tiny axle]

There are 2 stages for economic balance.

Stage 1: Manual Balancing - Requires an ICCP (this ICCP) to set initial values. Further balancing over time by Labs. That doesn't stop the DAO from bringing a proposal forward to change specific parameters, but allows economic issues to be resolved quickly by Labs in the event there's an issue, without having to wait on approval to do so.

Stage 2: Automatic Balancing - Also requires an ICCP to implement, after sufficient testing has been completed and that system is built out.

Someone has already mentioned it, but current fuel prices are AT the upper rail. So they can move down from there, but cannot move up.

It seems disingenous to say that I'm making things up from IIP-39 when you're cutting out the specific segment that specifies that the team will make balance changes in consultation with council immediately following open beta launch. Picture attached, see the bottom of the first paragraph.

The proposal isn't going to specifically set the prices for every tier and stage of suit a ranger can wear. Understand that some people would like more granular specification included, but a full accounting of every in-game item's dollar value equivalent isn't the intention of this proposal. We've received an internal recommendation from Labs that the current prices on testnet are what they would like to move forward with, which is why we're bringing that recommendation forward now.

[tiny axle]

Will try and get some numbers for point 1, obviously it depends on how a plot is developed and can vary based on specific landmarks and resource locations, but we may be able to get a ballpark.

For point 2, yes, this proposal is based off the team's recommendation provided to the IMC.

[flat path]

thank you.
yea i guess i can vary strongly depending on landmark, but ballpark averages would be enough 🙂
Maybe inclduing the parameter they used for how many focus on fuel and how many on blueprints to get to those ballpark numbers 🙂

[fickle wasp]

disingenous?
i literally quoted 3 paragraphs from IIP-39 including the first paragraph of fuel balancing (the one you pointed out).
we can disagree with the interpretation of the IIP, but you dnt have to accuse me of being disingenous.
as for the granular spesification, IIP-39 stated "Key quantitative parameters for the balance must be developed together. The details for these items such as the Cost of Fuel for Travel, Maximum Fuel Supply and Supply Curve per land plot, Maximum Fuel Price (Top Guardrail), and Land Sale details must be defined and approved in future ICCP(s)."
are we having more IICPs on details?
and we are still missing the supply curve per land plot.

more importantly, what is the IMC consideration of the current prices and costs?
i personally feel they are too expensive and may turn off a lot of players.

$12 for a S3 trip?

$12 for these?

i'm sorry but it seems outrageous

and its coming from someone who played a bit of the game

i understand that this is a top rail can go down
but seriously i was expecting $5 top rail

landholders gonna need time to build their plots
so, likely at the beginning the players gonna have to pay higher prices

why not start lower then if we keep hitting the rails then adjust it up

[flat path]

there definetly should be a temporary lower top rail until land ramped up some fuel production.
It's just ripping of the loyal community in the early phase after launch.

[grizzled star]

what's the point of having a lower rail when there's basically no one selling?

[flat path]

sry thought it is clear what i'm talking about since we have just 1 rail 😄

[grizzled star]

ah nvm gotcha

[fickle wasp]

really need to estimate when and how much supply from iz will hit the market

[grizzled star]

my suggestion would just be to farm organically with the market. Play some stage 0's and 1's until landowners start selling and lowering the fuel prices.

having a high upper rail it's actually good for us early land owners since we can sell near those high prices

[fickle wasp]

we have to be cautious about prices spiraling down.
Imagine this:

• fuel prices starts higher
• launch hype, whales buying up nfts
• supply from IZ hits the market
• fuel price lower
• at the same time hype dissipates, lower demand
• race to the ground

[grizzled star]

but that's how it should be in a healthy market! When prices are low, some people will start buying more aggressively again because they perceive the fuel price is undervalued compared to the value of what they can get from it.

This all hinges on the fact that we have an healthy economy where there's actual demand.

[fickle wasp]

sounds risky.
usually when people see price go down they tend to cut loss/capitulate. we are speculating that buyers gonna step in

i mean iz plot is 0.12e

[grizzled star]

this is a game not a memecoin, that's the whole thing. Players will play no matter what if the game is good. And they'll appreciate it even more if the prices are low.

it happened in all the decent web3 games I participated in. While the assets are attainable through gaming, they aren't worth a dime. Once the printing ends and the assets are still in demand, we see a big boom in prices.

[flat path]

that's likely going to be an insignificant amout of time.
Most likely it's going to be somewhat of a shock, since in the beginning nobody is selling.
(Except we see a totally different building behaviour as in alpha s1)

• The majority of t4 reach the level of selling fuel together.
• Now the good time starts for selling small amount of fuel at a high price for t4
• Soon after that, t3 reach the level of selling fuel and t4 ramped up a nice fuel production.
• Now fuel prices start going down with a good speed
• Soon after that t4 is in the endphase of midgame having max buildings and start filling up the plot with whatever they want and t3 start selling a nice amount of fuel (probably arround 2-2.5 months after launch of Zero)
• Now you see prices drop hard.
• Soon after, t2 reach the level of selling a nice amount of fuel.

Obviously just a wild guess and depending on how many builders people buy, the timeframe gets shortend 🙃

[fickle wasp]

ill take your word for it, u prob know more about iz than most

lol so its actually better for revdis and landholders if we delay iz

[grizzled star]

I only disagree a bit on everyone that has the same landplot tier reaching the level of selling fuel at the same time. There will be some differences there depending on their gameplay activity.

[flat path]

depends on the backlash of delaying iz, but most likely yes.
For all token holders and the majority of Zero players.

[flat path]

totally, but not by much i guess. There will be some high skilled landholders who might get a week more of high price sales.

but that's not many people.

[grizzled star]

agreed

[fickle wasp]

ok got it sell everything within 2 months

[flat path]

there will be guides out there who tell people what to build and when for each tier.
I think it's fair to assume that most people will watch those guide and will have the same building behaviour.
And after the very early phase (roughly 3-5 days) it doesn't need that much time effort anymore.

[grizzled star]

well that also depends on how many workers each player has on their landplots.

you think everyone will max those?

[flat path]

yea.

• I guess 95%+ of t4 will buy both additional builders (3 in total) because they wana be in the good selling phase you described above and it's a small amount of cash for the price they invested in t4
• T3 probably also arround 80%+ same reason as with t4.
• T2 probably also arround 80% because they wana be fast with their blueprints and sell the first skinns to make some cash
• T1 probably a very low amount of people. I guess on a t1 all 3 builder are not even working all the time since there will be shortage of elements/fuels

[grizzled star]

makes sense

[tiny axle]

T1 ~ 200
T2 ~ 600
T3 ~ 1700
T4 - 5400

This is daily, averaged across configurations, and assuming the plot is maxed out and has focused on Fuel with no BP generation.

[fickle wasp]

are we pegging the rail in eth or usd?
if summer bottom is in then we can see price keep going up

i remember the convo about the rail IIP, we wanted to give players, maybe web2, some kind of stability

[fickle wasp]

thx blick, does it mean the IMC didnt know about these numbers until we asked for it?

IIP-39 said the key parameters must be worked together, it looks to me that the team recommended it and imc just said ok

[flat path]

Thank you, appreciate it.
Possible to see the value calculation and table that led to that total fuel output and ratio between tiers?

[grizzled star]

I think this is a very important question. If it isn't pegged to usd then we're in for a ride...

[fickle wasp]

we need more people to discuss the pricing lol

[grizzled star]

if only the proposal had words like Airdrop or Revdis in the title I'm sure the community would engage a bit more with this...

[gritty radish]

Put an open mouth thumbnail in there maybe

[placid gale]

In any case, personally I read all the conversation at the show and it was fascinating, even worrying for the Land owners from an economic point of view.

[placid gale]

ola Spoon 😉 (I don't know if you remember me from tournaments haha)

I didn't know you could buy other manufacturers, where does it happen and how much does it cost? 🤔

[flat path]

Of course i do 🙂
Activity tab on the top right

[placid gale]

Thx 🙏

[placid gale]

Is it for a Land the 3 workers or is it for all our Lands combined the upgrade? What is the resource needed to buy them? Can we make it? it looks like this is what we get from the plants we destroy on the map 🤔

[flat path]

• 3 total per Land plot
• the tokens you can also use for speedups
• plants don't grant tokens anymore, they grant Elements now. You have to either buy the token or get it with lvl up achievements.

For more questions about Zero please use #🎮〕illuvium-zero . Even tho it's nice to See someone actually writing something in here, it's not the right place for gaming related questions. 🙂

[placid gale]

Yes of course, I'm getting sidetracked haha, a big thank you to you Dr Spoon looking forward to seeing you again in the world of ILV

Thx 🙏

[fiery creek]

This is the hangout for cool people

[grizzled star]

Yo guys, what's missing for you to upvote the proposal? Is there something missing? Are you not happy with current values?

[flat path]

was hoping that i might get some more info on the question above and see other interested community members joining the debate, maybe ccouncils give their opinion and their reasoning to the parameters aswell since it is an ICCP introduced by them.

personally i'd like to know/see:

• the value calculation and table that led to that total fuel output and ratio between tiers?

• some numbers in the ICCP instead of "current values" since it is about setting parameters in the ICCP.

• Would love to get some info on how the automated balancing system will work in general including it's core parameters set

• get parameters for the intended automated mini landsale system. According to the shared average numbers per plots, and mixing them with a bit of my own spice (wild guess about % focus on fuel on each tier, build up time needed to hit those numbers, amount of "dead" plots), the treshold for an additional landsale could be met pretty soon and would love to know if it would be a lever being pulled if the playerbase grows steadily in the first months.

[grizzled star]

If I'm not mistaken Kieran said the calculations were made based on a ROI for lands around 2 years with the average price from the lands sale.

I mean, it would be nice to get some more feedback for sure. Doesn't IIP-39 lose its meaning when the game is launching regardless if this gets approved or not?

[fickle wasp]

what is the average purchase price?
what is the assumed eth price and fuel price?

[fickle wasp]

what is the assumed average revenue for the 2 years

[fickle wasp]

iip-39 spesifically asked for details. apart from that, ive done my survey and the current price is too high

[jade mirage]

Are you asking for historical or forecasted?

Cause the current fuel prices are the upper rail ceiling so there's no average price if you're basing it on historical.

So you're assumed eth to fuel is already what's the current pricing in testnet.

[fickle wasp]

• is the ROI based on usd or eth?
• the historical average mint price of land (usd or eth?)
• projected revenue for the next 2 years (usd or eth?)
  this projected revenue is based on projected average fuel price (in usd or eth?) for the next 2 years multiplied by projected fuel sales.

does the projection take account the bear market?

[jade mirage]

ROI best to tag Kieran and probably Danny as they would be best to discuss financial numbers. That would also include the what factors did they use if its average price or lowest price. Actually all your questions can be answered by them.

[fickle wasp]

yea, i got people dm'd me asking if i believe the 2 year BEP

[grizzled star]

do you understand what it means for prices to start at the upper rail? It's supposed to be high, cause they can't go higher! All your posts about fuel price makes it sound like we can dictate what the price is... We can't... It's all about free markets. If ppl really think it's too high they won't buy it, it's that simple.

I would even like to see the upper rail be 0.01$, a good round number.

[fickle wasp]

u cant buy at a lower price if landowners cant supply them. its an inefficient market

we risk losing customers if its too high because of low supply

theres nothing free about the market if u have a ceiling.
even the team can already estimate the supply curve

the ceiling is at $12 and the team targeted half of that. what would consumers do when the government told them that prices are going down by 50%, look at japan's deflation

and we can dictate price by manually changing the ceiling, its in the IIP

can the team modified the supply curve? Sure they can

with just a push of a button they can change converter

even the real world commodity and energy price is highly manipulated, the OPEC can cut production or increase production

see the 70s oil crisis

team can freely change the drop rate of ores and essence, or the cost to forge

or they can do a special event, 1 billion points to craft a master shard see what it will do to crypton and solon price

if we are saying that the price ceiling is supposed to be high, why not 1000x it

[grizzled star]

you need to give time for the engine to start rolling. You can't expect to be in 5th gear when you haven't even turned on the engine. In a few months there will be more than enough fuel supplied by landowners...

[grizzled star]

you can't 1000x because the ceiling price it's also the starting price. Seems obvious.

let's not forget that whoever goes to the OW using these fuel prices will also get the highest value from the in-game assets due to the lack of supply.

[fickle wasp]

yea as a degen im happy for higher prices to extract from the eager whales

[grizzled star]

this is supposed to be an ecosystem that will live on for years, so IMO we shouldn't be too fixated on the first initial months.

and regarding the team being able to change supply on a push of a button. I hope from the moment the game launches that is not the case. Otherwise the DAO is irrelevant.

[fickle wasp]

interpretation of the manual balancing from IIP-39 is what i argued with blickter.
my pov, future changes need ICCP based on the first paragraphs, while blickter's pov is whats in the subsequent paragraph, only need to consult council
altho we can bring an ICCP to suggest a balancing

[flat path]

Yes, they can Change supply all the time
There is no "free Market", the dao/team can dictate where the price is going to be, even when Land is selling fuel. You might wana backread iip-39 and this iip and let it sink in for a few mins. 🙂

[placid gale]

From what I understand, the purchase and sale will not be done directly between the land owners and the players? There will be a bot in the middle which will make purchases on one side for the lands and which will sell on the other for the players? At a fixed price for everyone? We will not set the price of our fuels?

If we look closely at 2 years for ROI, it comes down to the same metrics of a BTC mining machine, in my opinion it is quite relevant as an objective if it manages to maintain this course and it does not act like STEPN lol

[grizzled star]

It's been a while since I last read it but I must say IIP-39 is all over the place... I get the impression that IIPs are only meant to be "laws" when convenient for the team/council.

• First of all, the first line clearly says, "Fuel sales are planned to be launched via an order book system allowing buyers and sellers autonomy in a free market system."
  That's why I assumed this was to be treated as a free market economy. But then if you have manual/automated balancing system I guess it doesn't make sense to call it a free market indeed.

• Secondly, it does state, "The parameters for the economic framework of the ecosystem, including fuel production per land plot, fuel price at the guardrail, and in-game fuel value (such as energy per travel), will be shared as an internal recommendation of a holistic system by the team and passed by ICCP by the council prior to open beta launch. Initially after open beta launch, balance changes to these parameters will be made by the team, in consultation with the council."
  The team can indeed change the fuel produced per land plot, but it does say it needs consultation with the council. IMO, it should require an ICCP for those changes to happen. But then again, we're seeing what's happening with this ICCP, so I don't know what to think about this anymore...

• Lastly, this IIP ties land sales with fuel balancing: "As player demand for fuel increases, small, predictable sales of Illuvium Zero land plots will be leveraged to scale fuel production. These micro-sales will not begin until a minimum of four months after open beta, pending fuel demand increasing."
  I agree that this is the way we should act if we need more fuel supply and how the automated balancing system should work. The player base will keep increasing and we'll need an ever increasing supply of fuel for prices to remain stable. The problem is when we reach the 100k unlocked plots and we're still not producing enough fuel for the player base in order for prices not to sky rocket. IMO only then should the fuel production per plot be a metric to change.

I do get your point that we would benefit from having a bit more clarity on this...

[jade mirage]

Can we get a laundry list on things to be clarified. Admittedly, some items without context can be confusing in the same vein this just means wordings needs to be revised.

What points do you guys want changed and we can introduce them as revisions

[flat path]

i don't agree that landsale should be used as fuel balancing, since lands are limited and nobody knows the max cap of DAU.
You basically have no scale you can start with, it's more of a council feels now is the time to start selling more land.

Landsales should be big marketing events, maybe alongside with 2 new games launching, or modes being implemented in existing games, which likely increase the playerbase aswell.
Also the revenue is likely going to be higher if you make a big event out of it, than selling it under the radar continuously.

[fickle wasp]

or the team can just increase the fuel curve and never have to sell more plots

[flat path]

i guess it's out of question since IIP-39 that more landsales are "needed"
but you can get some nice revenue with it

[fickle wasp]

need another ICCP to determine the parameters to justify the mini land sales

tbh for me personally 2 years BEP on an nft is too long

[flat path]

rather get my iip out of the sink to change that paragraph out of iip-39 completely 😄

But sure, as long as it stays and we talking about fuel parameters, would definetly like to see those parameters as mentioned above

[fickle wasp]

funny that training gym IIP was declined but keiran mentioned in the ama

[fiery creek]

😂

[fickle wasp]

rug or moon, no inbetween

[jade mirage]

It was declined prior to the game feature proposal. It was too specific and hence limiting. Now the proponent can propose it again using the guidelines of iip 60 and surely it would pass. But that's not the topic for this thread. Stay on point ser!

[tiny axle]

Caught in the cross-post crossfire.

[fickle wasp]

[fiery creek]

I knew it, Jag is a bot

less than 60 seconds between cross-post, impressive botting

[fickle wasp]

JAG 9000

[grizzled star]

Ok, here are some important points I think need to be defined:

• What are the current numbers? Is the upper rail $0.0085? Is the balancing price goal $0.00425?
• Since we're manually/automatically balancing fuel, how are we really going to adjust it? By changing the land production values, increasing the total supply of lands, or both?
• If we're changing the land production values, will there be differences between land plot tiers or will it be the same across the board?
• What will be the frequency of these adjustments, both manually and automatically?
• If land sales are included in the balancing act, what will be the size of these "micro-sales," and how much demand equates to "sufficient demand has been achieved to trigger land plot sales"?

[grizzled star]

If land sales are not included in the balancing act and are simply used as big marketing events disregarding supply/demand dynamics, it means with each sale we'll have to significantly lower the land production values to accommodate the increased total supply. IMO it feels bad as a landowner to sell more land when it not only lowers the production value per land, but with the supply increase, it will probably devalue the overall land price.

[flat path]

you do the same with continuous landsales

[grizzled star]

but with continuous land sales you don't need to lower the production value since they're being introduced to mitigate the increased demand.

[flat path]

why should that be different with big landsales?
especially if you do next landsale for example when the next 2 games go live?

[grizzled star]

it's very different because if we're balancing fuel then prices should be where we want them. Introducing a big land sale will require to lower the production values.

[flat path]

Fuel price gets manipulated either way and could be kept where we want them.
it all depends on how council and team sets parameters for the automated balancing system.
Both variants could have absolutely no impact on the fuel price.

For example if you start with the same parameters.

• You do continous landsales starting now.

• Playerbase increases steadily

• the fuel price keeps being stable, chosen by DAO with selling land continuously

• 2 new games get introduced

• Now you have to decide if you want a free market and fuel price spikes short term before it falls back to an average level or manipulate supply

• After all land is sold, you just balance with automated system

• You don't do continous landsales

• Playerbase increases steadily

• Fuel price rises (Supply and demand... illusion of a free market) (here you could start automated system kicking in to keep prices stable)

• Big landsale happens along with 2 new games

• Now you have to decide if you want a free market and fuel price spikes short term before it falls back to an average level because double the fuel amount or manipulate the supply

• After all land is sold you just balance with automated system

in example 1 you would end up with a more steady fuel price
in example 2 you would end up with free market illusion, a more interesting economy for zero players/part of the consumer group, marketing opportunity and a likely increased revenue of the landsale

If prices should be kept stable in both examples, the only difference is the point in time when the automated system goes life
in both examples price gets manipulated in example 1 the automated balancing system would have to kick in after all land is sold (otherwhise there's no reason to call landsale a fuel balancing system) in example 2 it would have to kick in earlier to keep prices stable all the time.

[grizzled star]

I think momentary volatility is acceptable and to be expected. I'm also more in favour of your 2nd example but according to IIP-39 land sales are indeed part of the balancing act. So as I said before I think this needs to be cleared out.

[flat path]

i'm with you, also curious about those as mentioned above 😄

[fickle wasp]

when we are talking about price, is it in usd or eth?

[fickle wasp]

<@&814435151307866142>
less than 24 hours to mainnet

[fickle wasp]

iip-45-r
acknowledges that players might have to buy fuel at the ceiling ($12 per S3 run current testnet values) for extended period

[fickle wasp]

about 13 hours to mainnet without an ICCP to determine fuel prices
so whats the plan here?
without an ICCP we gonna violate IIP-39

[dawn owl]

you tried 🫡

[flat path]

What now?
We have undefined Parameters? 😂

[fickle wasp]

we violated IIP-39.
But who cares anyway

its prob easier to just get rid of IIP-39

[jade mirage]

It would be good to post a new ICCP that the community can back. Basically, its status quo till a new ICCP is passed.

[dawn owl]

I'm suing

[fickle wasp]

[flat path]

So the goal is now to change parameters and bring it to a new vote?

I don't think community wouldn't habe backend it up or not, according to the number of total votes and activity in this thread it's more Like most don't care or haven't seen this was posted

[jade mirage]

That's what it seems. If people aren't satisfied with the current numbers of the upper rail then it makes sense for an iccp to change otherwise it's status quo as mentioned

[flat path]

What do you mean with status quo?
No further action of imc in this case?

[jade mirage]

Meaning the prices are as is. Imc action happens when there's a proposal to be voted on. Personally, I'm trying to coordinate with Labs and get proper community sentiment before I endorse any proposal. If more and more people feel upper rail price is wrong it makes sense to integrate it in the iccp than pass a proposal only for an iccp to change it. Or probably worse, the proposal doesn't get off the ground cause of disinterest or misalignment with the price/sentiment

[fickle wasp]

it needs to be broken down

and again we need the projected supply number from IZ

as a note, without cold wallet integration we prob need longer time to reach optimal supply

and its prob helpful to talk to the head of game economist

[fickle wasp]

another issue
the fuel is pegged in eth price
its suppose to go down not up lol

imagine when eth is at $10k
how are we gonna achieve the $5.7 target

[jade mirage]

Yeah thats why the ICCP here was supposed to give leeway to Labs to adjust the prices without needing an ICCP. Faster tweaking to the market

[fickle wasp]

do we want the ceiling in eth or usd

if we are targeting web2 then it should be in usd

it is important to know the assumptions made on the target pricing