Increase % of fuel generation from land owners from 5% to 10%

[crystal magnet]

A few months ago @rotund crest proposed including land owners in 5% of all in game revenue. It got a ton of support but ultimately wasn't passed. Part of why it didn't pass in my opinion is because it would have been too complicated to integrate and track, so instead we can let land owners simply produce an extra 5% of the fuel generated in Illuvium.

Land owners have been through quite the wild ride, Zero feels neglected, and prices continue to tank. It would be nice to give a little more value to the land that helped kickstart Illuviums funding and thus development.

Yes, I do own a land, and would directly benefit from this request, however incentivizing land ownership is to capture new committed players to the game and ecosystem. To a new prospective player/buyer, 5% is quite less appealing then 10% would be, both mathematically and psychologically. The goal here would be to increase revenue using the strategy of "give a little to gain a lot".

It's no mistake that games that give tons of stuff away for free make by far the most money. I'm not saying we do that by any means, as our model is completely different, but leaning in this direction 5% would likely help the company.

Keep in mind, this proposal can always be repealed once Zero is featured out and can hold it's own weight more through features and gameplay, and maybe it could be built into the proposal that the % automatically reverts once we reach X amount of DAU over X amount of months.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to propose this, but I dug through the feedback ideas and couldn't find anything, so I figured I'd put this up just in case.

[oak cobalt]

I feel 5% if true... is fair and reasonable. I would love to pillage more from the revenue but I care more for sustainability. So I would rather active land holder be given their share proportionally. Changing this has bigger impacts to the ecosystem than it needs for its focus right now and just coz i am butt hurt by the ride of land too doesnt mean i deserve more.

[tired dagger]

That IIP you are talking about got into revision and after that approved.
#1196516944124334100 message

[sick arrow]

So how do we receive the 5% of all revenue?

[tired dagger]

It's digital product sales, not all revenue. (this means stuff like dex fees, merchstore etc. is excluded.)
with fuel sales.
every digital product should be sold in fuel at some point as far as possible and makes sense.
for all digital products not sold in fuel, the 5% share will be airdropped quaterly according how much fuel has been sold for each plot.

[crystal magnet]

It's taking too long because it's too development heavy. Would be simpler, faster, and more transparent, to give us additional fuel sales until the "all rev share" is integrated.

[crystal magnet]

Are you referencing the 5% of all in game revenue Nijafe asked for, or the additional 5% of fuel sales I'm asking for?

[tired dagger]

giving additional fuel sales is not the same.
it's like you say "additional".
you can for sure argue for that, but that's has nothing to do with how the revenue is shared now.
You can also expand your proposal or write a new one and also change the systematic on how the revenue share is executed.

[sharp trellis]

So with us being able to send land to overworld, now we get 0 of that in theory ??

[crystal magnet]

Fair point, when I say "additional", I mean at the expense of the DAO which produces 95%. I'm asking for a 90/10 split, instead of a 95/5 split.

[tired dagger]

if you talking aobut sending fuel to overworld, it seems there are no sale order created, therefore no fuel sales and therefore no revenue.

[sharp trellis]

Oh dang that's even more tricky then. Better to sell and rebuy in that case ??

[tired dagger]

you mean like it was before or by creating sell orders at floor price for 19x the amount of fuel that got sent to OW ranger?

[crystal magnet]

no, that was stupid, greedy and complicated, which is why it was removed.

[sharp trellis]

No I mean if you use your own, you don't get the 5% share

[crystal magnet]

if you use your own you get 100% share

[rotund crest]

@crystal magnet Yes IIP45R was ultimately passed. I believe in the first few days of open beta there was additional revenue outside of fuel sales that I believe still need to be distributed to landowners. I don't believe its a substantial amount and need to follow up on that. Cosmetics like battleboard and emote d1sks should fall into this category as well.
The other big factor was getting 5% of BEYOND sales. It was mentioned by Aaron the plan is to price D1sks for wave 3 in fuel and if that is the case we get that 5% through fuel.

Taking more than 5% means it'd taken away from revdis from ILV staking which means it would be a hard argument to sell.

[formal temple]

Is the quarterly thingy already in play or is that an idea. And if so that is on top of the sales that you make?

[tired dagger]

yes, it's monthly for the first month and then quaterly.
yes, it's on top and should get distributed in eth if i remember right.
let me find the iip one sec

[formal temple]

Damn I need to start selling then

[tired dagger]

#1267902026533306480 message

[formal temple]

So its based on how many units, not how many eth? Since fuel prices change all the time

[tired dagger]

i would have assumed it's amount of eth generated since it's pointed out specifically and just a bad example, but idk.
pinged kieran about it a while ago but didn't got an answer yet.

[shy cosmos]

Honestly I dont think it makes much sense.
What if I have a T4 land and dont sell fuel, just use it in OW? Why would the non-related sales benefit more another T4 owner who just sells?
It would be more sensible and clean if the DAO takes all the non-fuel sales revenue, and just dinamically adjusts the 1:19 model if it is needed to boost the lands revenue, making fuel economy centered in production (lands) and consumption (players)

[tired dagger]

Everything in the share where landowners also get from, should be sold in fuel.
if it is not possible or for other reasons anything not priced in fuel but should, that revenue would have gone to those who sell fuel anyways.

What you asking for is get a share of profit from landowners who sell and not play overworld to those who use it themself for either make profit from assets or play for fun.
Feel free to open a thread and gather sentiment, but i would be strongly against lowering the share for those who bought land to sell fuel and give more to those who spend their fuel for their own runs.

[shy cosmos]

Mmm... if as a landowner I use my land for personal OW runs and dont sell anything, I wouldnt receive any revenue, which makes total sense. If I sell it, I would receive the profit from that direct sale. More than that, indirect sales shouldnt affect me.
Maybe I am not understanding, but the proposed model seems too complicated and prone to failure. Instead of sending it to OW, where I wouldnt benefit from those sales, what stops me from selling all the produced fuel in the market and buying back at the same price (which is possible),and still benefit from those indirect sales?

[tired dagger]

don't look at them as indirect sales, they are just usual sales as all others priced in fuel, but for whatever reason the pricing in fuel was not possible/suitable.
You just get sales revenue if you sell fuel, i wouldn't open the door for anything else. 🙂

[shy cosmos]

Without the proposal, you could get sales revenue for direct fuel sales, future gym training and future blueprints....it would be more direct and easy to predict. If DAO decides to benefit (or un-nerf cof cof) the landowners, the 19:1 racio could be 18:1, 17:1 or even 10:1 if the market allows. Its all a matter of balance and circular economy imo....
But I'm game either way 😉 As long as we are polishing and improving the game(s), things will be worked out 😉

[tired dagger]

Now i'm confused, what proposal you are actually talking?
and how's training gyms, blueprints and balancing connected?

[shy cosmos]

Sorry I didnt expressed myself well, i was not refering to the 5% increase to 10% proposal, its the 5% of all revenue that I was talking about, that feels complicated because is not directly related to land use.

[visual storm]

from my understanding (still waiting for a respond from aaron), the ability to transfer fuel directly from IZ to OW without the DAO listing 19x of the amount being transfered would mean the landowners who did the tranfer earn 100% instead of 5%.

[tired dagger]

there is no 5% of "all" revenue. It's 5% of all digital sales.

[shy cosmos]

Yes, but most are not land related right?

[tired dagger]

and you as a landowner get what you sell.
if you sell fuel you get eth value for that.
if you rent out your spots in the gyms you get fuel value for that
if you don't sell, you don't earn in Zero.

it's pretty straight forward and clean imo.

[tired dagger]

you in the right thread? 😅

[shy cosmos]

Mmm....If I sell and buyt it back at the same price, I receive more from other sales unrelated to my activity. That feels it can exploitable....

[visual storm]

i hope so. you dnt need to increase the fuel generation from 5% to 10%, you can already generate 100% by transfering it to OW

[tired dagger]

not the same thing.

[neon carbon]

selling or transferring is always a 1:1. So it really makes no difference to the player.

[main totem]

I hope someone succeeds in pushing an iip to increase landholders share

[crystal magnet]

blows my mind that people would rather watch land go to nothing instead of increasing the value...very sad and demotiviating