#IZ - Dynamic DAO fuel minting

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

hidden topaz
#

After multiple discussions, it’s my understanding that we should move away from the fixed revenue distribution percentage idea to help Illuvium stabilize fuel prices without drastically changing land fuel production values, building/research costs, or upsetting landowners.

I know we're all very fond of the idea of having a 95% revenue distribution from fuel sales, but we will be better off if we let go of this and allow it to be dynamic. This could even mean that, at some point, if demand is high enough, stakers might receive more than 95% of fuel sales for a certain period of time.

#

<@&1107754780744487002> @chrome tapir

#

your thoughts on this are highly appreciated.

devout pendant
#

Who Support Dynamic DAO Minting Policy? Keeping 5% : 95% on Stable Price and Adjust dynamically to balance the minting to achieve stable price?

Below is a proposal Dynamic System.

✅ Support Dynamic Dao Minting Policy
❌ Keep the DAO 95% Minting Policy

image.png
#

If Price of Fuel Dump because low demand. Then supply will dramatically reduce. This will raise price nearer to 100% level.

If Demand goes above design price. The Dao will mint more. This will increase supply and balance demand lowering price nearer to 100% Level

DAO Mint the Fuel base on the price sold by land owner / base on latest transaction. This is up to the Dev to decide. Utimately it depend on how the inner queue system inside the marketplace work. I believe the DAO should also have a person help trading and selling their holding of the fuel like how a broker in an exchange work. They can choose to Hodle or sell as they wish

The Price @ 100% Level will be decided by the Dev base on their design of the game economy

Current system. Will cause a death spiral if the demand drop below curtain point as the DAO is minting way too much supply. The advantage of Dynamic ratio is so that if the price fall below design level. DAO Minting reduce slightly and if it fall more reduction will be more. This will balance out the market value eventually and that may be the free market price of fuel. Dev can choose to change the design after a few days after it stablize or set it into the system to use a Moving average of 7 or 14 days with a Top Bar and Bottom Bar as safety protocol

half haven
# devout pendant Who Support Dynamic DAO Minting Policy? Keeping 5% : 95% on Stable Price and Adj...

hi thank you for the work. im grateful that the community went above and beyond to improve the ecosystem.
yes, an automated fuel balancing system need to be designed and tested, as per IIP-39.
i have a few questions:

  • why do we want the ratio to be dynamic?
  • cant we achieve the same goal of balancing supply and demand by changing the rate of fuel production like we have done twice, while maintaining the ratio
idle dragon
# half haven hi thank you for the work. im grateful that the community went above and beyond ...

If you are only changing fuel production, then you will need to have huge swings to balance, like we just had 75% reduction. That is bad for everyone including DAO. Because the ratio is so high a swing from 5% to 10% is doubling the amount of land fuel sold. This is essentially the same as a reduction of 50% to fuel production. And if you used a combination of the two then you could have easily reached supply and demand while minimizing the effect on both land owners, token holders and the DAO.

hidden topaz
idle dragon
#

75% is just too hurtful. I think we saw an initial uptick in price. But you are also going to eliminate a large portion of land owners from participating due to anger, no money coming in from land sales to buy fuel, etc. This is reducing demand even further. So a 75% isn’t going to have the overall effect that you might think because you have upset a large portion of the community. It would have been better to have spread out the %. Landowners would probably still be playing and demand would have not been nearly as affected as it is now.

hollow steeple
#

We need answer for a few questions:
Should dao generate fuel from air? Its not as usual healthy economic.
Fuel production should mange by only lands. If pice for fuel is very hight and land earns a lot of money. Will sell a part of lands again. That's why illuvium sold lands on 70+ mln$. Why investors who spent 70 mln should be limited in apr or fuel? company shouldn't regulate it.

#

And 100% its not 5% 10%...

#

If we speaking about hight price for players for run. Okay need to understand % for rewards every season that can eran players and how much beed fuels to upgrade , runs etc

#

If it will balacing - we will have increase player's in game

#

Any eSports doesnt play with low rewards etc

hidden topaz
# hollow steeple We need answer for a few questions: Should dao generate fuel from air? Its not a...

There's a few setbacks with land owners producing 100% of the fuel. Namely no revdis for stakers and the possibility of price manipulation by land owners.

Also, the system was designed to achieve the 95-5% revenue distribution ratio. All land production values are designed around this. It's not as bad as it seems as this could be very well our greatest tool to help balance fuel prices and stabilize the whole economy.

hollow steeple
#

Not only token holders too

hidden topaz
hollow steeple
#

Holders token need only hold token

hidden topaz
# hollow steeple Holders token need only hold token

you also only need to hold land to get the 5% revdis from all games.

The question here is if we're willing to partake with the idea of stakers always getting 95% from fuel sales and instead make it a dynamic % to help balance the economy.

hollow steeple
#

If i wont sold my fuel - i didnt earn anything

hidden topaz
hollow steeple
dusk tide
#

the fuel is suppose to be the medium of exchange for all assets in game (demand), landowners only participate in the fuel amount that they supply by selling to the DEX.

hidden topaz
hollow steeple
#

But anyway we started to speak about it and something will changed

#

I think situation with changed with leaderboard, rewards etc

#

But that i see now. Company didn't ready to reduce their rewards but ready to reduce landlords(

hidden topaz
#

Here's the problem with IIP-39. Besides it being vague on how to operate it says that:
"The proposed system provides four levers to balance fuel production."

What are those four levers to balance?

  • Fuel Balancing
  • Fuel Guardrail
  • Guardrail Positioning
  • Land Plot Sales

Which basically means we only actually have 1 lever to balance fuel prices and that is land's fuel production levels.

#

And has we've seen recently, changing fuel production levels is not that straightforward as it affects many different things. Not to mention the public image it gives. I'm already seeing Axie comparisons just by this recent fuel nerf.

devout pendant
# half haven hi thank you for the work. im grateful that the community went above and beyond ...

Current system. Will cause a death spiral if the demand drop below curtain point as the DAO is minting way too much supply. The advantage of Dynamic ratio is so that if the price fall below design level. DAO Minting reduce slightly and if it fall more reduction will be more. This will balance out the market value eventually and that may be the free market price of fuel. Dev can choose to change the design after a few days after it stablize or set it into the system to use a Moving average of 7 or 14 days

half haven
#

Second part of my questions. looking at the table, the dynamic ratio system is putting a ceiling to landowners revenue, however landowners will get more when demand is lower than the target.

  • do we want this ceiling?
  • would token stakers accept lower revdis?
  • why do we want to achieve the fuel price target? why shouldnt we just let the market decides?
jade quiver
#

I would like to see it that what the economy team set out for being an aim of 2y ROI as Kieran stated. I understand this is a hard thing to know if demand is an unknown factor. this means if more goes to the DAO more goes to the DAO but that if all is in check then the rails could have the median value of the fuel rail price be set at that and govern this by fuel output on zero land?? its hard. because something has to be dynamic. if upper limit is reached then land gets nerfed. if lower band then buff?

#

call is solar flares for lore's sake to justify efficiency throttling and it impacts the zero point transducer. this way land production/progress continues as planned but the transfer is dynamic

devout pendant
#

We do not want to ROI in one to two month. As long as we can make the game a success and have long term ROI and earning. It will be the best.

We want multiple game for Illuvial universe and we want extra utiltiy for those asset we have acquire. This increase the "want" factor for all those older NFT as they will tend to have added utility as times goes.

half haven
#

I dont think i agree with us trying to stabilize asset price by tinkering supply. Asset price should be driven by demand. Demand from utility and/or speculation.

#

Supply quantity does not give value.

#

We can keep lowering fuel production, but it is meaningless without increase in demand.

hidden topaz
# half haven Second part of my questions. looking at the table, the dynamic ratio system is ...

the ceiling has to be the top rail-guard.

Here's an example:

We put the standard 95-5 percentage at the value we aim fuel price to be. Let's consider it to be 0.005$ for the sake of this example. If the demand is too high and prices are above the target price the DAO starts producing even more fuel getting a bigger share of the fuel sales. If the demand is too low and the price is below the target price we cut on the DAO's fuel and landowners get a bigger share from the fuel sales.

In any case we shouldn't really have to change the land's production values while there's still land to sell.

The expectation is that we'll keep gradually increasing the player base and thus the demand will increase as well.

half haven
#

If we really want price stability, we can just fix the fuel price in USD. The 5% distribution method can use the method from one of the passed IIP

hidden topaz
# half haven Second part of my questions. looking at the table, the dynamic ratio system is ...

  • "do we want this ceiling?"
    We already have, it's called top rail-guard...

  • "would token stakers accept lower revdis?"
    We've already accepted lower revdis % with the introduction of the Alliance program, so nothing new here.

  • "why do we want to achieve the fuel price target? why shouldn't we just let the market decides?"
    If we don't want to achieve fuel price targets then why the hell did we even nerf the land production values?

hidden topaz
tribal hornet
#

Don't forget 75 or 80% of all lands are still to be sold. When demand will increase new land sales will occure

hidden topaz
tribal hornet
#

Well more lands more production. First one will be like an halving

dusk tide
dusk tide
#

What regulators will eat the DAO's lunch over is creating derivatives such as 19:1 (highly speculative) for people in the public who have no idea what a derivative is and then running an unregulated exchange on a centralized platform like IMX. Any misappropriation of funds or commingle of the public's assets will make you a real target.

#

Go buy yourself a long or short 20x on ETH and see how long it takes for your butt to get liquidated. We have essentially introduced a similar issue of disfunction by the base commodities (fuels) by 19:1 derived. Everyone could be aided by educating themselves of the dangers of derivatives on commodity markets.

hidden topaz
dusk tide
# hidden topaz that will end badly very quickly 😅

No doubt. Aaron said this fool Vetemor introduced the 19:1 concept as a 'quick fix.' I think we might want to slow down and ask what is the biggest root problem. It is that our base unit of account is manipulated by 20x. The team of degen game devs is never going to be able to dial in an efficient market structure because of this perversion of the commodity. "1 BTC = 1 BTC" for a good reason. If you want to bring sanity to this process, the same should be applied for 1 Fuel = 1 Fuel.

hq720_2.png
#

If you multiply the unit of account 20x perversion, times the ETH volatility, times the rate of expansion of supply (maturing of plots, plus new plots coming online), divided by the illiquidity of the DEX, we are begging to confuse the hell out of the community and have wild swings in pricing the fuel. The second order effects is that nobody wants to do OW runs and its makes the other in game NFTs worth less.

hidden topaz
dusk tide
#

It is not a tax. Landholders are wholeselling our commodity to the DEX for 5% if we choose to. If not, we should be able to use the commodity 1 for 1 for any other in-game options including expanding our ILZ plots.

#

if you sell your stuff through amazon they retail it for you and send you net of the sale. the same should apply for use bringing fuel to market through the DEX.

#

It is so perverted how this is structured right now. We just need to change our perspective to common sense. Take a red pill, step outside of the existing "matrix", and look at this thing with common sense eyes.

hidden topaz
#

Hope the VCs are happy.

dusk tide
#

It is scary for someone who had traded options and derivatives for 20 years. And it seems like no one in the community has such a background.

hidden topaz
dusk tide
#

They do not have one. There is no WIzard of Oz behind the curtain friends.

hidden topaz
dusk tide
#

The Team is not taking us down the yellow brick road. It has been for 32 months down the RED sloping descent path.

#

Has ILV stregthened one month against BTC in 32 months? Has land NFTs sold for a dime more than the peak of the Dutch auction. Hell no.

#

I am not sure how to wake us up, but we better hurry. 12 months runway.

hidden topaz
#

the team has a lot of passionate people working in this project. Yes mistakes were made but the DAO was also incapable to put the team in check and raise awareness on these issues... They went along and rushed launch. I'm still to this day to understand why...

#

how come we release 3 inter connected games without the 3 games being in a MVP state? And without testing them before launch?

#

but I don't wanna derail the conversation. I want us to help find a solution to this fuel debacle.

dusk tide
# hidden topaz the team has a lot of passionate people working in this project. Yes mistakes we...

Listen, I like Aaron, Nick, Johnny (I know he is not CTO now, but it's his legacy), and the other core devs I have engaged with. They are not economists and definently have not expressed tactical understanding of market making works (running a live exchange interfacing with ETH). They cannot even comprehend the root problem, in my opinion. They think we are playing a Game where you arbitrarily try to min/max to balance things out.

#

I think we are going to need a model that sits on top of IMX, like @devout pendant has proposed, plus reform to sound monetary policies: 1:1 commodity as the unit of account, stablecoins as the medium of change, and a liquidity pool for efficient bids/asks for the DEX at a minimum. We need a well respected fiat onramp like Stripe (already exists) alongside a hosts of in-game mechanics that does not manipulate or create conflicts of interests for Landholders to be productive in "mining the fuel commodity."

hidden topaz
dusk tide
#

step 1 - USDC swapped for ETH on DEX, step 2 - nick (head of data) adjusts all ILZ mechanics for 1:1 commodity (devide the ILZ input/output variables by 20), step 3 - 1:1 fuel...

#

The entire sequence and workflows would need to be outlined in advance before initiating any changes, patches/updates...down path you eventually introduce a model for min/max fuel supply rails (monetary policy intervention)

#

Right now we are running to fiscal/monetary policy interventions at every turn...look around the world and where that has taken us since 2008. @half haven maybe this analogy is something that our leaders can understand?

vital tendon
#

DAO printing 19x fuel for every 1x land fuel is exactly equivalent to a 95% tax on market fuel transactions (except for situation where landowner translates fuel directly to their OW account, which doesn't exist yet). It's not "levered." They sold landowners 5% of the future revenue of the game for 70M (with option to dilute them down to 1% with future land sales).

#

if the devs can change the 19:1 ratio, either the ILV stakers or the landowners are getting screwed

#

Filow you're completely right that if demand is going up or down significantly, the fixed supply means prices can get very high or low

#

but the most fair way to fix it is, and I hate to say this, periodically buffing or nerfing fuel production #s in zero

#

ideally in a very predictable monthly or biweekly cycle. kind of like the fed changing rates.

#

the alternative way to do this would be to spend treasury tokens on land, then have those lands sell fuel when price was higher than target and pour out the fuel when price was below target

hidden topaz
vital tendon
#

I'm a landowner. land owners take a bullet if ratio goes from 1:19 to 1:25 for example, because they're now getting less % of game's revenue

hidden topaz
hidden topaz
vital tendon
#

changing all fuel production by a certain %, even if it goes down, is generally good for landowners because the new price shooould have been chosen to maximize revenue and so their 5% share will be higher once prices correct

#

I'm ignoring using your OW fuel to play the game since that's not a feature yet, but that's really important to factor into a long term solution

hidden topaz
vital tendon
#

in this case no, it's just econ 101. landowners collectively get 5% of the ETH spent on OW

hidden topaz
#

and since the price to travel didn't decrease 4x, all landowners playtime got nerfed 4x.

vital tendon
hidden topaz
#

yeah that's the thing prices aren't 4x higher...

vital tendon
#

yeah that's a legitimate point, sorry I misunderstood you. land can't be both a fixed 5% of revenue and a fixed # of runs/week

hidden topaz
#

it's just the usuals taking the bullet.

#

and this is exactly why I think we shouldn't change the fuel production values

vital tendon
#

I mean I suppose you could issue coupons for X runs per week to landowners of various tiers if devs really wanted it, but that potentially distorts the illuvial market if some players are doing runs for much less than others

hidden topaz
#

ugh... Coupons Atlas_Pepe1

vital tendon
hidden topaz
#

we rushed launch, we didn't define sh1t. And now we're here.

vital tendon
#

if the chosen value is 10x too low, we'll be locked to top rail indefinitely. which... isn't the worst, but it's not at all a free market
if chosen value is 10x too high like what we saw with launch, fuel spirals toward 0

#

one option would be to lower the 19x DAO print when price is below target, but then landowners are getting paid >5% of revenue. I can't imagine the devs would ever willingly hand extra money to landowners, unfortunately

#

in our curren situation, if fuel production values hadn't changed and DAO had switched to 1:4 ratio, landowners would be getting 25%+ of revenue from the game, which even as a landowner feels wrong

hidden topaz
vital tendon
#

I think if during the land sale they had pegged tiers to gameplay (eg., T3 land will produce enough fuel to let you do 1 T3 OW run per week) that wouldve been a better system than the 5% of revenue they came up with. but unfortunately they didn't do that, and it would be very bad for the project to wildly change the terms people invested under

hidden topaz
vital tendon
#

sure it does, you have to adjust what the DAO is minting to keep price within target window if fuel production is fixed

hidden topaz
#

don't you think that dynamically changing the DAO's mint % is actually the fairer parameter to adjust?

#

if the demand is too high, the stake holders get a higher percentage. If instead the demand is low the land owners get a higher percentage.

vital tendon
#

no, imagine prices fell dramatically and landowners ended up with 50 or 100% of revenue. or we get 1000x more players and landowners get 1/1000 of the revenue they were speculating on

#

plus it's a good incentive for landowners to benefit when we have a larger playerbase, encourages them to get their friends in

hidden topaz
#

don't expect to dictate prices. Free market will completely wreck us.

vital tendon
#

I don't think it's particularly healthy for the game if runs cost $0.0000001 or $10,000

hidden topaz
hidden topaz
dusk tide
# vital tendon DAO printing 19x fuel for every 1x land fuel is exactly equivalent to a 95% tax ...

No, it's not the same; you are applying linear logic to exponential math. When you 20x the supply increments of an expanding commodity supply chain that is traded in a high VOL currency (ETH), we are talking exponential expansion of supply and massive ranges on the VIX of bids/asks. More capacity per plot happens daily as you move to Level 9 capacity, and more plots are forecasted to come online through 100,000 plots. This is an absolute title wave of the fuel supply forecast. The same would be true if you were mining gold, increasing miner capacity daily, and bringing online more miners around the world by 100x, then taking future contracts on Gold supply 20x to market on the CMBE. The CMBE does not write any future contracts over 2x for good reasons. I can see now that I need to make a quantitative model so gamers can understand this and appreciate the dilemma we face.

vital tendon
#

if a landowner sells 1 unit of fuel and dao sells 19 units of fuel each time, that's EXACTLY equivilent to a landowner selling 20 units of fuel and the dao taxing them for 95%

dusk tide
#

and this compounds as the rate of production expands

devout pendant
#

We need mobile version of the Arena to make Mass Market. Only with that a large amount of player are able to join.

The Marketplace for Illuvial also need to be look into. It should be modify to be mobile friendly and the search filter need to be fixed. (Currently can't filter by price lowest to highest) Stats Modifier Filter need to be added. Buying illuvial using mobile should be made easy

I personnally use PC but mobile is for mass adoption.

chrome tapir
#

@hidden topaz I appreciate the effort you have put in, but #1274080051029086319 message I've got my own business to run so am bowing out of these topics.

hidden topaz
silk basalt
# dusk tide Go buy yourself a long or short 20x on ETH and see how long it takes for your bu...

You are absolutely right, and thank you for that. I will try to help as much as I can with understanding the purpose of fuel, feel free to correct me.
So, fuel is an in-game economy introduced as the foundation.
The system works like this:
Layer 0: Zero = fuel production. There are two options: spend it or sell it (and buy it but mostly for speculative purposes).
Layer 1: Overworld = Players/Buyers, they have two options: hold it or use it (basically playing the game). They cannot sell.
Layer 2: Arena = the endgame for Layer 1, or the 'dope' stage, helping to maintain sustainability across all layers.

Layer 0 can be integrated into other layer as well. Progress is ongoing, but eventually, they will have to follow the same rules(i think?). Also, Layer 1 players need to buy land to produce fuel themselves, or they’ll remain buyers forever.

Do you see how one-sided the buyers/sellers dynamic mostly is? It’s not like other markets, at least. Could that be a problem? Probably.

Fuel is the base currency economy whose only purpose is to create an in-game sustainable economy.
ETH is the currency behind fuel, and 1 ETH = 1 ETH- as long as ETH remains deflationary, it’s even better than Bitcoin (or the US dolla, brrrrr).
You can speculate on both, for sure, but I’ll leave it to you to decide which one is better to speculate on.

#

Honestly, i don't care much about fuel $ value (as a buyers). It will eventually lead to an efficient economy in an efficient market, assuming we succeed right. And no, fuel can't go to zero, or else better run BEFORE it happens because its meaning it will be a failure right.
Thing is, way before that, we need to find the ingame Economy substainibility to make a shit load of deflationnary supply, no doubt. Ratio is not the most important i will say or at least as important as finding a sellers/buyers healthy balance i will say.

And yes, it’s a real thing. Sadly, not many games across Web1/Web2/Web3 have managed to become successful in this area. I think World of Warcraft is a good example, even though I wasn’t a big player myself. They’ve been sustainable for over 20 years now?, and it wasn’t always true from the beginning. But they’re just one example among a few successful ones, let's be a winner that all we want afterwall.

I hope I could help. In the end, I’m just a random player, like everyone else.

serene mesa
#

A Free Market system in the end always works the best. Since everyone refuses to use it, a dynamic system is superior than the current rail system we have. So, I guess it's a thumbs up.🙂

half haven
silk basalt
# serene mesa A Free Market system in the end always works the best. Since everyone refuses to...

I'm guessing they definitly not refusing to make it real, at least i'm seeing it at a endgoal so must be real for me too at some point agree.
But to be a free market and let ppl make free decision, labs might need 'them' to better understand the market. Or else i will just come and 'play' too for sure. (mature market mean what its mean, and we are the market) (wiki : 'A market is mature when it has reached a state of equilibrium')

silk basalt
half haven
silk basalt
#

But to go with your side i will say Land should be the diluater not the fuel, is what i see thing at least. Like make it 1/1 if not enought fuel (or fuel 'too expensive') will 'print land'.

#

do we have enought player to handle the fuel production forever ? Or we go from let's find moar buyers ?

silk basalt
#

I see an other issue until im done for good is that players don’t really have access to the data needed to make the best choices. For example, daily metrics like total fuel produced, total fuel bought, average eth price for sell/buy orders etc. Labs should have this data and should know what’s best for everyone. Either they should make decisions based on this information, or provide it to us so we can make better decisions from the start.

#

lets make it 1/1 or dynamic and see if we go up to proposal ?

half haven
# silk basalt x20 supply mean what its means yeah. But the counter argument about this should...

tbh rn i dont see the difference between doing a 10:1 or 20:1, a 10:1 just means we would see the issue, like we had before the patch, much later.
for me its just nominal numbers but the underlying issue is still the same.
i prefer we decide on doing 1:1 or 20:1
if i remember correctly, one of the concern was about giving too much "control" of fuel production the landowners.
for the past few days we have seen so much volatility in solon price, i dont have data to back this up, but my spider sense is telling me it is unnatural

#

having said that, we do have the fuel price ceiling, meaning the dao can still print fuel when price reaches the ceiling

silk basalt
half haven
#

this is the same issue with inflation.
the underlying issue is not 20:1, 10:1 or even 1:1.
it is the pace of fuel production rate vs growth of demand.
10:1 or 1:1 is beneficial in slowing down inflation, but without demand growth, we will likely to see the same problem in the future

hidden topaz
hidden topaz
cerulean garden
#

And now there's the first little demand of high Tier equipement

hidden topaz
cerulean garden
hidden topaz
hidden topaz
half haven
#

milestones?

hidden topaz
half haven
#

sus

cerulean garden
# hidden topaz and where's this demand coming from? Gauntlet tournament?

Who knows 😄

  • People finishing specific hyperion/crypton focused milestones and focus now on other milestones or other Stuff in General.
  • people finding good stat illuvials o guse and complete their need for Fusions and fuse more now(unlikely since Fusion is super cheap)
  • People finishing their collections and now they wana have the Hogh Tier equipement fitting their 3-4 teams
  • there was for example an ascendant tournaments yesterday, maybe there are more upcomimg i wasn't aware of and people craft high Tier assets to win those.
  • maybe it's just kieran making Fun of the fuel prices and swept the floor
dusk tide
# hidden topaz I suspect the high solon volatility is compounded on the fact that there are no ...

Agreed, but it is primarily due to no liquidity pool in the book for an orderly bid/ask environment. you have no natural support and resistance levels formed. so price wicks all over the place with no liquidity to smooth it out. lunfortunately the subject is this complicated and requires an integrated solution. removing the derivatives (19:1) is the first step to achieving an orderly flow of bid/asks.

#

Anyone who studies markets closely from a technical analysis perspective should understand what I am referring to.

half haven
#

u know that wicks can be landowners "baiting" the dao to sell cheaper

#

u can stagger some sell orders and create sell walls

dusk tide
#

You do not want game devs playing jerome powell, janet yellen, and centralized regulators all the time…right now its most fiscal regulators when they change production mechanics…

dusk tide
half haven
#

if u list 1k solon at bottom price, u can buy 19K solon cheaper

#

u can cancel the sell order when u have enough too

dusk tide
#

Wow, should be a red alert. demand could be at the floor, but this is telling something is broken. great point!

hidden topaz
half haven
#

i assume so

hidden topaz
#

but in our case since fuel is non decimal, you have fuel % thresholds where only the DAO might be selling fuel and not getting to the landowners real fuel order. In cases where the landowner cancels an order and some fuel already been taken from an order, the DAO sold some of his corresponding fuel order but none of the actual landowner fuel got sold.

#

let's imagine someone buys 9 fuel. Since we operate on a 1:19. Who is selling this fuel? When is the landowner order triggered? We should have a minimum order size of 20.... I really don't understand how this is all set up...

dusk tide
#

Here is a synopsis of our current economic state: (1) derivative commodity 19:1 serving as an artificial supply chain, (2) our currency is eth that trades at a 2.5 beta with a current 7-day trading range of $2,534.63 – $2,751.93 (almost 10% variance), (3) regulatory, monetary, and fiscal policy all being determined by a centralized planning committee of how many (1-3 people?) whose backgrounds nobody knows anything about. Nick on the Team has convinced me that the experience is minimal. Even Russia and N Korea have a more diverse panel shaping their economy than we do.
And we stack that on top of DEX used by IMC for NFT trading primarily with no liquidity pool.
Houston, we might have a few problems beyond just tinkering with the ILZ production numbers.

serene mesa
hidden topaz
serene mesa
#

I want to go back further so I can try to push a little harder to not have price controls. They don't work.

half haven
hidden topaz
jade quiver
half haven
hidden topaz
# jade quiver

I say it's time we bring light to these shadowy places.

maiden shuttle
dusk tide
#

I think Bitcoin is an "unproven theory after 15 years" related to how to make a strong commodity and unit of account. So, let's adopt Vetermor's hair brain idea to 19:1 the units of account so we can retrofit IMX's digital art DEX with no liquidity. Yeah, that's a great idea to fight for!

marble dome
vital tendon
#

the crypton the dao "prints" isn't any less real than the crypton we "mine" from our land

#

nothing about this is equivalent to leverage

merry steppe
#

Is there a reason why we can't just have a 95% tax on every sale of fuel and make the minted multiplier dynamic?

#

I mean everybody understood that land owners only get 5% of fuel sales when the land sale was done

#

So just add it as a tax or DAO cut or whatever you want to call it upon execution of a sale

dusk tide
#

Because I know that demand is going to keep up. Oh, that's right, it didn't, so we shocked the hell out of the system with a Covid-19-like reduction in the GDP (75%). I want the economy to experience a worldwide pandemic within two weeks just to course-correct the economy. Look the other way, no problem here.

#

I hope that those brave enough to challenge what they are just told will let this illustrate to them what happens when you apply linear logic to exponential math.

hidden topaz
# merry steppe Is there a reason why we can't just have a 95% tax on every sale of fuel and mak...

we can, but we just need to collectively agree on this. Personally, I would prefer the land production values to remain stable because everything is connected to them. All the buildings and research costs are tied to these values and would also need to be dynamically changed. The game needs some level of stability otherwise you can’t plan your actions in advance if you never know what the costs will be the next day.

dusk tide
hidden topaz
dusk tide
#

Adding such Compound Daily Growth Rates in the basic mechanics of ILZ plus a 20x multiplier causes chaos at scale.

#

For whatever reason, nobody understands exponential math at scale, and we are all trying to apply linear logic to solve the problem.

hidden topaz
dusk tide
#

The real problem is the column C in the model if you want orderly growth. When you combine that with ETH as the medium of exchange that fluctuates in value by 10% and a DEX that has no liquidity it is a recipe for disaster in bringing buyers and sellers together.

hidden topaz
dusk tide
#

USDC must become default on the DEX

#

I am suggesting a 4D solution: (1) 1:1 fuel (make it have similar attributes to BTC the best commodity ever invented), (2) switch from eth to usdc on dex (most stable currency) (3) add a liquidity pool, (4) empower Labs to intervene with monetary/fiscal policy after approved by a council that knows what the hell impact it could have and not just to solve a one-off issue

#

***This will not solve all ills, but will deal with the first 80% of the weight of the problem I am estimating.

devout pendant
#

Hi i have updated my Dynamic Fuel Emission Proposal Spread Sheet. Feel free to comment

hidden topaz
# devout pendant Hi i have updated my Dynamic Fuel Emission Proposal Spread Sheet. Feel free to c...

I think we need to clearly define what's the type of market we want for fuel:

  1. Do we want the fuel price to automatically adjust to a certain price? If yes then this is the best solution for that, a dynamic fuel mint from the DAO. We won't need to manipulate land fuel production values ever again unless we're lacking fuel and we can't sell more land.

  2. Do we want a real 'free market' with natural price discovery? Then we need to make fuel an ERC-20 token like it was meant to be; convert the exchange ratio from 1:20 to a 1:1 and apply a 95% tax for the DAO on every sale. We won't need to manipulate land fuel production values ever again unless we're lacking fuel and we can't sell more land.

  3. Everything is fine as it is. Let the team/IMC manipulate land production values as they seem fit.

What do you guys think?

misty flume
#

I vote first. Illuvium can be seem as a service monopoly with certain price for runs, crafting, curing, etc. There is no other game with illuvials. As such, price can be fixed - its a matter of deciding (as it is already done) the price of stage1 runs, stage 2, stage 3, etc. Everything will workout around that.

  1. Lands will have their income, steady and predictable, as long as game is at "minimal success".
  2. DAO will have progressive more returns and profit as the game becomes, hopefully, more sucessful and as such revdis will benefit the most from that sucess. The DAO, and its consequential RevDis, should be the main beneficiary, for the and for worse, of the game sucess.
barren granite
#

can we add a disclosure agreement of some kind saying how everything works? I voted 2, minus the ERC-20 token aspect, but I thought that how the system was. So my issue for now is to many people are on different pages on how this work, and i have no idea where to find the info.
or worse its not easy to find

hidden topaz
#

cause you can't really call it a free market if you don't have the option to re-sell.

barren granite
#

i like that one the best, option 2, how hard would this be on the DEVs?

hidden topaz
#

at least for launch. Doesn't mean it can't be done in the future.

merry steppe
#

Option 2.

barren granite
#

OK cool. I try to keep them and others working on the project in mind with any ideas i have. Most are just brain storming in other threads.

That said, i like 2 because in cases where the markets go crazy out of whack, some type of control can be done to mitigate the negative ripple effect.

dreamy saffron
# hidden topaz I think we need to clearly define what's the type of market we want for fuel: 1...

To confirm my understanding, are you just talking about the market from the seller perspective or also as it appears to buyers?

I think from a buyers perspective variable prices are just bad and could actually make the whole game fall apart. The current system has consumers incentivized to have lower demand speculating on lower cost of fuel.

From a sellers perspective, yes I think that how much landowners (and stakers) make should be dynamic based on the amount of fuel purchased by paying players. #1274080051029086319 message

hidden topaz
dusk tide
#

Option 2: My view is that there are no "Landholders" if there are no commodities. Farmers grow wheat/corn (commodities), miners mine metals (commodities), and oilers pump petroleum (commodities). This is the base on which all other products are refined from and produced. ILZ intention was to emulate this reality to power the entire ecosystem and create a dynamic economy. In the digital world, Bitcoin created 'scarcity and friction' and has now become the strongest/hardest commodity that mankind has ever discovered, surprising gold's stock-to-flow ratio in this epoch. We want to emulate this same virtue for elements and fuels inside ILZ if we want to be Landholders.

hidden topaz
dusk tide
#

elements pull the necessary 'mineral/nutrients" to extract/convert the commodities. Diamonds are made up of minerals and nutrients...so are gold, silver, cooper, etc.

#

The lore of the game is that the elements are being captured from the atmosphere of the planet and then that allows for the formation of the fuels.

#

elements do not require becoming ERC-20

#

they are just in game inputs/outputs variables

#

I am trying to get everyone crystal clear that the game was designed for this approach, but did not get executed because of technical limitations. At least that is my understanding.

hidden topaz
#

let's not forget one thing. The fact that elements and fuel aren't ERC-20 tokens means you can't transfer them to your landplots. Which means you can boost lands by injecting fuel into it and have to produce everything out of your own land plot. This in a way brings linearity to the lands development.

dusk tide
#

Again, first principles. Without "the friction of encryption" digital data is about worthless. it can easy be copied/pasted and/or manipulated.

#

Out final "crop of land" must be encrypted to become an asset. Otherwise, it is a silly internet play money

hidden topaz
dusk tide
#

Yes, correct. So should be the end output units of buildings..." the crop or yield"...this is the logical and natural path. The whole voucher perversion is unnatural or what people would call DERIVED.

#

You hear people say "eat clean" and not "processed" foods. When you take the fuel that is cultivated from the Land (input and output natural order of the ILZ code) and then run it through a "price balancer" at 19:1 to produce a voucher, it becomes PROCESSED fuel.

#

Lets all remember, "You become what you eat." If you eat derived "units of production" that generating "rounded loss" outputs with a current (ETH) that gains/losses 10% of value every 7 days do think that will make you or our ILV civilization healthy? Have you ever seen a financial ledger with a category for "rounded loss?"

CleanShot_2024-08-22_at_14.47.52.png
devout pendant
hollow steeple
#

that why I always receive less but I see another prices

#

almost minus 50%

image.png
hidden topaz
dusk tide
# hidden topaz My only question is **why** do we not have the mininum order size to be multiple...

if I was on camera this is exactly how I would be expressing the same sentiment right now. https://www.youtube.com/live/kD_xnWCd63s?si=tbVztuetRghrTYLY&t=2454 *Sam's reaction is priceless

YouTube
Scoriox
The Community tells us what Illuvium needs to fix RIGHT NOW | The D...

In Episode 56 of 'The Download Illuvium News,' we dive deep into what the Illuvium community believes needs to be fixed right now. After conducting several p...

▶ Play video