IIP-XX Illuvium Beyond Updates

[cursive geyser]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t9qufi44Mhsrc_KtlTRaKqG9Gn74teDotJyRBaukMgw/edit#heading=h.jeflx9p1l

[vapid current]

The revamped Season 3 rewards structure is below:

Overworld Events: 2,040 ILV (17%)
Tournaments: 5,640 ILV (47%)
Leaderboards: 1,680 ILV (14%)
Missions & Milestones: 2,640 ILV (22%)

In which category will airdrop points from Illuvitars fall into?

Why are airdrop points based on luck and not based on D1sks opened?

I feel like airdrop points are not appropriate to current odds. Few examples:

• T1S3 (180 points) are almost harder to pull then T2S3 (540 points), T3S2 (600 points) and T4S2 (750 points)
• Holos give only 3x points but are much more rare (understandable to remove luck a bit)

[fervent ibex]

This 5000 ILV reward pool each month is not mentioned in the rest of the proposal, only in the Abstract.
I also think this 5000 ILV per month doesn't serve a purpose with the current pool of 8K beyond players. Would love to gain more insight from you on this:

5000 ILV is 1/2.5th of the entire airdrop pool per season after all, with a season's duration not yet fully defined either. 5000 per month for beyond +300 per week and a 3 month season would mean that Beyond would get 18600 ILV per 3 months, compared to the 13000~ for season 3? That's slightly out there.

Since it's not mentioned in the rest of the proposal, I would simply scrap this 5000 ILV reward altogether and leave it at a 900 ILV "compensation" on top of the 100 ILV for legacy and 200 ILV for wave specific leaderboards.

Since the future 7 weeks until wave 3 may not be distributed, does this mean that the remaining 7 weeks are forfeited, or will those show up as 2x or 3x rewards for legacy and/or wave 3 specific leaderboards? Seeing as we are now aware that the rewards will be used as a marketing strategy, i don't see the community becoming upset over these final 7 week rewards used as such. It's been broadly communicated now. (Correct me if I'm wrong guys. I personally just do like the idea of increased rewards to onboard more wave 3 collectors)

I'm OK with both the 1 month cutoff for leaderboard rewards, as well as the legacy + wave specific leaderboards.

Do note how the leaderboard gives rewards per week. So stopping leaderboard rewards after a month could cause confusion if the wave sometimes ends on an odd day. Sometimes you would get 4 rewards, sometimes 5. It could be proper to rewrite it to "4 weeks of rewards" instead so that everyone is clear on exactly what they get.

[floral ether]

I appreciate the intention and hard work behind this proposal. The effort to retroactively compensate players for the paused rewards wouldn't have been the way i would have gone but i can understand on why council thinks that should be done. However, I have significant concerns regarding the introduction of the dedicated monthly 5000 ILV reward pool for Illuvium: Beyond players.

This reward pool seems disproportionate, especially in light of recent reductions to the overall ILV rewards for Season 3 across all games and the implementation of a 2nd leaderboard with additional ILV to incentivize buying Disks. Given that Illuvium has been focused on creating a more sustainable rewards model with a reduced and more thought out airdrop, allocating such a large amount of ILV to one specific part of the ecosystem seems contradictory.

I’m curious about the calculations and factors that led to the decision to allocate especially the 5000 ILV for this reward pool each month but also the reward size of the additional leaderboard. It would be helpful to have transparency on how this figure was determined, especially considering the adjustments to Season 3 rewards. Understanding the rationale behind this amount would offer greater clarity and confidence that this approach is in line with the game’s broader goals and sustainability efforts.

[empty sun]

Beyond Airdrop is a dedicated pool, a separate pool from Season 3.

tbh i never minted d1sk or buy illuvitar, but i will def mint wave 3 if it offers airdrop

[reef wedge]

As mentioned before I would also like to have some more clarity around the numbers overall (airdrop points and the ILV airdrop pool), but besides that, it's hard for me to thumbs up this when we're taking away the constant rewards stream from the legacy leaderboard.

I get that wave specific rewards should end after 1 month of the wave, since we're expecting to have a 1 month gap between waves this would basically mean no down time on the rewards if everything goes right.

What I don't agree with is regarding the legacy rewards. We were told we would have these rewards until a game or something similar would come out for Beyond, I see no reason to change this. Even if there's a larger gap between set 1 and set 2 I would not want these rewards to stop as the competition for the top 100 doesn't stop either.

[zealous obsidian]

Just to keep conversation flowing, can you please share where this was communicated:

We were told we would have these rewards until a game or something similar would come out for Beyond
(I am on mobile and waiting to be on PC later to share more thoughts)

[reef wedge]

sorry @zealous obsidian but I'm not searching through years of history to find that. I remember it being said by Aaron or Kieran.

[zealous obsidian]

No problem whatsoever 😌

Just thought if you knew where it was stated, many would appreciate seeing it to emphasize the point. You're not the only one making this comment or sharing similar statements.

If anyone else reading this has come across it, please share 👍

[gentle slate]

Is this correct?

1. 900 ILV retroactively to Beyond players

2. 100 ILV/week for All-Time, 200 ILV/week for Wave leaderboards.

3. Dedicated airdrop pool of 5000 ILV/month for Beyond players, distributed on the basis of the point values listed in the table.

If so, some of the wording could be made more concise. Ex. Image -> Text could be:
"Beyond players will receive airdrop points for minting Illuvitars. These points will be used to calculate distribution of the 5000 ILV/month Beyond Airdrop."

Napkin math means we're landing somewhere in the realm of ~$150k - $250k in rewards per month for 5300 ILV. Might be a bit high, but as long as revenue from Beyond is sufficiently exceeding that amount it's not a problem.

[vapid current]

Do we know the revenue from the last Wave so we can compare it to something?

[cursive geyser]

Well usually you would proof my proposals and then they took you away from me 😓

[cursive geyser]

Disproportionate in what sense? Rewards are designed to bring in more players and ultimately more revenue. Historically, waves bring in roughly $5m in revenues ETH + sILV2 burn. In our first month of Overworld we generated just under $1m in revenue with 30K ILV rewards. If anything, we should be increasing these rewards to further incentivise players to purchase disks. Given that we are saving 18K per month in Season 3, I see no issue with using 5K per month to boost this wave considerably and have more people enter the ecosystem.

[hazy pebble]

They always double down on illuvitar... 5k a months...

[neat moss]

Just a few thoughts...

First off, I love the proposal and I am more than happy to show my total support for it.
Beyond has a proven track record of producing strong revenue and I love to see the team, Kieran especially, putting more time and resources behind it to help nurture and realise more of it's potential.

I mirror the general sentiment that the figures outlined in the document regarding airdrop points need a little refinement, just so that they more closely and proportiantely align with rarity values. Small details though.

In regards to the additional 5000 ILV monthly reward pool, as Kieran just stated, in essense it is a reallocation of funds into a game that has a proven track record of prodcing strong revenue.
Based on current data, Beyond is the best place to allocate incentives/rewards as it has the far greatest potential to produce the highest revenue/ROI for the DAO, at least in the short term.
I also stronly suspect that a large proportion of the rewards distributed will find themselves being spent within the ecosystem in some shape or form, further greasing the wheels of liquidity and keeping the economy thriving.

With disk fragments, purchase rewards, album completion rewards and features outlined in this proposal, we could see something truly special with wave 3 and with that hopefully more people will begin to realise the potential of Beyond.

[vapid current]

Like I mentioned above, I agree that aidrop points need a change. But I don't think little refinement is enough.

Why are we giving away airdrop points based on what Illuvials are minted and not based on what D1sks are minted or what D1sks are opened. Airdrop points are then just based on luck and how does that make sense?

If you get something good you get double lucky, not only do you get something good you also get airdrop points.
If you get something bad you get double screwed, not only are you not happy with what you got, you also didn't get any airdrop points.

Incentivize opening D1sks, getting something good should feel good not make you earn more airdrop points.

[reef wedge]

we already have the individual stretch goals for d1sks minted. Dunno how they'll look like in wave 3 though.

[vapid current]

Even if we do, I don't think that rewarding luck is the way to go. We saw how that went last time. We needed emergency IIPs to try to salvage something.

Double rewarding luck is just not the way to go.

You don't want to open D1sk, get something bad and not only that, you get no points for airdrop.

Not everyone is able to open 100+ D1sks where that doesn't make sense because luck will even out a bit.

Those that open <20 for example heavily depand on luck for airdrop points this way.

[reef wedge]

yeah I get your point and I agree there's no need to double down on the luck factor. Would much rather have airdrop points based on the leaderboard position.

[vapid current]

I was thinking collection - but that undermines new collectors.
I was thinking leaderboard - but it would have to be only the Wave leaderboard and again it's a bit of luck, but it also incentivizes buying on Illuvidex which is good.

I think combination of leaderboard and D1sks opened might be the way to go.

[reef wedge]

with this we could extend the current wave leaderboard rewards for more than just 100 ppl

for example top 100 gets ILV+airdrop points and from 101-1000 they get airdrop points.

why not do all? d1sks opened, luck factor and leaderboard position?

[neat moss]

Why are we giving away airdrop points based on what Illuvials are minted and not based on what D1sks are minted or what D1sks are opened. Airdrop points are then just based on luck and how does that make sense?

As Filow pointed out, we do already have stretch goals in place that do directly reward the purchasing of Disks.
With additional leaderboard/rewards, I believe no further incentive above what has already been oulined would be necessary in these areas.

Double rewarding luck is just not the way to go.

Potentially producing a larger dopamine hit upon pulling something special is absolutely the way to go. This will keep people coming back for more. The addictive nature of Beyond is it's main staple.

You don't want to open D1sk, get something bad and not only that, you get no points for airdrop.

Pulling something bad is always going to be bad. The lack of airdrop points following your terrible pull, I very much doubt will even be felt.
Airdrop points will not be the main motivation behind people opening disks, merely an additional perk.

Not everyone is able to open 100+ D1sks where that doesn't make sense because luck will even out a bit.

With a luck based system, one could open 10 disks and potentially earn more airdrop points than someone that has purchased 100 disks. I believe that to be a very good thing, because the biggest spenders aren't necessarily always going to receive the most airdrop points, offering more balance and creating a more fun element to the game.

[reef wedge]

@neat moss what are your thoughts about ending the legacy rewards one month after each wave? I've been the only one voicing discontent so far. I honestly see no need to lump this into the proposal.

All this time that Beyond waves stopped players had to continue bonding and buying from the marketplace in order to keep competing for the top 100. Not only that, having these on-going legacy rewards also puts some pressure on the team to not have major down times in Beyond.

[neat moss]

It has pros and cons for me, but neither are strong enough to pull me one way or the other.
Would I prefer a larger commitment, sure, but is it justified, i'm not confident in that as there are good arguments on both sides. It feels like a fair compromise.
What I am confident in, is that going forward we will see greater consistancy/continuity as a lot of the issues that lead to these delays will no longer be present and therefore this should be a non issue, a contingency that wont have to be enacted, but in the event that it does, at least we all know what to expect, so we can plan accordingly.

[floral ether]

Thank you for your response.

I'm not sure this is the right thought process. If the goal is to onboard new customers to the IP, it would be more impactful to allocate rewards to areas that need growth, instead of a game that’s already generating decent revenue. The problem that OW didn't onboard massively new players wasn't the size of airdrop imo, but rather the state of the games. Beyond was basically a finished game when introduced since it is just buy, get lucky and fill out your album. It is also questionable communicating we need to step back a bit and rethink airdrop structure and allocation, resulting in lowering the total amount for season 3 by 18k down to 12k total and with the other hand throw 5k on the table testing out waters in a subpart of the ecosystem that wasn't incentivized with airdrop yet.

Disproportionate in the sense of; Airdrop rewards should, in my opinion, be directly proportional to where the IP wants to direct attention and engagement. This proportion should remain relatively stable, with only gradual shifts, so that players who invest real money have a clear understanding of the reward structure longterm. If we suddenly allocate 5000 ILV a month to Beyond, new players might invest heavily in building their collections based on that incentive. But if a few months later, the rewards are drastically reduced in favor of other parts of the ecosystem or other parts just massively increased (basically a massive change in the proportions), we could see a massive sell-off. Asset prices could plummet with fewer buyers left, it could also lead to widespread accusations of the game being a "rug pull" from all the new players onboarded. Consistency is key.

Such volatility in reward allocations can undermine player confidence and create unnecessary instability. The reward structure should be predictable enough to give players confidence in their investments, while still allowing the IP to direct attention to different parts of the ecosystem over time. This would avoid the risk of short-term rewards creating bubbles that ultimately harm the game's reputation, economy and long-term success.

I’m also curious about the expected revenue increase from raising rewards from 100 ILV per week to 6200 ILV per month ... a 15x increase. What are the specific projections, and how do you anticipate this affecting both player behavior in beyond and the overall ecosystem?

[reef wedge]

the competition just stops as soon as there are no rewards. I would say at least 3 months after a wave ends for the legacy rewards. And what about the airdrop points? Would they stop as well?

[neat moss]

You're right, it would, but it is no-ones intent to have that occur. One wave should flow seamlessly into the next without rewards having to be paused.
It sounds as though the air drops will run month to month. If no wave is live, no airdrop points available.
At least that is what it sounds like to me. I could be wrong so don't take my word for that 😅 .

[rough torrent]

Im in the top 100 myself and have pushed the overhaul constantly over the last year or so.
I love this project, and beyond especially. I have managed most of the design and art related things for Beyond.
There are many new things coming for it outside of the upcoming overhaul and new waves and promos.

In terms of incentives. The leaderboard rewards were added a long time ago as a reward for people participating in the ecosystem.
It makes sense.

While the leaderboard is live, people are able to actively participate and try to get higher scores.
We don’t necessarily need to have a wave live – as the illuvidex supplies us with plenty of illuvitars, accessories and unopened d1sks so you can still compete in getting more points in your album.

Once the transition to passport happened and moved everyone across, the leaderboards got a bit messy and got paused.

In theory, at least .. during this phase you can’t participate in this game of getting more points for ‘rewards’ as they are paused.
So are you actively competing? No, I don’t think that is a case that can be made. When the leaderboard isn’t functioning, you are unable to play that part of the game.

Illuvidex volume for illuvitars and accessories probably also reflect this halt, as there was no leaderboard, no live wave and whatnot.
I don’t have all the data but I suspect it went close to zero.

So are we then saying – well illuvitars is like my savings account – eventhough I couldn’t touch it – I’m supposed to get interest on this?
I think that’s a pretty dangerous path to take, moving it more towards some sort of a financial product.
Something I have advocated against since its inception. Things have swayed in a different direction, but so be it.

However, In my opinion, because Illuvium was poor at communicating and setting up very clear rules regarding these leaderboard rewards and what it meant when they got paused.
We should, for a one-time only pay the EX leaderboard for an X amount of missed weeks.

Maybe even a 1-time ‘sorry we missed 9 weeks’ of rewards distribution of X ilv to a larger leaderboard/snapshot.. to the top 250 or 500.. To perhaps kick-start the preparations for Wave 3.

Furthermore, we should communicate very clearly when the secondary wallet support is live, and when we are going to go live with the leaderboard again.
Just so everyone is aware and can prepare for that moment.

Also, I think we should come up with a structure that pleases current participants and is able to scale with them!
Rather than throwing a massive stack at only a few, lets grow the pie as more people come and play.

1: Stick with an overall leaderboard add more rewarded-spots.

2: Add a Wave Only leaderboard that only pays out at the end of a wave.
The Success of the wave determines partially the amount of ILV that will be distributed to Wave participants.
These rewards can from a certain moment transition into a free d1sk, fuel or emotes or other ‘things’. (I have more ideas.)
This way the ‘Pot of Gold’ that everyone wants to get their hands on grows bigger with more participants.

3: Do a 1-time payment for the missed rewards to a larger chunk of the previous leaderboard to kickstart Wave 3

4: Be very clear about what amounts go where, how systems work, and a date where we need to re-evaluate all previous made decisions regarding rewards and leaderboards.
Make the overall intentions of the leaderboards and why they exist very very clear.

This last point is because we want the DAO and the designers internally to be free and flexible to pivot strategy or design and not get held to once made promises that last forever, even when they no longer provide the right path forward.

[floral ether]

I fully agree with this perspective.
Clear communication is just as important as creating incentives to attract a broader audience, and these incentives don’t always need to be monetary, especially in Beyond, where the focus is on collecting, flexing, and unlocking cool features/cosmetics across all games and modes.

Point 4 is particularly important and should be written down as an IIP, not just for Beyond, but for all games and modes.
The "you promised it" or "this feature can't change because I invested money" arguments hinder progress and prevent the implementation of potentially great features.
It would be beneficial to have this written as a law and perhaps included as a disclaimer across different platforms/medias.

[cursive geyser]

To be fair, I wrote the proposal pretty quickly, I'm not set on any of the values, holos are 20x the rarity i'm just worried people will become despondent if someone mints a 20x rare and then gains a humongous lead. But perhaps 3x needs to be increased to say 5x.

[cursive geyser]

You should read my proposal 😛

[cursive geyser]

I get it, but the primary goal of rewards is to incentivise gameplay, which drives both retention and revenue. In this case, we’re allocating 1/6th of the rewards to a part of the ecosystem that has already demonstrated 5x the revenue generation of other segments. It makes perfect sense to double down on areas of the IP that have already proven successful.

This doesn't mean we're neglecting Overworld and Arena—we’re working hard to improve both the gameplay and the monetisation systems there. However, continuing to issue high rewards for parts of the ecosystem that aren’t ready yet doesn't align with our strategy. Beyond, on the other hand, has proven to retain players and generate significant returns for the DAO, which is why it warrants these incentives.

If your concern is that we might exhaust the rewards pool by allocating more to Beyond, leaving us with less for other games when they are ready to be heavily incentivized, I’d agree with you in principle. But in reality, 5K ILV a month is a relatively small investment compared to the revenue Beyond generates. It's a calculated move that won’t jeopardise our ability to incentivize other games once they’re fully ready

[floral ether]

my concerns are:

**Change in reward proportions and allocation compared to the total airdrop. **
As you say, as soon as arena and overworld are in a better state, the rewards might increase there and in my opinion they different games should hold their airdrop proportion more or less (as described in my last post). If you want to keep that proportion it would result in Beyond being the flagship with the biggest share in rewards not only in season3 but going forward until rewards are no more a thing in the games. Some see it as totally legit, i would prefer OW and Arena being in the flagship positions.

** that this additional 5k monthly airdrop for minting disks is actually a net negative for the beyond ecosystem. **
It is an airdrop and the marketing of the IP focuses on crypto space.
What people are you actually luring in with those strategies. Based on sitting in voice chats and reading discord and following other projects a lot, the majority of the newcomers are the typical airdrop farmers. Not caring about the fun they stay as long as it is profitable and also act to make it profitable for themself. Always looking for liquidity to make their next move in their next airdrop.

So what i see to happen with this IIP is a big part of the beyond-newcomer minting disks but very calculated to the size of the Airdrop. As soon as the reward is secured, x amount of those dump the market with what they got in assets to get liquidity for next month and y amount (some of those with bigger pockets) might wait until season end to play the season leaderboard and dump the assets as soon as those rewards are secured.
The bigger the Airdrop, the bigger the dump afterwards.

Yes, there might be some special snowflakes getting onboarded into beyond and keep their assets either out of fun(collection rewards etc.) or to maybe compete with the legacy leaderboard (unlikely since that's just 100 ilv and OG-whales already established nice amount of collection points)

[kind knoll]

Agreed, slapping points on the purchase point on top of the points already earned in the leaderboards is confusing by itself but also does not incentivize collecting. Why add it in if we can extend our 'proven' leaderboard system instead. If collecting is seen as a hassle by the community, let's fix that.

Wave only leaderboard: Stated in the proposal and here, great way to get people in who haven't been as active in previous waves.

Community stretch goals could also lean into the rewards much more. "Piggy bank" systems have worked really well in other games

Completely off the cuff, numbers are very WIP

10k Wave 3 Standard D1SKs -> Increase leaderboard rewards by 25% for first 4 weeks, add 50 slots that obtain rewards to Wave 3 leaderboard. Everyone with atleast 10 Standard D1SKs gets cosmetic X
5k Wave 3 Mega D1SKs -> Wave 3 Leaderboard rewards keep going for 2 more weeks, add 50 slots that obtain rewards to total leaderboard, everyone with 10 Mega D1SKs gets 5k of each fuel type

etc etc

Fully agree, I'd prefer we talk duration and goal of leaderboard rewards and even chat expiration date for both leaderboards and going into Wave 4. This keeps us as team on our toes for Wave 4, manages expectations with the community for rewards. No stone unturned, let the community council be the stamp of approval that we dotted our i's and crossed our t's and with that keep the team responsible while the community has a clear expectation to point to

[empty sun]

TLDR the rewards for Wave 3:

• 800 ILV/month for collecting or holding (exc. legacy leaderboard)
• 5000 ILV/month for minting
  what i like about the proposal, it provide incentive to both minting and holding.
  the issue with S1 and S2 of the P2A was we were only incentivized to capture and forge. some people might have listed their illuvials or arnaments to recoup cost.
  id like to see more discussion on balancing the incentive between minting and holding

the obvious benefit of heavily rewarding minting is we might see good revenue number, with the risk of excessive listing of illuvitars from players to recoup their cost of mint

[kind knoll]

I don't want to 100% speak for Rogier but we tend to be aligned on this generally:

Me and him are advocating for 0% of the rewards on mint and 100% on collection/holding.

The con is the first order effect delta revenue from those who'd be incentivized on the open but not on the collection

The pro's are more second order:

• Don't incentivize open -> dump -> open loop to keep Wave 3 floor prices in check to a degree
• This opens up the 'story' aspect more of selling your ultra rare collectible to the hardcore collectionists (Holo Blazing Rhamphyre story from Wave 1)
• Incentivizing through collection (and therefore cosmetic unlocks) rather than through open would funnel players to the games more "Let's try out this new cosmetic I just got to obtain my leaderboard position"

Pretty much impossible to put numbers to this analysis, especially given new incoming collection design
Regardless of what we're going for, as stated making the leaderboard structure more interesting or dynamic but also set in stone for the rest of the Wave is something we're all advocating for in some form

[reef wedge]

I 100% agree with you. Rewarding for collecting/holding is the way to go IMO. We already have the individual stretch goals to reward minting.

We don't wanna end up in a situation like the previous waves where everyone is opening d1sks and dumping the illuvitars in the market just so they can open another d1sk. This puts huge sell pressure on the market and doesn't reward the dedicated players who own thousands of illuvitars.

(the same train of thought applies to OW and illuvials).

[neat moss]

Me and him are advocating for 0% of the rewards on mint and 100% on collection/holding.

I can't help but think that this would create a strong imbalance, especially when it comes to aftermarket.
If everyone is being heavily incentivised to hold, not many illuvitars, especially rare/desirable ones will ever make their way to the marketplace. Very bad for collectors as the majority of which depend heavily on aftermarket availability to complete their collections.
Traders/flippers/profiteers, whatever you want to call them, are necessary and healthy for any thriving economy, including the collector.

We want people to collect because they fall in love with the IP, not because they are getting paid to.
Incentivising people to enter the space and providing them the opportunity to fall in love with the IP seems far more benficial in the long term.

If we have to compromise at all, why not try to achieve balance and put 50% on mint, 50% on collecting.
Creating imbalance is never a good thing and will potentially create a lot of undesired side effects.

[empty sun]

yea im hoping for a compromise.

[floral ether]

Right now on the monetary side we have just the legacy leaderboard, which is a longterm incentivation. I feel the market hasn't been too bad, but you know that better for sure. What was your experience so far? Any collection you wasn't able to complete? On another general question; should everyone participating complete all collections farely easy?

An additional wave leaderboard already invites more flippers who you then can buy your asset a little cheaper of the market as there was in wave 1+2 after the wave is done, to complete your collection.
Also, shouldn't holding assets be heavily incentivized across all games to grow the economy longterm instead of incentivizing flippers so a few collectors can complete their collections very cheap?
Holding assets incentivizes people to buy disks or go on runs in the overworld, is it the collector himself or someone looking for a flip profit, which is the ultimate endgoal right? People playing the games.

[kind knoll]

Not really sure if it is this black and white, points scale logarithmically with rarity, albums don't care about holo which is the main rarity multiplier. If you get a rare outcome, I'm fairly certain selling to a hardcore collector is worth more than the point differential delta in terms of leaderboard rewards.

Imo:

Incentivized to hold -> not many rare illuvitars -> triggers people to find the rare outcome to sell ("Holo Blazing Rhamphyre" story) as floating supply is low -> floating supply increases

That said, you've had skin in the game regarding the hardcore collector side for a while, so if you've felt the low floating supply before to its extremeity (Wave 1 was quite extreme probably, Wave 2 rarity curve a lot more forgiving for non-holo collection completion) then I can be persuaded otherwise

If you feel the disk opening is the IP fall in love moment over the collection moment, we need to do something with our "collectible game" imo

[kind knoll]

Some more musings throughout the day:

• Gonna be hard to beat the dopamine hit of the pack opening with the collecting experience, but the collecting experience is the progression system, perhaps we should use it as such more
• My idea is to indirectly incentivize the purchase with the collective stretch goals as in my post above: #1291397566218633288 message

[neat moss]

Right now on the monetary side we have just the legacy leaderboard, which is a longterm incentivation. I feel the market hasn't been too bad, but you know that better for sure. What was your experience so far?

The market throughout wave 1 felt healthy, wave 2 not so much. IMO that was mainly due to lack of quality supply hitting the market.
Standard disks sales were overly incentivised and thus the vast majority of disks that were sold were standard.
Due to rare illuvitars being extremely difficult to pull out of standard disk, not many came to market. So not only did it feel bad to purchase mega disks, we also saw a lack of quality supply. A double negative.
That decision likely came from a place of trying to get more adoption through incentivising cheap disk sales, but I believe it hurt revenue as sales of mega disks tumbled and aftermarket sales with it due to the lack of quality supply, making it a net negative overall.

I am just concerned that overly incentivising in the wrong area could have a similar effect.

Any collection you wasn't able to complete? On another general question; should everyone participating complete all collections farely easy?

I managed to complete all of the collections, but I was the only one to do so.
Do you think that is a good or bad thing. Could we afford to see more people completing collections?

I do not think it should be easy, far from it, and it should be expensive, but with the rarity of some of the illuvitars I think its only possible for 3 people to ever complete all of the collections, so IMO we do have some room for inflation there moving forward.

Also, shouldn't holding assets be heavily incentivized across all games to grow the economy longterm instead of incentivizing flippers so a few collectors can complete their collections very cheap?

I belive it's about finding a balance between the two. I think both should be equally incentivised as they are both sides of the same coin and equally necessary for a balanced and healthy economy.

[floral ether]

But that already got solved if i remember right. Like there will be a multiplier for mega disks, so both sales, Standard and mega will be incentivized the Same Way.

Am AT a family Event, so not really time to search if there was an IIP or statements from teammembers.

[neat moss]

I believe that was resolved yes.

[reef wedge]

https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1219314270668455947

[kind knoll]

Guess I'm stuck with this 5x :/

[rough torrent]

The value of the thing being collected comes from the fact that there is more demand than there is supply.
If we want to upfront this value by saying, if you buy this we will guarantee you money it screws up the actual value of the thing being collected.
The value of illuvitars by its nature should come from trading and collecting.

We need to get more people into the IP, which will want to participate and buy an illuvitar or choose to start collecting themselves.
If we say, we can only get them in if we give them money.. then how come we are here.

We bought on the promise of a growing ecosystem, the love of the IP and the opportunity we saw and then made a choice to participate.
I never bought d1sks with the idea i was going to get guaranteed value in return in the form of ILV.
I bought them as i would get illuvitars, fill my album and see if i can collect em all. (A collection game.)
Those that were rare or I'd have double i could sell to others. And those i didnt have, i could get from the market.

What is being proposed here is basicly ILV token holders to subsidize people that buy d1sks.
Which you can doubt if it is a meaningful participation that's going to bring us more demand and a healthy product.

I really worry we are possibly turning something that is supposed to be fun (And lucrative!), into another accounting exercise.

This is the last ill try to say here - reading other comments above ill really try to get a blog or post out about my ideas for the game/product and where it should go next.
Which is of course always going to be up for debate, internaly and with all of you 😉
Dont' get me wrong - im not against you all,, im trying to see what is best for us in general. (not me personally.)

[reef wedge]

actually no, that is the ICC voting. If I'm not mistaken the IMC voted for revisions needed. But I can't seem to find that post. @rapid kite can you help?

found it. It says passed but that is a mistake, since there was 3 votes for revisions needed.
#📰〕governance-news message

there's no post in the https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1024051771624136774 regarding the IMC vote...

[reef wedge]

this being the case I would appreciate if you could talk with the IMC about this IIP and sort out the revisions it needs, so I can update the doc.

[empty sun]

the new imc can work through the revision. i just read the proposal and the rationales given.
cmiiw the only outstanding consideration is the higher goals?

[reef wedge]

I think so yes, but @kind knoll can better answer that question.

[neat moss]

This is the last ill try to say here - reading other comments above ill really try to get a blog or post out about my ideas for the game/product and where it should go next.

I will be looking forward to seeing that.

Dont' get me wrong - im not against you all,, im trying to see what is best for us in general. (not me personally.)

I'm not sure anyone believes that you are against them, if anything I think a lot of people will support your arguments.
I'm also pretty confident that everyone here just wants what is best for the project as a whole, we just might have differing opinions on how best to achieve it, but it's all good and healthy

[kind knoll]

My main piece of specifics is to let the Beyond design team 'cook' based on the discussion here and time left rather than binding us into specifics
Same with the table in the proposal of this thread, constrains us in the design of the rest of the airdrop in the future in terms of normalization
makes sense to me once we hit conclusions out of this discussion we can discuss with IMC what we're cooking for an official proposal if necessary

[reef wedge]

https://tenor.com/view/chef-sanji-gif-27447706

[tired ibex]

I like the idea of incentivising minting and collecting but maybe flipping the desired focus could be beneficial. The only problem with going too hard on leaderboards is they have a shelf life. There comes a point where someone has collected enough stuff that they don't need to buy or mint anything else, since they are practically untouchable on the leaderboard.

Periodic events could be kinda cool, for this week Water Illuvitars get a 3x multiplier. Shifting the meta and enticing people to mint more illuvitars, buy off the illuvidex and so on. Just spitballing but I am essentially trying to solve for X

[empty sun]

yes we can leave the spesifics for the team to determine. there must be some calculations needed.
the main thing the council wanted to decide for the airdrop points table in this proposal was the multiplier of holo points. holo should get more points, but not as much as 20x.
my main argument for not giving 20x for holo was that the market value of holo is already a huge incentive. for example, holo blazing ramphyre was sold for 25eth

[rough torrent]

This is on us to make sure a leaderboard doesnt become completely static and its what will come with new features tho to be fair. The old leaderboards wasnt as static as u might think.m the only one that seemed to never move was Alexa, but that took some real effort 🤣

[tired ibex]

Moving around within the top 100 on the leaderboard is one thing. Moving off and on the leaderboard felt less static to me, but it's a fair analysis that it did used to move quite a bit.

I guess I just like how minting Illuvitars is so direct. If someone mints for $2 and gets about $1 back in airdrop points on average. It's a fun rebate, entices more spending and doesn't cost the DAO.

[rough torrent]

It doesn’t cost the DAO ?
But we are the DAO – You, me and all the other token holders.
It costs US something. Like I just said – we are suddenly okay with subsidizing the buying of D1SKS. Why? Drives more money? Does it? It’s an attempt to act like an exchange.
You give us ETH (or in the worst case sILV2 which is completely useless for us as a DAO) and we give you ILV tokens AND a D1sk. This is a very shitty premise..

If we heavily incentivize things on the buying side we are turning it into an accounting exercise again.
Bbut this time – we are not just weakening the Token, we are also weakening all the players that like illuvium beyond and the product on its own.

Thought experiment:
I buy a d1sk – I get 50% back in ILV – this is value that is guaranteed as long as there is a token. (We the DAO)
I also get a D1sk – this is considered to be valuable by illuvium beyond players.
If we have players, they might buy it off of me for about only 51%+ of the value the DAO would sell it, and I win.
If this is the case – I get more money out than I get in. And that’s all I care about. (even worse with sILV2.)

BUT since MY risk is already 50% backed by the Token-holders/DAO I’ll open it.
If I get anything of value I’ll easily get more money out than I get in.
Even better, if I get something that is considered rare, I would have no problem at all to dump it for the floor price or lower as long as I get more money out. I win.

Do you end up with more players.. no.. do you end up with more eth.. possibly, but at what cost?
Ruin the Beyond market, ruin sentiment (of those players and collectors) and possibly have all those farmers dump the token and assets on us afterwards.

The reason things in illuvium beyond are worth anything, is because they are considered rare, there are more people that want the item than there are ‘that item’.
But if no one actually cares about the ‘item’ but just wants the money for it.. it drags it down massively.
Ramphyre’s from Wave 1 are rare, and there are more people that want to hold it rather than sell it.
If you get a whole chunk of people in that don’t care about it, they just want to sell it.
You think this helps the asset remain its value? You ultimately drag it all down to nothing and pisses everyone off.
Its not sustainable and it hurts the product.

[gentle slate]

I'm also not sure that "fun" and "rebate" should ever be used to describe the same thing. Rebates aren't fun, and they aren't as effective as sales at bringing in new customers or moving products. I personally consider anything that's functionally a rebate to be at the bottom of the ladder for customer acquisition. Rewards programs are good, and can be fun. We've seen the effectiveness of threshold based rewards for purchasing a number of d1sks in action already.

Rebates are boring, and like Rogier pointed out, we're not just rebating the purchasing currency, we're rebating with ILV tokens. If we feel we should subsidize people for purchasing d1sks, I'd much rather we just have a limited time sale instead of rebates. (ex. 25% off for the first 7 days of the Wave)

Alternatively, a random drawing is also preferable to flat rebates. Say every d1sk comprises an entry to a raffle as a reward. Every mega comprises 5 entries. At the end of the wave, there's a draw where some buyers are chosen randomly and win some ILV. That's exciting and fun (and would need to be run past legal, for obvious reasons).

The main thing is that rebates, as they are most effectively used, are a way to obfuscate the price of a product by claiming it's "only $5 after rebate" when you actually pay $10, and the company makes it annoying or time consuming to actually get the rebate (ex. mail-in or some other barrier most people won't bother with), so that it's actually just $10.

That's the best way an organization can utilize rebates. Instead, we're effectively talking about having a sale, while not reaping the benefits of actually having a sale. The DAO is out the entire "rebate" anyways in this scenario, there's no benefits to the DAO RE: redemption rates, so I'm not seeing the benefit.

[fervent ibex]

During wave 2, 912 eth was sold through (Alpha) Mega and Standard D1sks. An additional 340.000$ was obtained by selling the team liquid D1sks. Combined, this amounts to roughly 2.5M$ in sales with current Eth-Dollar values. This took place over the course of 5 months, as the Team Liquid partnership demanded an extension of 2 months. (calculated by going to Illuvi-analytics.com and multiplying sales with the d1sks' respective prices)

The upcoming wave should take place over the course of 3 months and have a pause of a month before wave 4 starts. According to this proposal we go from 100 ILV per week to 300 per week + 5000 per month in leaderboard and airdrop rewards. If the airdrop takes place each month, this means that instead of paying out 1300 ILV as we do now, we go up to 18900 ILV next wave (750K$~). That is a net increase of 17600 ILV or more than a 1300% increase in rewards. With that, do we expect a 13x in investment from the community? I personally doubt that will happen for the following reason:

The airdrop in this proposal can be seen as a type of cashback for buying D1sks. If we aim to 13x our revenue, we would expect 33M in revenue, and so 750K / 33M = 2.5% of our revenue would be paid back in the form of the airdrop. Now, a 2.5% discount on your purchases tends not to be the biggest deal. Especially so if you take into account the Influencer codes used during wave 2 or the Alliance program we see in IIP 59. Here, a tier 5 Influencer that brought in 10+ eth in the previous month gains 17.5% commissions over any sale that uses their code. This in essence means an almost 20% discount on every purchase they make. During the previous wave, this discount was 5-10% based on how much value you provided to the project. But even with 5-10% off, the market became saturated when 2.5M of assets were bought. Otherwise we would have seen more D1sks being sold after all.

Now, we should not expect a later saturation of assets if we introduce the airdrop. After all, people who farm airdrops don't buy assets for the assets themselves but to make quick money. So the saturation point doesn't change, but the saturation rate does increase. This means that we will sell D1sks quicker but not more. At 2.5M$ in d1sks sold, we can expect the actual players to have a full album and stop buying off the marketplace. This would cause supply to increase and prices to drop as people don't want to buy more. If that point is at 2.5M$ in sales, then instead of a 2.5% discount on your purchases, the players would have had a 30% discount. Add in the 17.5% commissions and you are now practically giving away the D1sks (47.5% discount). -And we haven't even talked about similar goals as the private goals of wave 2. That was another 24% discount, as you get two free Mega d1sks every 25 d1sks bought and you would buy regulars to get a d1sk worth 6x as much, so 12 d1sks worth of money every 25 d1sks bought. In total we are now counting 71.5% discount if the number of players interested in the assets does not increase.

How do you increase the number of collectors? You add value to the assets themselves.

1. Add in-game value such as actual emotes, battleboards, skins etc.
2. Give enough of a feeling of power when you collect them all so that you feel privileged when holding them.
3. Create a group or such for the holders to connect.

TL;DR: The airdrop either is not enticing enough, or gives too much of a discount making the whole sale pointless. It however does not target the right demographic for Illuvium Beyond. We should target whales, and i doubt that an Airdrop would succeed in bringing them in. Instead, we should add value to the assets themselves. Use the 5000 ILV per month to make that happen.

[empty sun]

what if the airdrop is lowered?

[ruby moon]

Imma bit late to reply but want to point out that's why gfps were created. Any pass gfp is still subject to labs interpretation and implementation of the feature and not a developed to the letter 😀

[ruby moon]

Propose an iccp! I advocated for something like x3 cause a straight up x5 might make sense due to the price of Megas I felt that it just trivialize standards a lot now. I won't go for standards anymore cause I can get guaranteed rares in megas AND get the disk count. There's no longer a choice to either go standard or mega. Now it you'd only want standards to get more accessories.

[fervent ibex]

IIP 48 was never accepted by the IMC. It has been pending revisions since March. So you would still be able to come to a concensus with Perry on how to implement the proposal.

I tried adding a link to snapshot but it erased my message :[

[rough torrent]

no, just drop the whole thing - its ultimately a race to 0 if we do that. It needs to go away.

[reef wedge]

isn't the airdrop a good way to reward the leaderboard position past 100th place?

[reef wedge]

#1291397566218633288 message

[empty sun]

i re read your post. it makes a lot of sense. thank you rogier

[ruby moon]

To get back to the proposal just want to share my stance which many have already explained in full so I'll try not to go overboard.

1. Legacy and wave leaderboards is an absolute win. I was very much for this last epoch and we were discussing this for wave 3 and even before the pause. Glad it's here. It's more inclusive and allows people to take part of the rewards rather than feel it's impossible to catch up. This is good for existing players and those who want to jump in as a new player.

2. Bigger pool for waves than legacy. My preference is to give more to wave leaderboard as it incentivizes buying more d1sks and participating.

3. I concede on the payback the 9 weeks. There's been confusion on the communication and while I may not like it I have to accept it especially since in the grand scheme of things it's not a lot of ilv compared to the airdrop across the ecosystem.

4. Extend the leaderboards and drop airdrop.

• lessens dev time to have to make a new system for airdrops just for beyond
• airdrop focuses on mint and takes away from collection
• mint and sell. Farmers will mint for airdrop points then sell what they open to recuperate initial buy in. They get luck with a t5 great for points great for selling. Bad for supply and demand which ultimately devalued illuvitars for that wave and even succeeding waves.

Tldr: drop airdrop from proposal. Okay with eveything else

Edit : okay with principle of the other items but might need to take a look at values such as total ilv amounts and breakdowns based on how much we extend leaderboards from 100 to XXX for example

[rough torrent]

no need - we should extend the normal leaderboard and we should make a Wave specific leaderboard that is designed to in a way reward all wave particpants. <- this does NOT need to be in a form of ILV

[ruby moon]

Did you read #📯〕council-chambers ?

[empty sun]

how much should we expand the normal leaderboard?

[rough torrent]

Maybe top 150 ? and see how it goes - and we can extend further if there are more participants.
We should keep it competative in a way that theres people going up and down on the board, make it too inclusive and u remove competition, but after a month or (this wave) we see there are many more people active in the system, we can extend with another 50 or 100 slots, depending on the growth of the ecosystem.

Step by step.

[empty sun]

and how about the reward amount?

[rough torrent]

Well, we got to look into it if we have a framework we are allowed to do design work in and not get a wrench thrown into the doghouse 1 month before the sale 🙂

Off the cuff, I guess double or triple the amount of ILV rewards that we did upt to now. But these would be spread across a few more people - And a set-amount + growing-amount for Wave leaderboards, which increase with the Wave's success. But on this board, there would be more rewards also in the form of non-ilv.

But - like i said - step by step, if we see a jump in participants or price or whatever we should be able to adjust and not lock ourselves away forever.

Dates for evaluation / starts and ends are important.

[reef wedge]

yes I did read it, what about it?

still waiting on the labs key metrics

[reef wedge]

if we're not rewarding in ILV then what do you propose?

[rough torrent]

Im not saying we wouldn't reward at all in the form of ILV, but it doesnt all have to be ILV. A wave participant could also get a unique Illuvitar or a special d1sk or a skin or whatever we want to do. and this can go based on 'Have you participated' to 'top 100 gets X - 101 to 150 gets X - and so forth..

[reef wedge]

something that comes to my mind is d1sk fragments.

[rough torrent]

We aren't ready for that afaik.. everything we come up with needs to be built, and there's little time left unless we want to make thigns IOU again - and i rather cut back on that a lot 😄

But yes - in general that sort of stuf can be done,, maybe not now but in a next

[reef wedge]

for now having 2 leaderboards and just expanding it a bit should be ok.

[reef wedge]

we're now into week 10 with no rewards. Why is the cutoff date October 3? This IIP will still take a while to get approved, why don't we simply make an official announcement that the rewards are paused and end the drama...

[rapid kite]

No more IOUS ever

please

[fast snow]

You are probably right that an airdrop won’t bring in more whales. But I’m more certain that a lack of one, will keep almost everyone else out entirely (at least for the duration of the airdrop in other parts of the ecosystem).

I was never a big fan of any kind of airdrop to begin with. But when the whole ecosystem is being incentivized by P2A, it seems very strange to discriminate Beyond in this way.

We should also not forget that with the price change after wave 1, (already ‘caught’) whales (imo) were basically dismissed by council as the main demographic. If I remember correctly, the rational back then was to target a more democratic demographic. So, to now once again target whales as your main audience seems somewhat questionable to me. Especially since new ones aren’t likely to enter until after we have a better overall gaming experience with multiplayer, combat, lore and a vibrant competitive scene.

TLDR: I don’t necessarily disagree with your reasoning but in the context of the current state of the game and an ecosystem wide airdrop, I would come to a different conclusion/vote.

[shrewd gull]

The more I dig into it, the more I like this idea. Fully supporting it 🙌

[empty sun]

the question is how much airdrop do we want to allocate to wave 3

[ruby moon]

0 Just exapand leaderboards 😄

[shrewd gull]

Isn't the high airdrop attracts all users to purchase more d1sks as everyone will share the airdrop ILVs. On the otherside, extending leaderboard may attract few more people but it will not encourage all the users. Airdrop will definitely attract everyone to try and get as much points as possible.

[fervent ibex]

Only if it makes sense to buy more. And so you buy more d1sks only until people start struggling to sell their stuff.

The airdrop farmers dont want to hold the assets so you would sell quicker but not more. Once the whales are set with a powerful enough album, sales will come to a stop regardless of airdrop valuation. Now, if the airdrop is more than you would spend on d1sks sure. But then why do an airdrop in the first place. It would cost all stakeholders money 😅

[shrewd gull]

@cursive geyser , How about adding airdrop points for bonding Illuvitars with various accessories? For example, bonding with higher-tier accessories like T5 could earn more points than bonding with lower-tier accessories. These points would be added to the existing airdrop points system, encouraging users to bond more and potentially incentivizing the use of higher-quality accessories. This would align with Beyond's original goal of promoting bonding illuvitars...

[ruby moon]

Basically this. Airdrop will just devalue Wave 3 illuvitars and accessories. Airdrop farmers will buy d1sks hope for the big points then as soon as its logged into their count, sell them. This just drives the prices down.

Id rather the airdrop be connected to leaderboards or rewarding those who hold the illuvitars and/or accessories the whole wave and onwards. Connect it to the collections. Give them more reasons to sleeve and maintain it. This would drive demand for the sought after pieces to complete vs. open and sell to dex.

[empty sun]

how about 50/50

[reef wedge]

I agree, the only way I see an airdrop benefiting the Beyond ecosystem would be with extended leaderboards giving airdrop points, obviously receiving less ILV than the top 100 and rewards being vested for 3 months contrary to the top 100.

Anything else and we're just unnecessarily increasing the sell pressure on the market and devaluing illuvitars like it happened with the previous wave thanks to the over-tuned individual stretched goals.

But then we go back to the question of why even do the whole airdrop thing and not simply extend the leaderboards and allocate more ILV for the rewards.

I think it's about time we recognize this whole airdrop thing is not what's gonna attract players. It's an awesome gift from Illuvium to all those who played the games these past seasons, but this is not an effective way to be spending tokens from our treasury.

[civic dew]

I am on this fence with this one so I am going to side with the artist @rough torrent on this and vote down. Lets write this IIP without the Airdrop and see if we can pass it so we can get something together before Wave 3.

[fervent ibex]

Outside of the Airdrop that is detailed in this proposal, do we have a concensus on the following things:

The two leaderboards should be added for wave 3; Legacy and wave specific

The reimbursement of 9 weeks is fair?

Then i want to broach the topic of Mega D1sk weighting for goals proposed in IIP 48. Do we want a higher weighting so that you get more points for personal and community goals if you buy megad1sks? If so, how large should the weight be? In the IIP it stated 5x that of regular d1sks. The price is 6x but the rare illuvitar pull is a desired asset. The IMC desired revisions to push it back down to a 3X weight.

I want to get the ball rolling on this as these details should be hashed out prior to wave 3. If not, we restart it as they were in wave 2. No wave specific leaderboard, no reimbursement and no weight changes.

We currently have 36 days until the start of wave 3. With the IIP process taking at least 8 days from finalizing the IIP to getting 25 upvotes to pushing to github to voting by both councils that makes 28 days until we need a new proposal ready.

But the team should make changes to leaderboard and weightings only once the proposal has passed. So the quicker this is considered and rewritten the better imo.

[rough torrent]

Ive worked on something behind the scenes, ill ask kieran to run it by the council . Want to finalize some small parts for it before tho.

Kieran was mostly positive on it

[neat moss]

For me, Wave specific leaderboards are a must. Definitely going to struggle with new players without them I think.
Legacy leaderboard provides additional incentive for people to continue to hold illuvitars from previous waves, so pretty much a given also.

In regards to sretch goals, the weighting of disks just need to be fair.
If you spend $x amount on Standard Disks to receive a particular reward, then the same $x spend on Mega Disks should get the exact same reward. Simple. Anything other than that and the balancing is off and you're just going to make people feel bad. We saw during Wave 2 exactly what this did to Mega Disk sales.
Mega Disks are a lot more fun to open and therefore are more likely to get people hooked in, why are we trying to deincentivise them.

Standard disks are always going to have strong appeal due to the need to grind accessories and hitting stretch goals. They do not need to be incentivised at the cost of deincentivising another product.
If you want to incentivise standard disks, add more value, without detracting it from somewhere else.
Additional leaderboard is a very good start as the demand for accessories will be even greater and it will always be far more beneficial to open Standard Disks for these.

[empty sun]

i believe the points multiplier should reflect the price difference

[rough torrent]

Will try to get it all finalized today, will ask to get it to imc icc asap

[empty sun]

after much consideration.
i believe the 5K airdrop should be in a separate proposal so we can move forward with the other items

[floral ether]

don't think there is a need to create a proposal about 5k airdrop of beyond.
Other airdrop seasons didn't had a proposal on how to distribute AD aswell.

However, you can for sure start an thread in #1020759212172775464 to gather sentiment on it.

[fervent ibex]

So you would argue that a 5x weight is still unfair and it should be 6x, in line with the difference in price of 0.003eth for Standard and 0.018eth for mega?

I do agree that mega d1sks are more fun. But you would have significantly more megad1sks sold compared to standard d1sks than last wave if the stretchgoal weighting was 1:6.

Last wave we saw 23K mega's and more than 100K standards sold. This was done through the 2 free mega's per 25 d1sks stretchgoal. I however dont think that is sustainable. With them, we will get close to 10.000? free mega d1sks next wave ^^ compare that to the 23K mega d1sks sold in wave 2 and you may understand just how many will be handed out.

But the sales ratio was close to 6x more standards sold than megas (4x -5x ish). Is that the goal? Or should we aim for closer to a 50/50 split? I would like to hear from the team on their preferred d1sk sale ratios 🙂 maybe they want 6x as many regular d1sk sales and in that regard, the last sale would have gone close to perfect after all 👀

[fervent ibex]

Would be happy to proofread it before it is done

[neat moss]

So you would argue that a 5x weight is still unfair and it should be 6x, in line with the difference in price of 0.003eth for Standard and 0.018eth for mega?

Anything other than equal woud be unfair yes.

I do agree that mega d1sks are more fun. But you would have significantly more megad1sks sold compared to standard d1sks than last wave if the stretchgoal weighting was 1:6.

We should definitely see much stronger Mega Disk sales. Not sure why that is a bad thing?

Last wave we saw 23K mega's and more than 100K standards sold. This was done through the 2 free mega's per 25 d1sks stretchgoal. I however dont think that is sustainable. With them, we will get close to 10.000 free mega d1sks next wave ^^ compare that to the 23K mega d1sks sold in wave 2 and you may understand just how many will be handed out.

I agree, the goals were a little too OP and could be nerfed.

But the sales ratio was close to 6x more standards sold than megas (4x -5x ish). Is that the goal? Or should we aim for closer to a 50/50 split? I would like to hear from the team on their preferred d1sk sale ratios 🙂 maybe they want 6x as many regular d1sk sales and in that regard, the last sale would have gone close to perfect after all 👀

Why are we aiming for any particular ratio?
The aim is to drive as much revenue as possible no, not hit golden ratios.

[vapid current]

There are some Illuvitars that are much more rare then they should be because of how rares in megas work and what the ratio is.

Not sure if we are okay with that and I don’t think it will be fixed with aiming at any specific ratio.

Also if we wanted to aim at the specific ratio the pricing should have been better. Rewards from spending money should be equal to amount of money spent.

[fervent ibex]

Games tend to have a certain type of balance. If we push for more megad1sks, you automatically get better illuvitars in general and thereby a shortage of high tier Accessories. The price of high tier accessories would go up rather than the price of high tier illuvitars.

Im not saying it is a bad thing per se, but if we want to hit certain d1sk sale ratio's to balance out the collection gameplay, then we need to take that into consideration.

If we are fine with a shortage of accessories, or expect regular d1sk sales to find a balance through demand of accessories by whales then im fine with it. Free market is just fine by me. But if the team has future plans that require a certain balance ratio like now, and we are at a good point, then i wouldnt make too many changes.

If they say no, free market is great, then im OK with anything.

[neat moss]

Good points.

If this potential imbalance did occur and it did cause accessory prices to increase, wouldn't that create much stronger demand for the standard disk to fill that accessory demand, therefore causing the market to auto correct.

[vapid current]

But if we have the imbalance of price in secondary market because of regular d1sk sales, then the regular d1sk will be worth more and therefore people will be buying them again. Should it balance itself out. I doubt airdrop will make that much of a difference in sales.

[fervent ibex]

Yes it would balance itself out. Like in a free market. But we have done some big incentivising of regulars this last sale. So the ratio of sales would be very different if we did not.

And maybe that ratio, where standard d1sks are valuable because whales demand the accessories is only at a 2x compared to mega's instead of last sale's 4x.~

I wouldnt mind seeing how things go next wave with a 6x in weight for megad1sks.

Im all for it. But i do would like to hear the team's opinion on how they envisioned the sales along with the balance of the d1sks in regards to the collection gameplay.

[ruby moon]

Im probably a minority here. While I agree mega disk should have a multiplier but making it 5x just lessens agency on buyers. When making an informed choice on going for standards or going for megas. Megas will outweigh standards 100% of the time due to the fact that you get a guaranteed rare (Edit: 1450 as corrected by Garf) and you get credited the 5 disks in its weight. You would only get standards just to get more accessories. Thats the only thing it has going for it.

My recommendation is that instead of a x5 you put it at x3. You give more agency to buyers to weigh the pros and cons. You want a guaranteed rare but not feel cheated on disks crediting, you got Megas. You want to focus on getting more d1sks credited and/or accessories you can just keep buying standards.

Alexa already pointed out that having that guaranteed rare already makes megas worthwhile to purchase. Increasing it to x5 d1sks weight when crediting just pushes down standards more making it nearly not worth it.

[fervent ibex]

1250 for wave 1. 1450 in wave 2 🙂

[empty sun]

i just want to make it simple.
buy more megas.

[vapid current]

But the problem with megas being better is always there, making multiplier for points fair now isn’t breaking everything all of a sudden.

If regular d1sks are so bad, why would anyone even buy them?

[neat moss]

For anyone grinding leaderboard you do need to open a fair few standards to get your accessories. Trying to get them out of Megas just isn’t cost effective.

With an additional 100 leaderboard positions in Wave 3, the demand for accessories should be higher as there are now double the positions up for grabs.

[kind knoll]

Where does this underlying premise of "Standard D1SK bad" come from?

They are balanced with the idea of equal value per price. Now the measure of "value" is in the eye of the beholder in the end so it IS fuzzy. But in terms of "rarity" I daresay they are balanced

So with that I am curious, why are Standard D1SKs so bad that "increasing to 5x pushes standard disks down more" assuming 6x price multiple other than time saving and more fun (which are valid arguments, but not sure if they are enough to warrant the quoted line)

[neat moss]

I’m not sure where the idea of Standard disks are bad comes from, they have their place, it’s just that Megas are more fun, for obvious reasons.
I do agree that Standard and Mega disks appear to be balanced in terms of value.
The disproportionate weighting just seem like unnecessary meddling.

[zealous obsidian]

NOTE - This proposal was originally posted <t:1727963520:F>

We have hit the 14 day mark and 25 upvotes was not reached (Image in EST); A newly updated proposal is being prepared and will be shared with the public in due time.

Feel free to continue sharing your thoughts & opinions under this thread for the time being or reach out to any Council member directly