ILZ Zero Fuel From Land - Using own production and stabilizing prices

[burnt osprey]

Regarding fuel prices and usage.

Since price is set by only supply and demand, I believe there are some tweaks that could help stabilize the price.

1. I dont know if its already planned, forgive me if it is repetitive, but the possibility of land owners to use their own fuel, produced in their land, for overworld playing without selling and buying in illuvidex would be a great refinement.
   From a psychological factor, it feels like "free" to play stage 2-3 using my own fuel.
   Besides, when fuel prices are low, it would incentivize playing instead of more undercutting prices or hoarding (until the point where we need to dump to market at whatever price because we have a full storage)

2. Adding that to a price fixation around a certain price, with 25% or so variation up or down would also make things more predictable. Cheaper fuel leads to cheaper illuvialls, consumption, fees, etc. Nothing good comes from it. I believe it was planned to be that way, dont know why is not now.

[upbeat hill]

Exactly. The fuel I produce has to be sold at the lowest possible price, but I can't use it myself. Fuel is being sold at lower prices day by day, it's a vicious circle

[queen valley]

1. Fuel sending to overworld is a high prio feature in developement.
   As far as i know the ratio is being kept now. This is likely being done with for every 1 fuel you send to your OW ranger the DAO sets a sell order for 19 fuel on floor price. At least that sound like the easiest way to do it :).
   It for sure could be discussed if it should be added as a feature for landowners and there is no sell order placed.

2. I rather like to have a free market than some artificial rails. The "fair" price has to be found and likely can vary by quite a bit bot likely with a lower volatility as soon as supply stabilizes and its more or less dependent on DAU.

[shell storm]

yup price discovery is important

[tepid escarp]

I would like to see this feature implemented immediately!

[plain socket]

Are they considering changing this 1:19 fuel sell ratio?

I get that the team needs to make money to pay for servers and developing new features. But if you keep it at such a high ratio, the fuel prices will continue to drop and soon it'll drop fast.

Fuel output on lands is starting to reach maximum for most. Some whales on these message boards are already saying they have more fuel than they know what to do with. Also apparently there was a massive portion of people who were keeping their lands on secondary wallets, who within the next few weeks will be also reaching maximum fuel output.

The more of us competing to sell, this will drive the prices way down. If you keep the 1:19 ratio, then there is a lot of selling needed to get rid of player fuel, which creates a very competitive of lowering sell prices.

If you change it so that player fuel is sells at a higher ratio (I'm not saying 50:50), but the faster player fuel sells out, then we stop competing against each other.

Right now you know that you are going to get more than 100% back in bonus. If I needed 1200 fuel, I can buy 500 fuel and likely get enough.

If they change the ratio, and the player fuel sells out more, then there is less bonus being given out. Which means you would need to buy 600 or 700 fuel or maybe more, depending on how you fix the ratio

[queen valley]

They for sure don't change it for now, i guess one has to write an IIP to change it.

The big drop has not come yet i guess.... 2nd wallet support just got patched.
This will bring many high tier plots, megacities and whale wallets with scholars.

landlords will always compete against each other, no?
how would another ratio change that, you still compete just get a bigger piece of the cake

Yea, the UI all arround fuel sell and buy needs an update. Many missing info, and the info we see seems to be more confusing than helping.
I'm sure the team is aware and push for better UI.

[plain socket]

If you set the player amount higher, than the bottom gets scooped up faster. Then players wouldn't have to compete against each other as much. Or if the bottom got scooped up quicker, then there wouldn't be time for someone else to put a lower price.

Right now the land sellers are basically setting the price, as there are huge bonuses. Even if the price listed is 0.0066, it's really not.

If more land fuel is sold, and there are less bonuses given out, then the price gets closer to 0.0066 or whatever the team sets.

The team can make more money by taking a smaller percentage but selling more DAO fuel (less bonus). 95% of 500 fuel (475) is the same as 80% of 600 fuel (480).

I don't have the numbers of how much is sold each day, and how much land there is to estimate how much more is going to be sold in the future. But the team would have that information. They could calculate basically the best ratio to keep prices where they want.

They can also set how far below their price they want land owners to be able to sell. As long as it sells out no one will complain.

I'm not saying that they do this now, but if they are looking to stabilize pries this could be a good way to do so. Again you'd need all the data to see what the optimal ratio for profit would be, and adjust as needed. Like I wouldn't over correct but make small changes over long periods of time.

[plain socket]

Sorry should of sent the above message as a reply

[shell storm]

and megacities supposed to get revenue bonus too

it has to come from somewhere, unless its already been implemented, we gonna have to allocate some revenue for the MC owners

[proper gale]

Good luck with that

[latent stag]

Features take time and there is more important thing a at this stage IMO but give the team time ☺️

[vivid marlin]

Problem with changing the ratio is you mess with the 5% share and anything higher most likely will not be acceptable to stakers.

[plain socket]

Even if the math makes them more money?

[vivid marlin]

We need to explore other possibilities as its gonna be an uphill battle.

[plain socket]

Only so much time though. Airdrop of 180k ilv tokens gives a lot of incentives for people to play and buy fuel. And the second half of airdrops don’t typically go as well as first half as token dumps happen.

There has been a lot of suggestions and the team does listen. I guess we gotta trust them and hope next month they can implement some things and bring new incentives for people

It’ll be tough but if you can cause more buying then selling, then this problem goes away

[shell storm]

ive observed this in other games too

[west sky]

it should be easily balanced with more ILV/sILV2 utility/incentive like burning mecanism coming along with discounted price. Also If changing the ratio to 10%/90% mean fuel 'printed' divised by 2 for less than 5% revdiv difference, it a risk they might safely consider imo

[vivid marlin]

Basically we're taxing landowners output? I don't think that's also gonna be acceptable to landowners though 🤔

[west sky]

i thought it will make landowners win more over stackers as x2 revdiv (from 5 to 10%) and 2x less diluted supply 1/19 to 1/9. Hard to get the full picture anyway will need to understand it better, just feeling like they are room for fuel economy improvement.

will be a rought cut for sure that why ILV utilty will be needed, for now stacking only looks thin

[vivid marlin]

I've had my fair share talking to them and once you give them higher output but knowing it's not gonna translate to higher income generating or worse see it as being taxed, they will be pushing back. I'm not against it. It's definitely worth exploring. Just wanted to give heads up on potential push backs

[queen valley]

I feel your are pulling the wrong lever for the problem you describe

• If you want to have less fuel on the market or smaller orders, labs and imc can just adjust supply with mechanics they set up in IIP-39
• If you want to have a bigger piece of the cake, one can write an IIP to change the ratio.

[tepid escarp]

The fact that we can't sell most of our fuel at the moment is critical.
We should also solve the problem of DAO fuel production (19:1),
but first we should be able to use the fuel we produce ourselves.

[plain socket]

The problem with the 19:1 ratio is that you've created a hyper competitive player fuel selling market.

If you sell 100,000 fuel, that is only 5,000 player fuel that is being sold.

If you sold 1,000,000 fuel, that's 50,000 player fuel, but with tier 4 land they can be pumping out up to 5k. That is only 10 tier 4 lands.

Since there isn't this much demand, and with the amount of tier 4 land about to hit max output, it'd be hard to image that we ever get to that type of demand. It means that basically the player fuel is never fully bought up.

This is why we have to compete to sell our fuel. Which means it will continually decrease the price (the true price with bonus).

The more the price decreases or the more bonus we get, it means the DAO fuel is worth less and stakers actually get less money. 5% actually hurts everyone, land owners, the team and stakers.

You'd need the actually numbers, but the team should have them and could adjust to make the optimal ratio.

Yes, this is easier said than done, as it would require an entirely new IIP.

And in the new month, there will be more fusing missions, hopefully some burning mechanisms, new leaderboards. All things that can create some more demand. As the numbers change it will change what the ratio should be. So the team might be waiting to see how it all shapes out

[lusty edge]

The DAO should not be setting a sell order for 19x at a floor price when I set it at a higher price. If I set it higher, they better set it to the same higher prices I did.

~~"A fair price" is all well and good if there is limited supply and demand, but that is NOT how things are setup. We have an issue where supply side could COMPLETELY overwelm demand side and send fuel prices literally to 0 through constant inflation. This would kill market prices on all Illuivals and items. This would kill ALL PROFIT from the DAO. ~~ [EDIT: The team can nerf production whenever they want so that less fuel is produced]

Infinite inflation has happened in other games too, such as Axie, causing 99% market crashes.

For transparency, there NEEDS to be a LOWER RAIL set, even if the lower rail means Stage 1 runs cost $0.10 and Stage 3 runs cost $1. Just set it very low so that the game is very accessible for a time to drive adoption. If fuel ends up selling slowly and stacking up, then we can transfer it to our main accounts when that is implemented.

A lot of people are hesitant to put money into illuvials/equipment with falling prices. I don't want to buy fuel today if it will be 2.5x cheaper next week (which literally happened) The lower rail could also provide a basic indicator of when the market has bottomed and can't go down any further, making it safer to invest and buy up lots of fuel.

Free market is all well and good unless it literally crumbles to nothing. I am not saying it will, but it is a realistic possiblity that the DAO should have a contingency plan in place for. A lower rail is that contingency plan. EDIT: This is not a free market. The team can cut production and reduce supply in this manner at any time.

[lusty edge]

Price discovery is important. Fluxtuation is fine. But we need top and bottom rails to guide that price discovery. So we can bounce between them and find the correct price.

A bottom rail creates a safe buying opportunity is the main thing.

[queen valley]

Are they undercutting?

Labs and the IMC actually have control over the supply (see iip-39), they even increased it with a zero patch, and they didn't react yet to it. So i guess the price is going where the council and labs want the price going.

Infinite inflation means ifninit DAU and playtime... lets be honest, that would be a problem we all want to have 😛

A lower rail doesn't solve any problem, fuel would just stack up there with the DAU we have.
Sure, supply might be way too high now, especially with all the high tiers and megacities start selling fuel soon, but what we really need is demand to really kick off a healthy economy.

Absolutely agree, most people who understands the economy in illuvium and follow what's happening with zero is waiting on the sideline now.

[lusty edge]

The way you explained it you said they were.

[queen valley]

nah not really, I just read it again.
Seems there is a misunderstanding... or my english is just shit 😄

[lusty edge]

I would rather sell 1250 Crypton for $1 slowly, than to sell it quickly for $0.01. A lower rail solves that problem and ensures illuvials/items have a rock bottom cost to craft/create.

[lusty edge]

Yeah, I think it's a misunderstanding. You wrote "for every 1 fuel you send to your OW ranger the DAO sets a sell order for 19 fuel on floor price". Do you mean if you set it to floor price?

I believe the DAO sets it to the same price that you set.

[queen valley]

yes, it's bsically the same as you put a sell order and buy your share back instantly.
And it's just an asumption how i would do it i think that was written pretty clearly 🙂

[lusty edge]

Yeah... I thought you meant us selling, and i did not read that right. My bad.

[lusty edge]

Now that I understand what you said... this unfortunately means that sending fuel to your ranger in overworld will literally do nothing to mitigate falling fuel prices since 95% of the same fuel would be sold anyway... I was hoping when sending to your ranger that nothing would be listed on the market causing a reduction in supply.

[queen valley]

maybe they do it that way, but i highly doubt it.
Would be a super cool feature to increase land value!

[lusty edge]

I just read IIP-39. I now see what the team is trying to do. But I really dislike the lack of transparency around this. It essentially means they could patch fuel production of lands at any time to cut existing fuel production (like halving the amount of fuel land gives you to reduce supply). That doesn't sound like a free market at all.

I don't think fuel will ever go to zero anylonger. But I also am not happy about the idea of them playing willynilly with fuel prices/supply whenever they want. If we as a community had a lower guardrail and we were stuck at it, the team could then cut active production, which should raise the price over time.

It would be more transparent with a guardrail system like that rather than taking the players by surprise.

[lusty edge]

I agree that demand is crucial to keep the economy growing. Just wish there was transparency about the target fuel price where they will cut production to reduce supply.

This was a bad prediction so far. From IIP-39

This is not accurate. I have had fuel listed for sale significnatly cheaper than the listed avg market price for 3 days with no sale. Land owners need to see the actual order book for accurate price targeting while selling.

[queen valley]

IIP-54 changed the Launch date of Zero to be AT the same time as OW and Arena. That basically made that prediction useless since the basic Parameters of it got changed.

[lusty edge]

It would have been far worse if land had 4 weeks prep time to get max storages for overworld launch.

[queen valley]

Could have gone either Way... I would likely be grinding OW Hard now, instead of staying on the sidelines

[bitter heart]

Or....we don't do anything and focus on growing the player base as that will solve the problem.

[lusty edge]

I just think it would be good to have a safety rail that the community understands "This is as low as the fuel price can go! Now is a great time to buy lots of fuel the closer it is to the low price rail!" Gives us confidence when we should buy.

[lusty edge]

Why are you staying on the sidelines? Don't want to put your money into fuel while it is coming down in price?

[upbeat hill]

This is a statistical record of the sale price

[lusty edge]

At least the drop seems to be slowing down, but I think that's just because the DAO is only letting us set it so low with a temporary lower rail system.

The problem is they keep slightly lowering it every day, after day. So the lowest price is constantly creeping downward, so you got to relist lower and lower if you want to have a chance at selling. If they are going to keep doing this, there needs be a system where it doesn't go lower except every 24-48 hours or something to give people a chance to buy up at the current lowest price.

[tepid escarp]

Yeah,right

[tepid escarp]

I sell a lot of fuel at the lowest price every day,
but I can't sell much (Only 5-10% of the daily output can be sold).

I think that many land owners are not aware of this problem because they don't produce and sell fuel.

They will encounter this critical problem and start making a fuss as time goes on.

The problems that need to be solved are

1. The fuel that you produce can be moved to the OW as it is.
In this case, production by DAO should not be carried out (1:19)

**2. Abolition of the fixed ratio of 1:19. **
Change to a system that fluctuates according to supply and demand
(in the case of no demand, the production volume should be reduced by DAO).

As an additional proposal, since the rights of land owners are always threatened,
I think that at least one person from among the land owners should be elected as a trustee.

It is clear that, despite the fact that fuel prices have been falling day after day,
sales of most fuels have not been successful,
and the current system of selling them on the market at a ratio of 1:19 is failing.

If you have any other good ideas, please let me know.

[queen valley]

Yes

[plain socket]

I totally agree that something has to be done, before all land owners max out fuel production. Before all of the long time supporters, who own a lot of land, decided it's just not worth their time anymore.

The only thing they can do besides making changes to the ratio or reducing fuel production (which I think is a terrible idea and a great way to piss off land owners) is create a lot more fuel demand. I think there are a lot of great ideas on the feedback-idea boards, and I've personally thrown quite a few ideas out there. Personally I think giving more incentives for burning mechanisms, will create a big enough short term demand, for them to implement some of the harder to implement suggestions. Even changing the 1:19 ratio, will take quite a bit of time to write a IIP, get support and then be voted on.

I've listen to people and think it's probably not best to make immediate changes. It's probably not a good idea to make any big changes before the first month ends. They don't want to get the reputation of changing things mid airdrop. Can't really gain much trust from the community that way. But it'll be interesting to see what changes they make to the second month when they reset all airdrop points.

[lusty edge]

I do agree that growing the player base is the #1 way to sell the fuel. So let's do that, but let's also recognize that the game came out and was set at too high of a price tag for the majority of people to play. $12 for a T3 run was too much. I'd guess $1-3 range is more in line with what many would prefer. I think its like $2.85 to do a T3 run now. $1.07 to do a T2 run. Like $.35 to do T1 run. That's reaching into much more affordable levels compared to launch. Shard costs are also massively down from $12 for a resplendent to under $4 now.

Reduction in price is a good thing, but I do think we want to not let it get too far down and devalue the entire current illuvidex items. I would like to hear the DAO/Council's plan on reducing supply to bring things in balance when the price reaches the right spot, which is coming up imo.

[tepid escarp]

If it sells, I don't mind lowering the price, but even if I set the price to the lowest possible, it still doesn't sell much.

As a result, fuel is produced every day, and the warehouse is overflowing and I have to throw it away.

[west sky]

-It's not a free market and never been, how it could be different with that closed system. But still it's working as it should.
We can make improvement and then change it to in-chain idealy.

-Bottom rail will only stake supply/sell order to it and same selling problem will come imo as say.

• Fact is supply is still too high for demand, i will say we need to find the real Bottom first, but can buyers really match the hundreds thousands (millions?) printed fuel Everyday ? I will need to see it first to say so but will not be anytime soon as me might need to x2/x3 current playerbase.
  It could Bottom close to 0 tho but they will change the system before ofc, just be prepare and act accordinaly. When problem will be adressed prior it might change, for now it's still on the reaction side sadly. (We might need better balanced fuel utlity at some point)

[plain socket]

I've seen a lot of people make this argument, and I'm just wondering in crypto and Web3 does this argument makes sense. Isn't it more on expected rate of return. Overworld has been compared to pack opening. For me topshots was a great example of pack opening. As long as the overall return is possible, people will gamble on getting a good pack.

People will pay anything, if they think they can make money.

There is a certain price point that just doesn't make sense for people. Let us say it's a 10% return, so a $12 run you'd expect $13.20 back. A $2.85 run, you'd expect $3.14. If it gets down to a $1, that's $1.10 a run. It won't make sense for most people at the price point.

[tepid escarp]

If this game is profitable and fun, I will happily broadcast it to attract customers
(I am Japanese, so I will broadcast it for Japan).

However, at the moment, it is difficult to recommend this game to others when there is no sign of it being profitable at all.

[plain socket]

Also as a crypto game, there just isn't a way to get adoption from traditional gaming or the phone gamer community yet. So you don't have access to millions of players. If you did, then yes $10 average would be great. But this is a crypto game, if you get to a million players, it'll be one of the most played crypto games ever, and $10 average would put this game out of business

[plain socket]

Exactly, which is why I don't like the argument that prices needed to bottom out to attract players. I don't think a crypto game attracts anyone if it's not profitable, and right now it's not profitable

[west sky]

it's not much about web2/web3 but more about gaming industry i would say. Even in "traditionnal gaming' you barely see games with a growing playerbase. Can be explain in many way, but at the end human tend to get annoyed and will tend to the next one. Now they use to make thing dinamic so player dont get bored fast.

web3 is about profitability for now lol like it or not as web3 user are kind of beta testers right

[lusty edge]

The thing you got to understand is that a Holo Rhampy floor prices are over $200. If you catch one, you'll have paid for your next 50+ runs in a row. Or dark holo T4's. Many of those have sold for over $200 as well.

Or literally any perfect or near perfect stat illuvials will easily net you $10-300 depending on the Tier.

I don't think this game is about making 10% more than you spent on each run, but instead about popping out that super rare high stat dark holo that someone will pay $100 for because they can use the dark holo in leviathan arena coming up.

Easily paying for many runs with one lucky fuse or lucky capture.

[plain socket]

I was just using 10% as a marker, to show that at some price point it just doesn't make sense for people

[lusty edge]

Just saying some people have made a lot from catching those rare illuvials already.

[plain socket]

Which they are willing to do because they are getting a $100 pay out. What if that was $10? or $5 or $1?

There is a price point that you need to keep this game at for people to be willing to gamble on "pack opening".

It's 2 weeks deep and a dark holo is $100, what happens after the first month, two months, or 5 months into the 6 month season.

I just don't get the argument that lowering gas prices is actually going to help this game. How is lowering the price of everything going to help this game?

[lusty edge]

Because I tried to get a couple of my friends to play and they were like, "$12 to just TRY and maybe FAIL to capture an illuvial? That's crazy." You have to try many times to cap an illuvial in a single run. Shards cost more than fuel when capping lots of illuvials of high level.

Now that costs have come down so much--it just helps especailly if you were to focus on T1-T3 illuvials mainly. It's much cheaper to capture them. Total capture costs are like $0.05, but if you get one with perfect stats you can still sell it for $20-150, or more... The costs on Stage 1/2 runs are much easier to swallow for an average player now. They could probably play all month for 2 hours a day on less than $20 if they just did Stage 1/2 runs and sold some high stat illuvials they find or their essences/ingots/gems etc.

Reasonably lower costs = easier adoption 100% for a larger potential playerbase.

[plain socket]

If you got 10,000 new players at that price point at $20 a month, that's $200,000 worth of gas, which is $10000 in player fuel (5%). At the current price average price, that's 3 million fuel. A single tier 4 land can create 5k per day, or 150k per month. That would take 20 tier 4 land to make that much fuel.

Not to mention if you had 10,000 new players doing just that strategy, those perfect state illuvials would be worth a fraction of what they are worth now.

I'd agree with you if I thought you could get to 1,000,000 new players. Because than fuel consumption even at $20 per person, you'd have all the player fuel being consumed

[lusty edge]

You underestimate how rare they are. I have gone through thousands of illuvials at this point and I have NEVER found even one perfect stat illuvial...

[lusty edge]

I mainly am talking about causals playing in spare time, but there are whales dropping hundreds of dollars per week in fuel/upgrades/crafting, etc. I believe avg player spend is over $100 currently

[plain socket]

okay but if they are that hard to catch, what casual player will continue to pump in $20 and 2 hours a day, to most likely never get a return on their money.

[plain socket]

Which is to my point, whales don't care if it's $2 a run or $12 a run

[lusty edge]

The cool thing is we can have both whales and non-whales in the $1-3 for stage 3 run area. Even at current prices top tier equipement still costs $140+ dollars to craft alone.

We getting off topic. I'm gonna go grind overworld.

[plain socket]

I'm saying we should understand our playerbase and understand how to make this game profitable and survive. You can't cater to whales and the $20 a month player. It's just not possible to create entire economics that will cater to every single person. If we continue to try and bring in $20 a month players, there will be no profit to be made, and the whales and the rest of Web3 players looking to make a profit will leave.

I'd rather them cater to the Web3 playerbase, who like you said is willing to put in $100 or more. That is how this game will survive.

I've seen that argument for bring down prices as a solution to our current problems, and I just don't see how it's going to help. Certainly hasn't made things much better on fuel prices, which is the main topic of this thread.

[lusty edge]

To maximize revenue, the truth is you want a mix of both so that whales can whale and get an advantage over the other players--which is one of the main reasons they will spend so much money. Without the casual player to play against, there is no incentive for the whale to whale.

Catering to the low spender and big spender is exactly why there are Stage 0/1/2/3 runs at different price points.

Small spenders can still make progress, but with a lot more effort and time put into the game.

[plain socket]

I agree to that. I reread your original post and you say that reduction is good but not too far. So honestly I think we are on the same side.

My original question and frustration is that on a lot of these chats people just throw out that as prices come down, we will get more players. Like that is the ultimate solution.

[lusty edge]

It's not that "price reduction guarantees more players" it just makes adoption easier. I forsee fluxcuation in prices. I just think a low guard rail is a wise bounce point to have to prevent prices from going too low.

I am guessing the team will bounce the price by reducing ILV: Zero production if land owners are overflowing with fuel or something.

[plain socket]

The only problem with that is fuel/land/illuvial/ilv token,etc are all connected. So if you lower production too much then land profits become too low.

Which is why these topics are so damn hard. Because it is such a complicated system

[west sky]

it's not a problem it's a stenght, your economic basic are mostly worng upstair too. Biggest whales now spend low thousands, i will rather have hundreds of 20$ players as it will be obv more healsthy but everybody have is own opinion right

whales infinite money might come from the poor too, just saying.

don't get me wrong high price are good for the market obv, but growing playerbase is at least as important. As you can't 'rigged' the fuel market to push higher price, as whales not gonna spend infinite money on negative ROI.

[hexed rose]

First, I would like to briefly address some comments:

• sending fuel to ranger in ow directly, without selling extra DAO fuel, would basically allow landlords to manipulate prices with the extra storage in OW
• Cutting/raising ILZ production isn't as easy as it sounded in some posts since IMC has to agree.
• Corrections to fuel output might be very necessary to balance economy over all games
• lower rail would be damaging because we could block ourselves from the true price for mass adoption because people already aren't very interested at playing with these prices.
• Target prices for OW as stated by the team are at around 5$ for a stage 3 run. This seems heavily flawed in my opinion because playtime per $ is too low. Wrote a longer feedback about that in #1272888472570433619 message
• prior to launch it would have been possible to have the target price for a stage 3 run at 50 cents or even lower, which would provide the ability to attract web2 players by adapting the fuel output from ILZ accordingly. Sadly, after launch it isn't that easy anymore because we would damage early birds in regards of OW investment quite heavily. Now, we have the situation that the prices are too low for landowners in terms of ROI and still too high on a per run basis for the normal player and therefore for mass adoption. Therefore, I proposed a system that creates two target prices for the two audiences in my linked post to satisfy landlords, early OW players and new web2 players. This should increase demand while keeping the ROI for ILZ at a higher level.

This ofc. Is a midterm solution because it could be possible that OW needs some additional feature for demand to increase. The general problem here is that the target price is set at around 5$ for a stage 3 run and fuel production was calculated on the basis of that. Which means 1$ per stage 3 already reduces the ROI for land drastically. With lower target price AND HIGHER fuel production we could reach 25 cent stage 3 runs without losing ROI on our lands. So, if anything I would like to object that we need a lower rail, we need more fuel without reducing the average ROI on a landplot. Let’s say the soft spot for the average player to invest into OW is 25 cents for a stage 3 run. We can now sit and wait until we reach that spot while ROI for land will drop together with fuel OR we can actively try out a new price target range. For that we would need to increase land fuel production by a factor of 25 which would be the equivalent of setting the price target for a stage 3 run at 25 cents. If we hit the soft spot around that area and people start using up all the fuel by playing, the ROI for land would be as high as it would have been at a price target of 5$ for a stage 3 run with 25x less fuel production from each land plot.

With this I just want to show that this system has weaknesses, because prices will drop to a certain soft spot either way. The way we are going now is to undercut each other over a long period of time. One day we will hit this spot and people will start playing. At that point it is basically not worth to sell fuel anymore, because it got too cheap for the production a landplot can offer, and after the reserves that londlords had built up over the last weeks are gone, prices will rise, and people will play less again but the cycle would break here because the prices are too far below the target price (which would offer a good return) of 5$ per stage 3 run. Landlords won’t see a reason to play ILZ because ROI is too low. So, prices keep rising, we are losing our playerbase because quite a lot of them won’t be interested in arena and will leave Illuvium behind.
That won’t happen if our target price is lower from the get-go and therefore fuel production per land is higher because landlords would be happy with their ROI while simultaneously players would be happily playing the game. That can only happen if the target price and real price are quite similar. Also, the upper rail should be adjusted to the lower target price accordingly because for the project the fuel price can barely be too low but it can definitely be too high because during a time with high player influx the prices could get too expensive again which would limit the influx of new players quite drastically. Ofc. We could always adjust fuel production during that time again, but only a few days with too extrem prices could kill the hype.
If you are interested in my how to protect nft-value while securing ROI and lower target prices, I would advice you to read my other post which I linked above.

[pearl widget]

Yes,this is crazy.And when player buy Fuel 10times higher!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[undone crescent]

Although you are correct in your analyses I don't really like your solution. Let's give it time for now, the team will keep building and demand will increase along with the player base. Slow and steady it's ok. These are the dynamics of free markets.

I will say that I disagree that "The general problem here is that the target price is set at around 5$ for a stage 3 run and fuel production was calculated on the basis of that."

Just because the team in accordance with the IMC can change this at any time.

[west sky]

good analyses i agree, still we are not sure if solution like divising supply by 10/splitting the economy in 2/changing revdiv % distribution, is the road to follow. Its might look like a good short term solution to solve a short/mid term problem. Facts is we know nothing about fuel data, labs do, and they will react if they think it is needed for the long term vision, no doubt. They are the most aware ppl to do so and we are just here to feed there idea basicly .

[hexed rose]

totally agree with both of you! In the end labs would need to opt in and analyse if something like that is suitable. I am just here to give arguments and to get community feedback. Nothing is set in stone here. I just repeat this on different occasions to get sentiment from different persons with different perspectives. In the near future I also hope to be able to discuss options and community sentiment with labs as part of the gaming council to shine light on all perspectives in the community.

[vagrant stratus]

This thread got very long before I spotted it so forgive me if this has already been said.

I think it would be better for the economy once this new system is implemented and land owners can use there own fuel that x19 fuel is not minted if land holders use the fuel themselves.

At the moment it seems like there is way to much fuel which is why prices keep plummeting every day.

So basically land holders have to decide... Do I

A. Sell the fuel and make some money because fuel price is good

Or

B. Fuel price sucks I'm going to use the fuel myself and not put more downwards preasure on the price.

If land holders choose to use there own fuel selling 19x more is still going to push the price down further and continue this cycle of fuel dumping. I would also suggest land holders have no actual control over the price if your still selling 19x more everytime they use their fuel.

[tepid escarp]

@turbid vessel
The council members seem to have little or no interest in this topic, or are unaware of it.
Are there really any trustees who are knowledgeable about Zero?

What are your thoughts on this fuel issue?

[vivid marlin]

Fuel is an ongoing topic in IMC. Were currently exploring how to address this alongside the laundry list of priorities that Labs needs to do.

[shell storm]

we want tens of thousands of people who can afford arena leaderboard/tournament
its good that bad stats will be cheap(er) and good stats be more expensive

[undone crescent]

how's this related to the conversation? 🤣

[shell storm]

well cmiiw the only reason we have multiple discussions on this is because fuel price keep going lower

lowering production and increase storage capacity would only buy us time.
sending to OW helps, but its gonna create a huge sell wall in the order book if most send to Ow.

[undone crescent]

it started high, we go low, so we can find balance in the middle

lol so be it... There were ILV buyers at 1000$ + as well and there were ILV sellers at 40$. That's how the game rolls.

not to mention that for every buyer there's a seller.

[tepid escarp]

My suggestion is this.

#1271821709703385108 message

[shell storm]

if we abolish the 1:19 system, then how can the stakers get their revdis with demand this low.
lowering production can help buy us time until demand gets better, but thats all, buy time

[turbid vessel]

Honestly it all comes down to demand. No matter the price of OW run, for now its not a game on its own and its mostly the pack opening for arena

If the ev ROI finds it sweet spot at 60% lets say it matters little if the run is 2 or 3$ as you always lose 40% on avg

Arena incentives didnt start yet and people all expected and continue to expect fuel to go down as it was planned in the fuel economy. Thats why right now theres no demand and fuel is in a free fall limited by the pseudo lower rail

The only thing that will eventually make fuel find its sweet spot is when supply meets demand and for now we only have supply

[queen valley]

you could theoretically lower the supply by that much, it would skyrocket with the current DAU. 😛

[tepid escarp]

I also consider it problematic to release large quantities at 1:19 as stipulated,
even though demand is not high. It should be varied according to supply and demand.

I also believe that if it works, the problem of “almost no fuel sales” will not arise as it currently does.

Even if it is set at the lowest price, it hardly sells.

[turbid vessel]

I dont think thats the problem really. No matter how much fuel supply we give right now its too much because theres close to 0 demand as long as we dont have arena

[tepid escarp]

I don't play arena much, so I'll ask someone who knows about it and understand it.

[undone crescent]

Can we acknowledge that launching three interconnected games without fully developing all of them leads to disaster?

I hope this serves as a learning lesson for the DAO so that, in the future, we don't allow things to be rushed...

[turbid vessel]

I think it was fine to launch without yet having ow and zero be a game on their own and arena without all its features and everything but the main thing is launching without the demand side imo

[undone crescent]

How do we expect to have demand when the bulk of the demand comes from the arena? And the arena is in the gutters... No leaderboards, no tournaments, re-developing game modes...

Not only that, the OW has no burning mechanism besides the fusing. Skins that don't require you to burn illuvials, etc...

we had a massive hype train leading to launch and we honestly blew it. Never have I seen the sentiment be so bad on discord.

this doesn't mean we can't make a comeback. It will simply take longer to reach a wider audience. Maybe it's a good thing. We need time to polish the games further.

[tepid escarp]

I recognized that this was a fatal problem from the outset. Since this thread is about fuel, I would like to discuss it in a separate thread.

[tepid escarp]

When the land was sold in the first place, the management said the following.

1. The fuel produced can be used in OW.
2. The fuel produced can be sold.

I think they sold it like this.
However, none of these have been fulfilled.
I think this constitutes a breach of contract.

Why did you buy the land?
To make money, right?

However, because the fuel cannot be sold at all and the storage capacity has been exceeded, the fuel is ultimately disposed of.

I think that the Zero is the one that suffers the most economic loss in Illuvium.

#1271821709703385108 message

[shell storm]

yes i agree many things have changed since then.

1. Afaik team is working on that.
2. Yes i disagree that fuel should be off chain, non erc 20, as promised

[tepid escarp]

We hope that 1 will be completed quickly.
There is still time before the official opening of 2, so there is room for discussion.

[shell storm]

there are pros and cons

[upbeat hill]

You can't sell fuel even at rock-bottom prices