Fuel Solution idea

[unique wing]

We need a Fixed Price for Fuel, Also Fixed amount sold by players, to avoid price fluctuation, confusión and to make it simple.
Also change DAO earnings to a fee 95% from fuel sells instead of producing more fuel.

The idea:

1. Players will sell fixed amounts for fixed prices. Each Fuel will have their own order book.

Each order will be placed in the respective order book and sold in the same order listed in the marketplace.
The more you buy the cheaper it will be with and average price of 0.0067 eth (see the image)

Orders will be limited to 1 at a time per fuel type. That is to avoid everyone to only make a ton of 200 (higher price) fuel listings, and clogging the order book.
Example if you create a selling order of 10,000 solon , 1st buyer order 500 solon you get 0.0080eth500 5%, (95% to DAO from Iluvidex fees), next buyer order 5000 you get .00505000*5%, and so on until your 10,000 solon are sold. Until all is sold, you cant have another selling orden on the solon fuel.

2. Put back the fuel output the same as before and reduce the in-game fuel cost of building structures to help low tier lands and all lands to develop faster, way faster if possible.

3. Allow fuel transfers to your OW at max 50% of your daily Fuel production. To avoid only players to send everything to their lands.
   Maybe adding a new building that calculate your daily output, limiting the transfer based of that.

4. Target amount per fuel is needed.
   When there is scarcity of fuel on Marketplace first make i the announcement ( From x time to x time) , then increase the Land Owners/DAO share to 5/15 for a set period of time, to promote land holders to sell. Then announce and revert it back to 1/19. (The announcing its really important)

If the target amount of fuel in market is not reached, then and just then DAO can produce fuel, to solve the scarcity.

[unique wing]

@unique wing <@&814435151307866142> <@&1107754780744487002>

[steady otter]

hi

[unique wing]

4.5) If demand is higher that the supply.
Remember this is not the real world, we are not actually mining minerals. In real world when supply is lower than demand prices go up to fix discrepancy because there is no way to produce more.

We have digital assets, we can increase the output of lands so lands sell more , and supply the demand and still earn more.

Easy and simple, fixed prices protect assets from dead spiraling down and the ability to increase the output of lands by just changing a % in the game fix everything.

[unique wing]

@radiant ermine take a look at this

[empty plaza]

The problem you are having is that right now, fuel sold at fixed price would massively bankrupt the game because it far outstripped fuel bought at the fixed price.

The ecosystem isn't big enough to support a fixed price on both sides of the ledger.

[unique wing]

Why it would bankrupt the game? Doesn't make sense to me. Yes there are more sellers than buyers, that would not change until we have more players, and that doesn't have anything to do with fuel prices.

I'm a land holder I don't care if I don't sell fuel right now, I want stability so when, hopefully, masses come to play the game they don't encounter an overcomplicated system, they will only understand if they go to YouTube and watch 3 hours of videos or ask random people on discord and possible get scammed.

[empty plaza]

Let's say we have 1,000 T4 lands selling 1,000 bundles of 10,000 fuel. Who pays them the $40,000? If this happens 10 days/month, that's $400,000. Where does the money come from? Who pays them?

If the game doesn't bring in $40,000, then that's a deficit. A fixed price on both sides is extremely risky, right now. Even if you have thousands of smaller lands making smaller sales, your proposal pays them a flat fee no matter what. That's the problem.

Or you don't pay until money comes in. How are the payments prioritized? Oldest first? A T4 can bank a lifetime of fuel before the first T1 can harvest their first precious Cryptons. Then you would prevent further sales?

This proposal can't work from a number of perspectives. Sorry, it's just not going to happen.

[oblique helm]

This seems like a Frankenstein version of option 3️⃣ from Aaron’s survey on the initial mega thread on the state of the fuel economy. I do not see how this is at all better than that simple option 3. The point there is to simplify things so that the backend Illuvium zero economy isn’t absolute chaos that takes away from the whole project. It’s going to be hard to get right as a quasi free market and it will be a miserable experience for landholders to watch Illuvium Labs, in this case acting as the FED, tinker with the economy over time as the demand changes.