IlP X: Fuel Allocation for Marketing Purposes

[hasty plover]

Author: Kieran W

Summary
This proposal allocates up to $25,000 worth of Fuel per month for marketing efforts, which will be distributed to influencers, partners, and guilds to attract new players to Illuvium. Any expenditure exceeding $25,000 will require council approval. Fuel must be used in-game and cannot be sold.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15X2_O_ZyKv7-MjNnKxVwQHFJBlkSPb3Qr1mNOoXogDo/edit

[old turret]

I like how the fuel cant be resold ensuring that the fuel given will either be used up for in-game purposes by the KOLs/Partners

[rancid sphinx]

Fuel can be resold?

[hard rapids]

taking more from revdis

how did we go from 100% revdis to minus commission, now minus this

[twin patrol]

makes sense to give a "kick starter" package to web2 influencers to introduce them to the game without having purchasing crypto for the time. If they reach their limit & enjoy the game.. more than likely they will start purchasing own.
I'm guessing there will be a limit to how much fuel is given to each influencer overall?

[hasty plover]

the other option is use our marketing budget but it seems a little ridiculous to be buying fuel as the DAO

[hard rapids]

$25k/month doesnt sound much tbh if we are expecting millions

why not allocate a percentage?

[hasty plover]

We don't need a percentage. This is the upper limit. We don't intend to spend anywhere near this every month

[hard rapids]

as for exceeding $25k, does it need an ICCP to increase the budget or just ask the IMC for approval?

[rancid sphinx]

Looks Like it would need an ICCP to Change this proposal since 25k is mentioned explicitly in the IIP

[south oyster]

I’m all for the $25k monthly cap for marketing. It keeps things simple and under control, which is what we need right now. We can think about percentages once our revenue is steady.

[old turret]

I actually don't see a need for percentage as this can easily scale. Having a hard cap makes it manageable and will require DAO intervention to increase.

[distant seal]

i dont like the idea of cutting into revdis more then we have to.
i would be more then happy if this 25k a month worth of fuel is being payed for out of marketing budgets. and the DAO still yields the revdis.
we have already made this step with the alliance program, and i think if we keep cutting into revdis, its exactly what we have promised to not do.
100% revdis was the message.

1 idea, turns into 2 ideas, into 3 where is the end

why this gets 18 upvotes is beyond me. why do we have to pay this from revdis, while it is CLEARLY marketing efforts, same with the alliance program.

maybe cut some on the airdrop, to free up some cash, instead of cutting into our only number that might give us any valuation.

Its not even about the money, its about the message, the only thing that is suppose to bring value for the average token holder, is just getting cut into.
and u are devaluing the complete idea of revdis, ALL REVENUE created from the game, is for the dao has been the message since day 1, cutting into it before it is revenue does not make this okay.

the alliance program was a mistake as well, u are creating a very contradicting road, people have been waiting for this for over 3 years, people have locked up 12 months to get 2.0 weight. And when the stages come where we might actually see some revdis. we start to cut into it, and chip away money from people who have held the token price high enough for u to get proper vc rounds to survive the bearmarket.
Its so wrong that we are making this idea ok, its everything we have promised not to do.

[twin patrol]

what about if you dedicate a mega city of land to produce the fuel covering the market cost..
That way when you offer it to the influencer you can be all like "we've got an allocated amount from our land to get you started" then when they go "land?" you can inform them what land is used for. Hopefully creating a positive flow on effect

[worn drift]

You seem to be against the airdrop, against the creator program, against this... Don't be the enemy of your own money. These are the exact marketing activities that bring more value to token holders.

I understand where you come from but these "cuts" will create a bigger pie to cut. Simple as that. 80% of something is a whole lot more than 100% of nothing.

[distant seal]

we have no data to prove any of this will have any effect, it would be a different story if we implement this later down the line to try and make a change.
we are just pre maturely cutting into revdis, just in case x or maybe y.
why does this have to be paid for by the dao, while its clearly for marketing purposes.
we have sold the idea of 100% revdis since forever, just to now dilute it to fill pockets of influential people in the community at the cost of the dao.
the entire alliance program is just going to act as a kick back for guilds in the long run, at the cost of the dao again.
we have no data on any spending behavior and we are just expecting this to have the desired effect, while not looking far enough into the negative side effects it might have.
its a complete different story if we start these programs when we have data on what is actually happening and create a improvement.

[distant seal]

its okay tho, the community decides, ill rest my case.

[rough sun]

I think thats a great idea, another way to reduce the barrier and market our game 💯

[hard rapids]

will upload this to github

[hard rapids]

IIP-61
@hardy snow

[dusty topaz]

I'd like to ad a "condition" for influencers: They need to share a % of the fuel with their community, to enable more people to enter the ecosystem.

[hasty plover]

Tbh we aren't giving them much, it's enough for them to try the game out on a 2 hour stream

[gentle nest]

Prefer a refer a friend system where they get a small amount of fuel to do a couple of tier 1 runs tbh - don't like taking even more from revdis. You do this and there will be another IIP next taking more revdis from investors.

[gentle nest]

Surely the marketing budget comes from the treasury's revenues, as was always intended.

[midnight vortex]

I always believed that the DAO had set aside (staked) a certain amount of ILV that was dedicated for such purposes (including payroll and all other expenses; aka the treasury). That ILV would then receive RevDis which would be claimed and, based on budgetary distribution percentages, distributed to cover the cost for each expense. Thus the "marketing budget" for Illuvium comes from staked DAO-owned RevDis distributions NOT through a tax on other stakeholder's RevDis rewards. If more is required, a "share buyback" essentially would occur so a greater percentage of RevDis is then provided to the DAO to cover increasing ongoing costs.

Am I wrong? If so, then RevDis truly isn't 'Revenue' Distribution and instead it is 'Profit' Distribution. If this is the case, the team and us need to be referring to RevDis as ProfDis instead to really let that sink in and be accurate for where we are at today versus where we were at 3 years ago.

[hard rapids]

it hasnt been revdis or 100% revdis for awhile since we deduct COGS from merchandise
and we did the safety pool

[midnight vortex]

I remember that happening. Got it, so where does Payroll expenses get paid out of? The treasury? Or do we have a bank account outside of the token? If so, then just like all other operating expenses, it should be pulled out of there and not out of RevDis? Who is the CFO? I'd love to have a detailed explanation of fund flow for Illuvium that's documented and up to date....

[hard rapids]

<@&814435151307866142> quick question,
why do we need this IIP for marketing purposes when the $1m Fuel Crate airdrop didnt need an IIP but dubbed as marketing expense too

[midnight vortex]

@gray acorn Is there an infographic and/or document where I can find more detailed explanation of the current state of profit distribution for ILV stakeholders? Please let me know as that may help us here and over in #💰〕token . Thank you!

[hard rapids]

#1265173455955824682 message

[old turret]

The answer here is that the loyaty airdrop is not in the same parameters as the fuel allocation IIP. Back in beyond waves, we allocated d1sks to be given to influencers as well and that was covered by an IIP. So there was precedent for Fuel allocation for marketing to be covered by an IIP 🙂

[hard rapids]

@abstract meteor explained to the ICC that the fuel crate airdrop was marketing

so the fuel crate airdrop should not be a loyalty airdrop, we had a separste loyalty token airdrop to landowners

@worn pagoda also argued to me that the fuel crate airdrop might actually be net positive, enticing landowners to spend more.
His arguement is consistant with treating the Fuel Crate Airdrop as marketing

i asked the IMC why the Fuel Crate Airdrop didnt need an IIP, and the answer was because it was marketing

[old turret]

And it was marketing intended for loyalty airdrop. The parameters and conditions are different. One was for land holders while this IIP is specific to KOLs which the previous instance with the d1sks also was intended to be distributed to. So it stands to reason that having similar conditions and parameters to the d1sks iip, we would need an IIP to give out fuel to KOLs.

[hard rapids]

so marketing for:
KoLs need IIP
but,
marketing for:

• landowners (fuel crate airdrop)
• stakeholders (loyalty)
• players (P2A)
  doesnt need IIP

but they are all marketing

the D1sk giveaway, alliance program and the fuel crate airdrop share one common parameter that is foregoing revenue

[old turret]

You asked why theres was a difference with this and the airdrop I answered that. Now if your issue is about foregoing revenue then thats a different topic altogether. If you feel strongly about it you can propose an IIP to run contrary with the trend. But to date this IIP has overwhelmingly support from the community.

[hard rapids]

i supported this IIP and the alliance program, just want some clarity on what kind of marketing that need IIP and what does not. a consistency

[slim juniper]

While I like the idea of this, I believe better results would be achieved, making something within the game that people are rewarded with. Word of mouth will spread with Influencers and more people will come 'naturally' and stay be3cuase they will believe they can achieve progress.
You already have the Alliance program.
The numbers on launch have not convinced me that Influencer pushing is working. A few occasions have created a spike yet Id like to know the long term results.

I see a few benefits as the proposal stands.

• Guild can take people on guided runs- especially through the higher Tiers.
• some new players
• reach outside the illuvium sphere.

One question
Are there any restrictions to how the fuel is distributed, and used. Other than it being only used in game.

[slim juniper]

I was thinking something similar, yet more along the lines of land holders being able to sell fuel at a set price to IlVLabs for fuel rewards.
for example reaching a certain milestone, random loot crates, or things to find (ship pices?).

[twin patrol]

bonus features for the land would be optimal for driving up the fp

release another 10 plots for prizes and have a tournament with some web2 influencers. Have them duke it out in gauntlet.. that would be a hoot