#Direct Tax Model - Fuel Adjustment

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

fallow wharf
#

Inspiration: #1274080051029086319 message

I recommend that we go with a modified version of Option 2️⃣ proposed by Aaron in the above comment.

The modification would involve the direct transfer of fuel to the landowner/player being set to a 95/5 split where 95% goes to the landowner/player and the other 5% goes to the DAO (just like an NFT transfer charge). Thus enabling the GAMING action as a landowner for a REASONABLE fee.

Should a landowner instead want to sell the fuel for a 5% revenue-share (the other 95% going to the DAO), then they have chosen to take an INVESTOR action and are willing to sacrifice the larger GAMING action benefit for a smaller, more liquid, ROI.

I think this has been the core problem where, yes, IL:Z is a game, but the GAMER is not being presented with a strong enough value offering to purchase/play IL:Z.

As a DAO, we need to be able to support the diehard Illuvium GAMER. We can't assume that every landowner is only looking to take actions as an INVESTOR would. We need to change this narrative by enabling the GAMER.

With this dual sided approach to how fuel is treated, both the GAMER and the INVESTOR can be satisfied. **The ratios can also be set up on a balancer **where if fuel prices are getting too high the INVESTOR action goes from 95/5 to 94/6 and so on. Same for when fuel prices gets too low, the GAMER action goes from 95/5 to 96/4 (there would a cause/effect between the two different ratios to even them out).

And for those of you that are worried about the DAO not receving enough funds (stakers, which I am too). Do you not remember the amount we already gained from the first land sale? We have the opportunity to drive the value of lands higher through this dual set up thus attracting both the GAMER in addition to the INVESTOR so that the future land sales are even more profitable for the DAO than the first one. THAT'S where our focus as the DAO/stakers should be when it comes to large ROI from Illuvium:ZERO (well that and more in-game purchases which can come from future gameplay updates).

sharp reef
#

Thanks for the tag @fallow wharf. I know my thread has gotten huge, but if you scroll back to the beginning of the conversation, you'll see that I was also advocating for exactly this. I was even more aggressive, suggesting it should be 100%. 😅

At first glance, it does seem like a good idea, but after some discussions, I realized how economy-breaking this would be. If there’s a difference in output fuel between selling or transferring fuel to the OW, it puts all the focus on playing the OW rather than selling fuel. Landowners would find it more profitable to get scholarships to play OW with their fuel and then sell the assets. This would lead to massive sell pressure on Illuvials and OW materials.

fallow wharf
glossy tiger
fallow wharf
#

@sharp reef Just made an edit to the idea (at the bottom). Thoughts?

glossy tiger
sharp reef
glossy tiger
#

The dumbest thing to do right now is to segment to a new feed.

fallow wharf
#

Well the both of you are the reason why I felt I needed to paint a "clear" picture of a solution that works for all Atlas_Love

glossy tiger
#

We appreciate it. I suggest we move that to a 10 person DM group to focus on the IIP. @fallow wharf welcome you to be apart of that.

fallow wharf
#

Happy to be a part of it

sharp reef
glossy tiger
#

My take is that when you bring the IIP, bring it with a clear mandate from the community. The 1K comments is a good start.

sharp reef
glossy tiger
#

correction: "marriage proposal" broke me

sharp reef
# glossy tiger correction: "marriage proposal" broke me

Ok so let me get things straight. I want no credit where it isn't due.

What @ruby topaz was talking about having a 1:1 fuel everywhere in the ecosystem. Is exactly the way we have it working right now with the injected fuel system.

And I'll also be honest, even though I'm the one who made that idea thread. After having read 1k comments of discussion it is now my understanding that we have the best fuel system out of the 3 possibilities.

We just need to polish the rough edges.

glossy tiger
#

The feed has more comments than all other idea feeds combined for as far as I want to scroll...

#

@ruby topaz jump in the frey and help us get this over the line!

sharp reef
#

@glossy tiger if you just read what I wrote then I think it's time you give it a break on trying to change the system that you only started fully understanding how it is operating a day ago.

glossy tiger
sharp reef
#

loving your emoji spam on all threads @zealous burrow, you sure know how to embellish the comments. 🤣

tawdry mountain
#

Direct Tax may result in insufficient supply of fuel resulting in high fuel price or low game activity.

If we use direct tax then fuel production have to be revisit for land