Modifying the 1:20 Fuel Exchange Ratio to 1:1

[pine raptor]

My point was to say "mass marketing" does not necessarily require kids. Or, especially young kids. My family had kids playing Pokemon by age 5 - essentially, once they were old enough not to bite the cards. I think the target lower bounds for Illuvium is more like 13. (The ranger actually swears sometimes when an Illuvial escapes. Of course, that's mild for Australia. 😉 )

[viscid mica]

3 is best by far imo. Separate systems, easier to tune and balance, allows for fixed fuel price for easier onboarding, easily adjustable. Less complicated, easier to understand for an avarage Joe.

It’s like saying blizzard doesn’t know how to price their games to maximize profit and sales. Ofc they do, every single business does that and it’s fine.

[worldly wagon]

People read my idea I know I'm not know but it's simple and good fix IMO. https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1274179377831084143

[dawn wind]

that's comparing apples to oranges honestly. We're talking about in-game economies that translate to real world currency here. Blizzard couldn't care less what the price for their in-game assets is or what's their supply rate and what not. Web2 games are not like Web3.

The only thing they have that translates to real world currency is their wow token which is equivalent to a subscription.

Let me ask this, do you think the OW target prices were well chosen?

[half tusk]

People working there did tell me the opposite tbh.
Often they get prices wrong and redo same product on discount or similar later due to that, getting prices right is very difficult.
Some WoW mounts are famous examples for that, that changed from making low 5 figs to 6 figures with the change in price for them.

[old monolith]

Does 3. Mean not anymore free market and static prices as vetemor proposed long time ago ?
I would vote for 3 but a bit scared about manipulation. People stacking storage to have a bigger part of the Pie when there is Hype than when there isnt. It would need some storage building limitation in IZ.

[timid fern]

yes we can't see what there and analys it

3 - we dont mint fuel from DAO?

[gilded grotto]

I think 2 is the best, even if players don't like it it's been clearly communicated up front that 5% of revenue goes to ILZ holders. I think most would be fine with this if it solves the supply issue, the ones who are against this are the vocal minority who don't understand things properly (it's literally no different from the DAO minting 19x). It's a huge improvement from the current setup.

I don't think 3) is a bad idea, but the downside is it removes a great deal of agency and interactability from the land holder and the playerbase. I'm no longer making a sale to a player, I'm dumping it into a uniform bucket that everyone else is too.

There's also no visibility or flexibility into what's being sold at what prices, etc. and everything becomes uniform and opaque, and we just have to trust that the system is working correctly.

If I sell 1000 units of fuel at $X price that I choose, it either sells or it doesn't and the result is extremely clear. There's a great deal of satisfaction and achievement in producing fuel and getting your sell orders filled in the open market. If I dump 1000 units of fuel into a scoreboard, I have no idea of: 1) what's being sold at what price 2) what the total revenue is, and 3) If I actually got the correct cut/amount

I would MUCH rather manage my own sales and have a sale strategy and track my own fuel revenues than to dump all my fuel into a pool of unknown size and then get some unknown revenue as a result with no visibility into the underlying transactions/activity

It's a good idea but I think it just takes away too much from the land holder in terms of customizability and agency. 2) or some variation is the way to go (even if you don't do 1:1, you could do 2:1 or even 5:1 with a smaller DAO tax, for instance).

[rugged cipher]

So what about this? https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1276569232246706196

[pine raptor]

The strategies for #3 are just different. You are trying to mass up a large block to sell at once when you think you can capture a bigger slice of the pie than your neighbors. The problem it solves is that the game is more financially sound overall as payouts scale by the money paid into the bucket rather than trying to find "the right price" for a given fuel. Therefore, the strategy is to maximize output for periods where you think the bucket is larger OR slower days where you think you can dominate share of the bucket.

My preference is #3 + modifications. (4️⃣ ) https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1276653970538106920

[viscid mica]

I never said you should never adjust the pricing. Every business has to figure out the pricing of their products, very often they need to adjust it to fit in the market. And that’s fine. This is part of the business and it should be embraced.

[gilded grotto]

It completely changes the premise of ILZ as a game though. You're no longer selling fuel to players and controlling your sales, and you lose a great amount of visibility and just have to trust the system- you're just dumping fuel into the backend without knowing how much fuel is in it, for how long, etc.

If the core issue is the demand/supply problem, I don't see why we need to change up the entire premise, just solve the demand/supply problem (i.e. don't inflate fuel output by 20x)

Also in practice fuel supply should be pretty static for most plots, all you have to do is log on once every 24h and claim it. Most people who are serious about it will probably have a routine for this.

I mean I don't think it's a terrible solution, I just don't see how at all it is better than 2), especially since it potentially upends things even more

[pine raptor]

I think they would have to build transparency for the bucket, periods, etc. Otherwise, all trust from landholders would be gone.

"Solving a demand/supply problem" is hard. Ask any dairy producer. Ask people growing beets or soybeans or potatoes or oranges. How many customers do they have? Do they even know? A lot of dairy folks sell to a local distributor.

I hear you ... I do. I just disagree that keeping that complexity is good for the long-term health of the game when we've already had this much backlash during the Beta.

[gilded grotto]

Yeah. I think minting 20x the fuel right off the bat was an unnecessary complexity, based on heavily overestimating initial demand for fuel.

[gilded grotto]

Have you sold any fuel yet? I did for my first time today after saving up a bunch and sold a bunch of Solon for $18. It was a great user experience to be able to set my own price and see the order get filled at that price. I just wouldn't want to lose that agency and flexibility

[pine raptor]

I think it was based on the sugar rush of the last crypto bull run. "We're gonna have 1 million players!" Okay. That was a silly thing for us to think. We need to BUILD UP to that player base. It was long odds that it would happen on the day of release. But I don't think it is impossible to build up to it in the same way Magic or Pokemon did. This project isn't like Diablor or Baldur's Gate 3. We're not going to have super-huge initial numbers. That's okay.

[pine raptor]

Yes. I've sold at bottom rail to transfer to my ranger and at top rail after the nerf. But mostly, I'm here for Illuvials in the longer-run. So, my T1's are kneecapped in their progression, my T2 is now struggling, but I can sell fuel from my T3. On Tuesday, I bought a T4 and it will probably be maxed out in under 2 weeks. Those are barely the same game.

I'm not ignoring you. I'm not. I would LOVE IT if there was a direct relationship between IZ and the rest of the ecosystem. I just don't think it can be done while also keeping our share at 5%. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm old. I've been wrong about a lot of stuff in my life. (Can I interest you in these Luna tokens?)

But ... I don't see a way forward for what you ask AND the game be a big success to sustain your enthusiasm a year or two from now.

[gilded grotto]

Sure, I agree with that. I'm just saying I think a simple solution is to backtrack the overestimated 20x, and don't throw away what's already working

I don't think it'll be a free market regardless, but the closer we can get the better

[dawn wind]

Why is it better to be constantly adjusting the price instead of letting markets naturally decide what's the best price?

[gilded grotto]

So let me ask you this, what do you think would happen if we made fuel 1:1? Do you think the problem is that demand would quickly outstrip supply?

[pine raptor]

I just disagree. I think Fuel is a "utility" and needs to be managed like a co-op electric utility or water supplier. Market forces are too prone to manipulation of in-game experience. I want to hunt Illuvials without wondering if it would be cheaper to do it on Saturday or Wednesday or next season.

[gilded grotto]

I think honestly we wouldn't even be having any of these problems if we started things off with 1:1. Maybe if the game goes viral a few months from now it might start to have problems, but I doubt we'd even be having these conversations.

[pine raptor]

The problem with 1:1 is that the game depends on the revenue from fuel sales to keep the lights on. And currently, it was bleeding out to IZ players faster than it could be recovered from OW or Arena.

[dawn wind]

what problem are you even talking? Have you ever seen an altcoin chart that doesn't start with a great decline???

[pine raptor]

Why am I laughing so hard?

[gilded grotto]

Think you haven't been interpreting what I'm saying, I'm on board with your proposal. The problems of having to nerf lands by 75%, the dozens of fuel proposals being submitted etc.

[dawn wind]

we have plenty demand guys stop throwing tantrums. Everyone was waiting on the sidelines to get in... How do you want to have demand like that?

[gilded grotto]

I'm saying 1:1 fuel generation with a 95% tax on sales

[dawn wind]

the problem is the price, it always has been

[gilded grotto]

That has 0 impact on revenue. The main problem is we decided to mint 20x the fuel output of all lands, when naturally output will be high after a while. I have a bunch of lands I haven't even begun selling fuel out of, I'm sure there's a ton out there that will come online in a bit.

[dawn wind]

you really think in this short time we already have too much fuel we can't sell?

if fuel wasn't x20 you wouldn't even have enough fuel for the current playerbase man...

as a game the OW is stupidly expensive to play.

if the fuel was cheaper you would see the demand showing up...

[gilded grotto]

Then why did they reduce output by 75%? If things went according to original plan, ILZ would have had a month to build before launch. Or 5:1, whatever, I've said that before.

I don't even know why you're arguing here lol, I've been in agreement with all of your proposals and was just talking with Yang about why I think 2) is better than 3).

Like I'm literally voicing support FOR your proposal @dawn wind , this very one you submitted lol. So I'm confused why you're suddenly arguing when I'm just conversing with Yang about why this is better than moving away from this to a disconnected scoreboard.

[rugged cipher]

FYI he's said he's done with this and rescinded his stance. As such, check out mine https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1276569232246706196

oh you already have 🙂

[dawn wind]

Yeah, sorry I can't be your saviour guys. I don't see any point changing the current fuel system if it isn't for the better.

[pine raptor]

Most folks have voted in Aaron's poll for the "bucket" style.

It isn't that I don't understand why you want #2. Maybe that is simple enough that everything else adjusts and settles down.

That said, they are looking to balance the inputs with Illuvial Output, too. And that's where the math starts to get really dicey. All these inferences and predictions breed complexity that will fail in the future. If we want Illuvials to carry long-term value, if that is the "core product," then fuel as an input to that equation, imo (and others) needs to get massively more predictable.

We could dance around that with "market forces" for months or years, but my experience with game ecosystems is that players find a way to f* up the "market" in all kinds of ways. My wife was keen on building monopolies in Runescape by buying out things from the Exchange, and just farming them relentlessly. But that definitely makes certain things less fun for some number of other players.

If you are only invested in Illuvium Zero, then I understand wanting to maximize your agency. But ... many of us want to see the whole picture play out, and ... Zero needs to be a piece of the whole for that to play out.

[gilded grotto]

Yeah I mean at this point I'd be happy with any similar proposal getting implemented, I just thought we'd push this one cuz it already has a lot of support. If you can get 25 upvotes though, go for it.

[pine raptor]

I'm kinda at that fatigue point, as well. Whatever they need to do to "f* with it less" is what I'm voting for. I feel like the closer they get to "free market," the more they will have to "f* with it" to make the ecosystem sustainable. Especially in the early going.

Markets are great if you have lots of participants. They tend to even out lots of weirdness across many people and times. But ... we don't have enough participants and we certainly don't have enough time.

Loved the idea of the fuel exchange. They tried. Maybe they try a couple more times. I give them credit for all that, but in the end, I think we end up with an abstraction layer and a "fuel bucket."

Now back to trying to get my million point wave 40. lol

[livid mason]

Friends, you can always loosen and tighten screws of fuel production…it takes a significant intervention (75% reduction) to deal with 20x manipulations stacked against daily growth of fuel production capacity growth. Think about it.

[little vortex]

I quite like 3 but how would you build the systems to increase or reduce prices for overworld travel?

[viscid mica]

Not constantly. From time to time as needed. It’s about control. Also, have you seen Spotify, Microsoft, Fortnite allow supply and demand dictate prices? Software is easily scalable, there is no need for price fluctuations due to demand. We can sell this product for 20 bucks per month to 5k and 5 million people and it’s the same. Why would we increase prices as we gain more players? Would it make sense to make Fortnite more expensive and less accessible as it gains popularity? Of course not. Crypto natives perceive price fluctuations as a feature, but web2 players perceive it as a chore.

[livid mason]

Sounds good to me if we can turn in our Land NFT and unify the ILV token stake. Turn land be a cosmetic NFT competition. Solves all with no dev intervention.

[pine raptor]

Would love your opinion on https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1276653970538106920

[viscid mica]

This is also solved with Aaron’s idea 3. And btw we can still offer a free market for other goods and utilities produced by land, for example a free market of Illuvial training services. So it still is a blockchain game, still integrated into the ecosystem.

[dawn wind]

Ok I get your point but then tell me this, should we be setting prices in ETH or in other currency?

And I don't think price fluctuation is a feature just for crypto natives. Many web2 games have auction houses and marketplaces. There's tons of players who like to play the markets. I would even say that's a game on top of the game. Not everyone is rich inside a game ecosystem. There's poor and rich players based on what they do within the game. Yes it is a chore sometimes to get wealthy in a game. But I would argue nothing worthwhile comes by easily.

[keen sail]

In-game economies (auction houses and marketplaces) and a game monetization model are 2 different things. I can't recall a single web2 game that has their monetization model fluctuate daily.

[dawn wind]

Yes I get that but they're also not web3. We have perks they don't have. Were not a web2 game folks.

[keen sail]

Sure if we can somehow make this model work, to me it seems like unnecessary complications for unknown results

[viscid mica]

Yeah what Nasty said. Auction houses are fine. Fluctuating prices of Illuvials are fine. Fluctuating prices of game subscriptions are not fine.

I believe the prices should be fixed in usd and paid in eth.

[dawn wind]

I mean, isn't unkownn results to be expected from something that has nothing been done before?

I don't see it why we can't give it a try just because no one has done it so far...

[dawn wind]

Land is basically a gamified game subscription. Should we set prices for land too?

[timid fern]

we shouldn't fix in usd, only eth

its bad idea

decreased OW with fuel like dynamic process - more demand - cheaper price

[dawn wind]

And to everyone that thinks 3️⃣ is the best solution for land. I'll remind you of this. For us to be able to find the 'right' price it would have to be based on trial and error. How many times will it take to get it right? And it's not like once we nail it it's set for life... The game appeal comes from its price tag since contrary to EVERY web 2 game you pay for every action you do in the OW.

This is why I think trying to incorporate all these web2 concepts to our game fail. Because we're fundamentally a different game from anything that exists in web2.

[keen sail]

Dunno, in my opinion a game is a game, regardless of the market, and it's appeal should come from entertainment factor and how accessible it is for the largest possible consumer base. I also don't seem to understand why we should cater to web3, when all they are after is ROI. And from the very beginning it was known that the vast majority of players in illuvium will not break even, and they will play because of the entertaining gameplay instead. That sounds closer aligned to web2 than web3.

[dawn wind]

That's not true. Web3 isn't just after ROI, those are the airdrop farmers and P2E players. We're all here for what we hope the future of gaming will become.

I also wanna say this. We can't target web2 and web3 with the same game, that's very hard. We have to clearly start identifying what is the target audience of each game. Web3 games generate assets therefore they can't be played for free or bots will destroy the economy. We have IZ, OW, and potentially Beyond in the future. And we have the arena that is web2, where the normal mode could/should even be entirely F2P.

[keen sail]

It's not what I've seen in my experience in web3 gaming, what I've seen is most people care about ROI and not gameplay. On this point we can agree to disagree. The other points still stand, with the proper monetization I see no reason why we cant target web2.

[dawn wind]

Yes because has I said before all the games made so far before illuvium were not good or fun.

Their appeal comes from the fact players can extract money.

[gaunt flame]

This is partly true for the system we have now, right? We set a target price and have top and bottom rails (yes, bottom rail, because the change showed that it exists in the mind of labs). Target price and rails will need constant adjustment. The advantage this system has we get some more information of the market, because of price movement, but it is still important to hit the price target, because this correlates with land ROI.

Regarding your latest comment that we can't target both audiences at the same time is the reason I proposed this #1272888472570433619 message

OW was developed in a way to stack monetary pain. Every decision and mistake are impacting your financial situation. With the prices we have it is very important to know what you are doing. So, this is not a game for any beginner or will ever be one with these prices. Features **alone **won't change this, because we stacked too much pain in the basis. A game that stacks so much pain in the form of money won't address web2 ever, that is true. Normal games are all about equality and stack pain in form of skill and time. I think with cheap enough prices web2 could enjoy OW (with future features), web3 had ownership, could get lucky with dark holos and would have a big audience to sell ILZ skins to.

Also earning is only an option for like 10% of a playerbase anyway. Fun is needed to keep the other 90% around.

[humble flicker]

if that's true then why did we nerf fuel production, why dnt we just let it spiral down some more

[dawn wind]

That's what i've been saying all this time! We should have neeeever have manipulated the market at least this early on.

[humble flicker]

i do agree that we have to pick a market, either web2 or web3

[dawn wind]

This comes IMO from 2 problems. Bad pricing to the OW and the incapability to assume the pricing is wrong.

[humble flicker]

the first iz patch kinda admitted that?

[dawn wind]

Not really in my 👀

They just helped lands develop a bit faster

[dawn wind]

• "This is partly true for the system we have now, right?"
  Technically there is no bottom rail but I do get your point. From now on I'll just say 'the DAO'. 'The DAO' decided it was time to play FED and destroy the free market behaviour of the fuel market. Not capable of understanding what the real problem is. The PRICE. I'll hammer on this point as many times as I have to. Everyone was playing the waiting game, seeing fuel prices dropping everyday. Everyone asking themselves: "When is this gonna stop?", and when we were most likely very near the point where it would stop and actually having our first market bottom we go and ruin it all.

As to your idea I've already shared my thoughts before. I don't like the concept of targeting the game to both web2 and web3. We need to use the strengths of each game and target those specific audiences.

All our games that generate assets need to be web3 games. All the rest is web2. It's not that hard...

[gaunt flame]

I agree 100 regarding your first point (Fed, Price, Waiting for bottom). This point is so important that all other points probably vanish if that gets solved.

Regarding "All our games that generate assets need to be web3 games. All the rest is web2":
That is fine. The real problem here as well is the pricing. If a gamer has to think about every step, because everything is expensive, there will never place for fun in an environment like that.

In the end it is not necessarily the way we price thinks (ok, good be better and easier) it is more the dimension of prices.

[dawn wind]

Why not do a thought exercise. What if we had launched the game with fuel prices starting at the bottom price we reached before the fuel nerf.
How would the price action have been?

[gaunt flame]

bottom was around 2$ for Stage 3,right?

[dawn wind]

not sure but let's say yeah around that

[gaunt flame]

I think up to 5$, because whales don't care about prices and afterwards back to like 1$ or 1.5$ for a stage 3 run

[dawn wind]

yes I agree, the price would actually start increasing in this scenario and not falling like a knife. Which would have been sooooo much better from a psychological standpoint.

And this was the consequence of not having IZ released sooner and releasing the OB with fuel prices at the top rail-guard. But what's done is done, I'm just pointing this to see if we can really understand the problem and not just come here and say "we have too much supply", or "there is no demand".

supply and demand are based on the price action.

[gaunt flame]

I would also say that after reaching 1$ or 1.5$ again our playerbase would grow like crazy. ILZ skins would get sold, we would talk about keeping the prices in that area and increasing fuel production.

[dawn wind]

if we truly believe we have a good product then there will be demand. It's like they say, if you build it, they will come.

[gaunt flame]

Yes, but it seems it isn't seen this way. We just see that there is no demand while prices are high. We don't know how it would look like around 1$ for a stage 3 run

[dawn wind]

I'm glad you get it m8.

[gaunt flame]

Also many gaming companies are getting their initial prices wrong. They just end up putting a discount shield on the price to increase demand.

[sterile kindle]

I think it's not really a matter of picking one or the other, but in seeing how one demographic harmonizes with the other.

If web3 is about extracting value and making bank on selling assets, there needs to be a buyer for it. If we're just a bunch of web3 enthusiasts buying and selling to each other with the goal of being in the green, there's going to be people who will be disappointed. Someone will always end up holding the bag in this setup and this just turns into another trading market trying to pass the bag. We already have wall street for that; it's a miserable experience.

Web2 is different. They get their value from the game content. What they spend going negative is worth it to them because the game experience is valued more than the money spent. This is why Illuvium needs to also cater to web2 and develop good content.

Case in point, for those of you who are in it to make a buck, you need a buyer for your trade, and the best way for a win-win scenario is if web3 gets their profit, web2 gets their quality game content, and everyone leaves happy.

[dawn wind]

that's exactly why we need to make web2 and web3 games.

[muted ruin]

$1 stage 3
nft value= $0.0001?

[dawn wind]

our only web2 game right now is arena

[dawn wind]

that narrative is so shortsighted 🤣

you know that 'value' varies with time right?

[sterile kindle]

And we need better and more content soon if this ship is going to get anywhere.

[muted ruin]

I really have no opinion, I don't know, I hope we find the best solution for illuvium

[dawn wind]

I find it funny how everyone before was complaining how illuvials would be too expensive and no web2 would be able to build a cheap arena team. Now we're complaining how they're too cheap 😅
But that was actually the price the market was headed to before we had the FED like intervention on supply.

[muted ruin]

Personally I just want to play overworld with the help of all my lands

[dawn wind]

same here, this 4x fuel nerf sure didn't help on that...

[sterile kindle]

It's basically why I bought land too

[dawn wind]

a T1 land plot lets you play 1x stage 1 every 3 days 🤣

if it isn't a bad joke I dunno what it is...

[gaunt flame]

fuel prices:
6$ for stage 3 is the current value
2.32$ for stage is the value I bought

prices on secondary market could drop by a factor of lets say 4 , because fuel is cheaper, but people would also play less perfect in regards of money, because their time wouldn't be worth the effort to play perfectly. Instead they would start to have more fun for their money. In the long run playerbase would grow, Illuvium has a change to be successful and longterm nft value is much higher than with the alternative.

[muted ruin]

I understood that I would not make money with my land but let me play overworld😭

[dawn wind]

yes that's the thing. The prices need to be at a point where I'm not thinking about the cost of every single shot I make...

lower prices will lead players to be more frugal and really enjoy the OW as a game.

[gaunt flame]

This is such a good point. I am totally with not getting money for my land, but my land doesn't provide any advantage in the world of Illuvium itself.
A T1 land can afford one Stage 2 scanner thats it. For one OW run I need 4 days.

[dawn wind]

I think it's time landowners STOP taking the short stick.

[gaunt flame]

there should at least be some value inside the Illuvium economy. Honestly, at the moment I would be happy to get 50 t0 ringnuts per day.

[muted ruin]

I spent all my fuel boxes $1000 + $1000 of silv2 + $300 eth. In a week of farming stage 3 I didn't realize the financial vortex

[dawn wind]

bro that's actually a good idea.
if the podarium instead of increasing the chance of junk plants appearing in IZ, it instead gave T0 plant consumables in the OW would be siiiick!

[muted ruin]

Consumables stage 3

[dawn wind]

it could increase with the building lvl.

it can even be used in the F2P plots. It's not economy breaking and it's something that connects both games.

[muted ruin]

Found a solution so that we can transfer fuels directly to play overworld without abusing it and having to sell a part?

[dawn wind]

I think the transfer function is coming soon.

[gaunt flame]

done. #1276840641233551371 message

[blazing barn]

isnt the point here though that the sample size of the 10,000 current player base is not representative of the full target market that we all agree is necesary to make any economy work? So saying this is what the price did or didn't do isn't that relevant to me. its about what price do we need to see in order to draw in new players. I personally don't trust don't trust our pretend "free market" to decide that well. also we need to stop pretending it exists, Illivium labs cutting 75% of fuel production (acting as the bottom rail) and having a built in top rail proves its not real.

[blazing barn]

LOVE this idea. If we do go down an option 3 adjacent idea, these types of things that meaningfully connect the games become even more critical, and Aaron has previous agreed with this

[gaunt flame]

Also, wen slave Illuvials from OW in ILZ 😄

[dawn wind]

market sentiment is exactly the same whether it comes from 100 people or 1 million people participating in the market. All humans are rational, emotional beings.

[livid mason]

Would another thread of the "state of fuel/ILZ" help? I am convinced the "average Joe" Landowner does not understand where we are with ILZ. Now, I have people who technically understand the inefficiencies conversing with me on working arbitrage strategies to exploit the fuel marketplace. While it's disturbing, I must admit it is what a rational actor should do. The vast majority of landholder plebs will end up clicking away to produce fuel, as a few who have technical insight can extract abnormal value from this system if we stick with it as is.

[dawn wind]

why does no one come talk to me about arbitrage strategies to exploit the fuel marketplace? I feel like a landholder pleb

[dawn wind]

what I would love to know is how someone is doing arbitrage when there's only 1 fuel exchange 🤣

[livid mason]

It just kicked up since I was last online. I got four different people to approach me in DM with ideas. It not in trading the fuel itself, but tracing volatile price moves and then converting highest ratio OW outputs. They are converting cheap fuel into OW NFTs they know will be marketable.

Essentially, they know the voucher fuel ratio gets out of line with the prevailing sales of the OW NFTs.

[dawn wind]

amazing... Is that what arbitrage is called nowadays?

[livid mason]

arbitrage is ineffeciencies in market structure and price mismatch. fuel inefficiencies create second-order arb opportunities. maybe that is foreign to your mind but it happens in all markets

it is not just in pair trading or playing mean reversion

[dawn wind]

my definition of arbitrage always implied at least 2 different exchange, but who cares about definitions. 🤣

[livid mason]

FTX and crypto exchange definition...that is the most simple form of it.

[dawn wind]

the only thing exploitable in the fuel exchange right now is the lack of transparency by not having a order book so sometimes landholders sell at ridiculously low prices.

[dawn wind]

nah man it's the literal definition of arbitrage trading.

[livid mason]

you are talking about what TA refer to as "Two-point arbitrage." The world of markets is so much more complicated than that.

[dawn wind]

no man. What you are referring to is spread trading not arbitrage trading.

can we at least know the correct terms before we deploy FUD?

[livid mason]

I am not deploying FUD; what I am describing is taking place, and others are stacking ETH because of market inefficiencies. The term "arbitrage," I concede in the classical FOREX sense, represents what you are referencing.

we have no transparent order book so I stand corrected if you hold to the "arbitrage" termonology as you are applying it.

[dawn wind]

yes it is taking place and it's nothing new.. I have done it myself lol. We clearly have a problem with the 'bonus system' and the horrible exchange UI.

Fuel sellers have no idea what price to sell their fuel and that's why stuff like this happens...

[livid mason]

Yes, this is the base issue at hand and I think we would agree this is not for the best long-term for the project. This is what we are trying to solve so as not to generate unnecessary FUD for the community. AND without writing a Financial Markets commentary book in the process.

[dawn wind]

we already have this in the following thread:
https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1275099405187420191

(Vetemor is typing there)

[livid mason]

should be good

[dawn wind]

up

[blazing barn]

Also want to note that as a 3️⃣ voter I think the language Aaron wrote it is simple and clear but might come across as a bit boring/lame. The crux of going with this option will be developing new ways to add strategy, complexity, and strong ties between land and the other games since this option dramatically simplifies the fuel economy. some people see fuel marketplace optimization as part of the strategy of playing Zero. So I think option 3️⃣ should be assumed to include some of these creative and fun ways to connect your land to OW and arena, some of which have already been suggested in other idea threads

[timid fern]

Guys who can explain why i get less eth than i sold fuel? Its not 5% revenue for selling. Its 2.5%. who can explain who stolen my funds? And why this happened? And 3 option will be fixed it or will the same situation. I will receive not 5% revenue that describe in iip but only 2.5%.

Cos actually i don't understand why should i get less than i sell. Its confusing if we can't do anything that need to add this information in the ipp and i think option to change revenue 10% that we landlords have 5% revenue

[livid mason]

Can you show screenshots of your ledger?

[timid fern]

Oh i can't know how to set ilup ladger for my wallet

[timid fern]

This result every day that i see and that i recived

[sterile kindle]

The part that really gets to me is the way land and revdis is being structured and marketed to investors... In the earlier years of development when I invested in this project, it really seemed like the value of being a landowner was going to be very different from what we got on release.

Given the circumstance we're in, it makes the most sense for us to model ourselves to successful gacha-style IPs, where the development studio makes their money off selling in-game currencies and we should consider land ownership as a way to get a small piece of that pie. We've got too many other issues to worry about right now and we just need to make sure to keep this as simple as possible to get through this hurdle, then revisit this later when we have proper and sustainable fuel sinks in place. So I think 3️⃣ really comes off as the right choice for now.

[livid mason]

Well said and where I landed after spending way too much time on this. Now is the optimal time to course correct if DAO is going to do so. Otherwise Land NFTs have a bleak outlook for risk adjusted capital return.

[wintry basalt]

true, inflation is going to destroy this game

[timid fern]

yeap we see this now
inflation is slowly now but progressive

[livid mason]

1:19 plus non-fungible fuel compromise due to IMX Starkware limitations is one of the worst issues for ILZ NFT holders. Converting in-game commodities to vouchers for buyers in an inefficient marketplace is something I did not foresee. Long-term, if we get adoption, this will be a saboteur for passive income generation. Landholders will have to be much more active with a second-order value proposition, such as training gyms, that likely will never outpace high-end performers in arena or OW earners.

[timid fern]

yeap - but if we can upgrade illuvim for up random stats?

or bluprints with bonus for stats - its another game

i hope in future t4 will earn 50 $ in day

but I can uderstand if y want to earn more - price should be higher If price will be higher - users won;t be buy

circle is closed(

[marsh silo]

that's the only reason it is good the team can actually manipulate the supply.
so if prices are constantly rising, because Illuvium DAU are constantly rising, they can increase the production, this way you earn more and prices don't get to expensive for the DAU's. If you can't manipulate fuel production we cap ourselves for a certain amount of DAU.

[livid mason]

Keep them straight and accountable...we need that runway to start expanding at some point!

[livid mason]

Are you managing a T4 optimized? If so, what is it yielding in USD daily?

[timid fern]

What do you mean. Hom much eth i eran from 1 t4 land per day?

[timid fern]

375 crypton 300 solon 630 hyper
1305 fuel
1.44+1.15+2.09=4.68 than IMX or ILV stole my funds 40% = 2-3$

[timid fern]

Do you know why I always receive less eth than I see in the order? I have lost around 40%

[timid fern]

375 Crypton 300 solon 630 hyper
1305 fuel
1.44+1.15+2.09=4.68 than IMX or ILV stole my funds 40% = 2-3$ my

5 year ROI)

[livid mason]

Currently selling down at $6K USD would still require a 5-year return of capital. Damn, even with a 5x yield increase, this would be considered a poor risk-reward asset if you bought at the floor in June '22. I am reinvesting every ounce of fuel into the NFT hoping to exit during the next Alt crazy cycle (if it ever comes).

"IMX or ILV stole my funds 40%" - what do you mean by this? I wonder if the 3% ILV fee is paid to the DAO or Labs directly?

[timid fern]

My sold fuel and my recived eth

So i se that isn't 5% revenue for lanlords

In conclusion only 2.5%))))
It looks 97,5 dai vs 2.5 lanlord

[humble flicker]

wait what

[marsh silo]

Make sure to compare the correct transactions. 🙂

[rare flower]

99% sure the first image is showing you the prices at upper rail. If you go into the actual transaction, you should be able to see the info for the price you listed at.

[humble flicker]

all we need is the ability to export to csv or the api

[timid fern]

yes you are right

this price with 0.0026 and uts confused

this is real

thx everyone who helps to understand it
I hope in future I will see not 3$ in day for t4 land(

also will good for this - display your earn eth too

[keen sail]

Well we need to 15-20x the revenues for the project to survive. 60$ a day sounds great if it happens

[timid fern]

how many players are playing now in game?

[keen sail]

Dunno

[muted ruin]

3$ So bad😭

If there is no change they will not be able to sell the T5s well.

[timid fern]

yeap

[timid fern]

i hope something will change in the new season

or price will be 1,5$ per day in the 2 season)

[vapid falcon]

The most accurate way is to check immutascan. For me the rest is still a guessing game :/

[rigid zealot]

I feel like removing the ratio 20:1 when using for Yourself would be huge change I'm economy and would be W for all.

• good reason to have land and increase value of it
• less fuel wound be created by DAO, lower inflation and higher fuel price so bigger earnings
• everything in game would be more valuable so trading it would increase earnings
• scholarships would make more sense, more interest in IZ
• chance that land sale 2 would be sold out at some point
• the amount of fuel generated by lands right now is so small that I would not hurt economy that much I guess. T4 would allow owner to make 1x S2 run everyday or S3 run every 3 days on average.

[ionic viper]

Way to think outside the box, but I think alot of folks won't like this.

1. This bypasses the ILV stakers revenue share
2. If fuel was ever transferrable it would lead to gaming the system and selling it around the fuel exchange

[pine raptor]

Not sure what you mean by #2, but it's going to happen. It's currently a high priority to allow owners to use their own fuel. It happens, anyway: If we sell today at half-price, we are buying back at 100% bonus, anyway. All this does is force the minting of 19 extra fuel which drives down prices across-the-board.

[rigid zealot]

Im pretty sure that this would be beneficial to stakers too. Price of every asset would be higher because of it so probably revenues would be also higher compared to now.

My other idea about 20:1 is that it should only works when we are at default price. Everything that is offered below could be 100% from lands. It would probably burn fuel supply instantly so at the end there would be sales at higher default price that would generate more revenues then now also. That would probably also create issue with amount of fuel generated by lands that would be to low and it would either rise the price above default or would create need for next land sale. Right now T4 land can generate crypton for 1/3 T3 run per day on average. There is 500 of them so they could sustain 150-200 runs per day which is way to low. And in current situation they can allow 3000-4000 of those. That's why price will keep dropping.

[pine raptor]

That's one reason among many. The Great Silence between Season 1 and Season 2 is another. All this hype at the start of Season 1 as "the launch," and not a peep at the end of season or Season 2 ... Doesn't feel good.