IIP-66-R Remove the Bonus Fuel System

[fiery ermine]

Simple Summary:
This proposal suggests removing the current bonus fuel system from IIP-39. The change aims to improve market transparency, stabilize fuel prices, and enhance the user experience by providing a clearer and more predictable marketplace for fuel trading.

Full Proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K5vmQNM5JauRa-ZNJmPuZqt2v8-aie0_QYCsYUH9pR0/pub

Sponsor: @fiery ermine

Idea thread:
https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1275099405187420191

[fiery ermine]

ICCP-XX Remove the Bonus Fuel System

[modest geyser]

In my opinion, a more visible order book for fuel sellers is needed. However, I wouldn't want this on the buyers' side.

I don't think consumers want to be overwhelmed with data when purchasing fuel for a specific action in OW, they just want the lowest price available at that moment. Leveraging human psychology by showing a "bonus" or discount they receive if they buy now is a common practice and a well-proven concept used by companies of all sizes to increase sales i wouldn't shut down so quickly but rather improve how the information is provided.

[fiery ermine]

why wouldn't you want this on the buyers side? It would be optional...

You can do a market order and don't care about the order book or do a limit order... Just like in every other exchange.

Instead of showing a fixed priced like it currently is and having the bonus it would simply show the actual price and end all this "bonus" charade.

and in case you haven't realized, no one is buying fuel based on the amazing bonus they're getting. They buy it because they need it and intend to use it. So this only hurts the sellers actually...

[modest geyser]

simplicity.
I got asked about this bonus stuff of my RL web2 friends.
They just want slide their credit card, and have a buy button... and of course they would buy more than they need if the see a big discount, it's just normal human behaviour, i don't think that needs to be discussed that system is literally everywhere implemented (for a reason) 😄

obviously you can like it or not. But saying it has no effect is just wrong.

[fiery ermine]

I agree ppl just want a buy button. This changes nothing of that. They go and click buy market. Done.

I don't think it's wrong at all. This is not like a traditional merchandise where you see a pair of shoes at a discount price and feel the need to buy them. In our case players only buy fuel because they need to use it not because they want to have it. It's very different.

And this is even worse than traditional markets. Traditional markets make a discount on the average sales price. In our case the discount comes from the highest possible selling price 🤣

[modest geyser]

this is much more than "just a buy button"

While it's true that players primarily buy fuel because they need it, not because they desire it, the use of discounts still plays a significant role in influencing purchasing behavior. Just like in traditional markets, discounts in the game create a sense of urgency and value, encouraging players to make purchases sooner or in larger quantities. Additionally, the comparison to traditional merchandise isn't entirely accurate; even though the discount comes from the highest possible selling price, it still offers players a perceived benefit, making them more likely to engage with the game and spend. You also are going to have a large playerbase of kids with parents, where they don't spend x amount of fuel to catch a specific illuvial they need for their arena team, but rather they get 10 bucks each weekend and can do whatever they wan't with it. With a discount system they feel they get more as they should and are likely very happy about it.
Discount is also not just given for clothing, as mentioned above, you have it all over the place.... is it eating in restaurants, buying clothes, renting a car, paying bills with e-bill systems etc. ... literally everywhere, does not have to have the tag "discount" written on it

[fiery ermine]

I'll say it again. "discounts" are made on the average sale price. Not the highest possible price.

And regarding the user interface. Right now all the details are hidden. This could be the same. You have the buy page with a buy button. And then you have the details with the price history, order book, etc...

[fiery ermine]

Maybe an example will help illustrate how ridiculous this system is.

Let's imagine a gas station usually sells gas for 3$. The maximum they could ever sell by law is 10$.

The current price is at 2$. What is the discount? Is it 33% from the average price? Or is it 80% of maximum possible price?

Can you not see how absurd our system is?

[glass osprey]

i wonder why CEXs doesnt use bonus system

look everyone this alt has 5000% bonus from its ATH

[fiery ermine]

https://tenor.com/view/take-my-money-spongebob-i-need-it-i-want-it-trendizisst-gif-26632671

[cinder folio]

I appreciate the sentiment behind this proposal and agree there needs to be a change to the current "bonus fuel structure"
I just do not believe this is the best option.
I am reviewing the original proposals that were passed & voted on pre-launch, as well as current feedback to see if there is a better path forward
Appreciate you taking the time to post this. Transparency is key, need to know what you are buying before you press "purchase" / "check-out"

[fiery ermine]

The main problem isn't on the buyer side... It's for the sellers. You can vote it down when the time comes.

[glass osprey]

i had to buy solon today for the weekly mission
and i had to do mental calculation, fun

[hollow basalt]

too complex

[fiery ermine]

Are you saying exchanges are too complex?

Maybe we shouldn't call it fuel exchange.

[cinder folio]

@fiery ermine - you're nearing the threshold to commence voting (if you desire)

When you hit 25 votes, do you want to initiate or wait the 2 full weeks from OP posting date?

[fiery ermine]

let's move it to voting once we hit the threshold. No need to delay this.

[hollow basalt]

We have a bunch of investors/traders here and not enough gamers. The proposed change is too complex as the vast majority of people don't even touch the stock market with a 10ft pole...

[glass osprey]

maybe we can show 2 modes

• simple mode, just the price and quantity. like the current system but it's showing market price
• advance mode, CEX style market order, limit order, depth, and chart

[cinder folio]

25 upvotes obtained 👍

[cinder folio]

Should be on github shortly for voting
Thanks @cedar cape for handling this one

[arctic ether]

Looking from the team's perspective, we do have new upcoming features that should help with this a lot:

1. Seller side: We have been working on an order book and a depth chart showing the current market conditions in the Fuel Exchange web app UI. We recognise that the landholder doesn't know at what price they should sell their Fuel, which should fix the issue. The order book and depth chart are on the sell side only because we only have limit orders on the sell side. It's only market orders on the buy side.

2. Buyer side: We recently added a Bonus Fuel estimator that says how much Fuel a buyer should get once they buy. I get that it's confusing for some, but the idea was to make it more attractive for non-web3 audiences to buy Fuel. It's an alternative way to display buying at lowest market price.

In addition, we did consider having a lite and normal mode, something Jaganite suggested. Currently, it's in the form of Fuel Bundles (basic mode). The normal mode shall have the order book and the depth chart soon. On top of that, we're looking into more "analytics" like components that would improve Fuel Exchange.

[glass osprey]

hi chris, thank you for the update.

1. Awesome!
2. Is it possibille to implement order book and depth chart for buyer side?
   If we have buyer side limit order, then the seller would be able to do market order too
3. Yes, i think a lite mode is very beneficial for onboarding, while the normal mode is for seasoned players.
   Thank you again for writing this

[fiery ermine]

Do you think it makes any sense to have bonus fuel from the maximum possible selling price?

The only way this makes any sense IMO would be to do a 30 day moving average and consider the bonus from that point.

For all those that advocate for this bonus system I'm still waiting for a real world example where something like this exists.
Or an answer to what I previously said about "discounts" are made on the average sale price, not the highest possible price. #1279848507125268521 message

I'll wait.

[modest geyser]

while waiting, ask chatgpt.
you get provided a big list you can roam thorugh until someone else brings in his own examples into the discussion.

[fiery ermine]

just 1 example is fine.

discount on the maximum possible price instead of the average sale price. Go.

[fiery ermine]

you know what's the problem with that? chatgpt can't tell you. all those examples have a fixed price. And that is not what happens with fuel.

if you consider the original price the 'top price' then sure it applies. Is it correct? It's not.

we're talking about a market here. I'll wait for a proper example.

[modest geyser]

lol, now i know why you have such a problem with the "bonus" having that pov. 😄
the bonus should act like a discount described in vor all those various examples above.
it got introduced and communicated like that.
It was never intended to give actually a discount on the average or floor price the fuel is at this very moment.
There would be better solutions for that, like battle passes or events, which would have way more impact in the sales.

[fiery ermine]

https://tenor.com/view/matrix-there-is-no-spoon-talking-kid-gif-17690655

brother there is no bonus. The current system is a charade. If we we didn't call it a 'bonus' I would have no problem. Bonus are given on the average sales price, just like in the examples you provided.

[modest geyser]

mate with all due to respect.
you can like it or not, i respect that.
But it's not correct, saying
"that system works like that" (which it doesn't)
"it isn't based on that" (which it shouldn't)
and therefore it should be removed.

To be honest, i can't remember of any item i bought on discount calculated on average sales prices lately (or ever).
Maybe it's different in your country.
but here, everyone bases the discount on top price ever to make the discount seem big.

[fiery ermine]

but that's the thing... You're naming the original price the top price. If you sell a pair of shoes for 50$ that's their original/top selling price. The price doesn't vary... It's fixed and therefore it's a bad comparison to our case. Because you have no actual top price...

[modest geyser]

the top rail is the top price

but nvm, i already saw in the other thread we won't agree and stopped the discussion 😄

[fiery ermine]

yes it is. And it's not the price where you usually sell fuel.

it's the maximum it can ever go

[modest geyser]

What we are basically arguing is.
that i'm absolutely fine using psycologie to get more sales, while you are not and think it's a scammy behaviour.

[fiery ermine]

I'm fine using psycology if it's true. Not fake like we're doing.

#1279848507125268521 message

[modest geyser]

it's not fake like you are stating 😄

[fiery ermine]

it actually is.

but we can agree to disagree.

can your argument stand on the fuel gas example I gave?

[modest geyser]

i never denied that there are discounts based on average prices, you can even see some examples chatgpt gave for stuff like that at the very end of the picture i posted above.
But you on the other hand denied there are discounts based on top prices, answering on examples i brought up that you can't compare that 😄
it's not about comparing the 2 different models, it's just about abusing the peoples "need" to buy stuff they don't need just because it's on a big discount right now

[fiery ermine]

I'm not denying there are discounts on top prices. I'm just saying they're different things. Cause since you have no actual top price you consider the original price the top price. That simple.

[modest geyser]

we have a top price

it's called toprail

[fiery ermine]

exactly

contrary to the examples you gave where there was none

[modest geyser]

we can rename it to top price if you like 😄

[fiery ermine]

in your chat gpt examples the top price = original price

and what I call the average sales price

that's why my fuel gas example is much more closely related to our situation

[modest geyser]

original price is not average price

[fiery ermine]

it is because it's the price it usually sells...

[fiery ermine]

so @arctic ether you're basically saying that we're going to have a one sided order book with just sells orders... Why wouldn't we want to let players place buy orders?

I don't get how we always seem to like to reinvent the wheel.

[hollow laurel]

It’s related to the difficulty to implement. But it’s not impossible.

Players putting in buy orders is more complex and might turn people away. Fewer options can sometimes be better.

But the point of this is to at what is being built and if anyone wants to critique that, no worries. We can update it but it needs some thought.

And remember this is an alternative to fully changing everything to something completely different. Which is also possible.

You guys are the players. We have ideas about what might be best, but it needs discussion on both sides.

We’re just trying to build something that the most people can enjoy.

[glass osprey]

like what ive discussed with chris, we dont we offer lite mode by default. the lite mode would only for executing market order, and prob displaying a simplified fuel price chart.
and we can offer advance mode where you have bid/ask market order, limit order and depth

[fiery ermine]

Ok if it's related to implementation difficulty I can understand that.

It's already a step forward in the right direction to be able to see the sell orders order book. If we can implement the buy orders in the future it will be even better.

I agree with Jag, the default mode should be very simple with just a button to market buy. We can't do the market sell button since there are no buy orders for now, but hopefully this will come in the future as well.

[hollow laurel]

Yep all makes sense.

[muted sleet]

So are we letting Labs cook or still push through with the proposal?

[fiery ermine]

I want the labs to cook, but this stupid bonus needs to go.

Or if we reaaaally want to have this 'bonus' then do it regarding the 30 day moving average.

[muted sleet]

Been reading the proposal again in anticipation of the IMC vote. If youre leaning towards just removing the bonus and letting labs cook then revisions might be in order? Currently, youre pushing for an order book model to replace the current system which includes the bonus. It even goes to layout 3 key features. If said proposal passes these needs to be followed.

Revising to just remove the bonus fuel will allow more leeway for labs to cook.

[fiery ermine]

I would also like for the minimum order size to be adjusted to 20 to remove the 'rounded losses'.

besides that I'm fine with it being revised to give more freedom to the labs.

[muted sleet]

<@&814435151307866142> for visibility.

We'll coordinate with Labs on the key changes youd want to retain and see its feasibility and how it aligns to what theyre building now.

[fiery ermine]

if the labs find another way to remove the 'rounded losses' without having the orders be a multiple of 20 I'm perfectly fine with that as well.

[glass osprey]

There are some things i need to be revised

but generally i agree with the features being proposed

[modest geyser]

i wouldn't do a "bonus" for a moving average.
Because then you almost have to also show "premium", which i would avoid to show.

would also likely open up more question marks on peoples heads than there are now with a bad way to provide the bonus info.

[radiant vale]

Sounds good to me tbh, I think the team was already thinking along the same lines

But we will discuss with them more properly

[fiery ermine]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQd-IVRw0CZtZEPBvbLqJDDJTynsR-JllBPj7hcL5xP0RUU5suVaPlwOA8_uRyJBEzvactBOZWWZRqD/pub

revised version

[glass osprey]

thanks filow!

[fiery ermine]

IIP-66-R Remove the Bonus Fuel System

[glass osprey]

<@&1107754780744487002>

[modest geyser]

is there somewhere the old version still floating arround to see?

[fiery ermine]

apparently no sorry, I saved this over the previous version.

you can read it here: https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1283193570248884284

[modest geyser]

Totally forget about that
Should have Drink first my Morning coffee before asking stupid questions 😂

[glass osprey]

irish coffee

[modest geyser]

Visiting family.... Not a Bad idea 😄

[glass osprey]

forget about the coffee lol

[fiery swallow]

I'm working on the pull request now! Sorry for the delay. We had some miscommunications internally on who would take it up and it ended up forgotten. Thank you @blissful dew for reminding us! 🙏

[fiery swallow]

It is up on snapshot! 👍

#1294360585865269381 message

[fiery ermine]

is this an IIP or an ICCP?

[fiery swallow]

looking into it 🙂