IIP-XX - Move ILV Rewards into Treasury

[white oar]

This proposal recommends transferring the remaining ILV from the paused rewards program into the Illuvium DAO Treasury. This will increase Treasury holdings, boost investor confidence, and provide more flexibility for capital raises. Future rewards will come from the Treasury, ensuring a more strategic allocation of ILV while supporting long-term financial sustainability.

Full proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1we3bhwbyqGvuUvEj1Eqn-qyq4AY0zHi_R0KHggFFtIs/edit#heading=h.oow6gdehlxdc

[valid torrent]

Love it 👍

[valid ether]

Good idea 👍🏻

[worn moon]

Whatever secures our future.

[rocky lintel]

im generally support this IIP.
just want to hear from the stakers about their revdis getting reduced by this move

pros

• treasury will almost double their token holding
• treasury will almost double their revdis claim.
• the revenue needed to generate enough to break even on monthly burn rate will be almost halved

cons

• reduce stakers claim on revdis from ~80% to ~60% or about 25% reduction

[arctic berry]

I approve, although the proposal is lacking figures. To read the reduction in staker apr from a jaganite reply means the proposal doc isn't complete enough

[earnest anvil]

I am happy to vote yes to this as a staker on one condition - that none of those tokens are used for a future ‘airdrop’

Scrap the aidrop - it’s doesn’t work.

We shouldn’t be incentivising players with tokens that are completely external to any gameplay.

Reward people who play by helping them progress through gameplay - don’t reward them with an investor token which most are there to dump anyway

[white oar]

This means any usage of those tokens would need to be approved by the council.

[sinful zenith]

The only thing that remains unclear is how the council handles the partnerships.

Imagine marketing looking to make a deal. They would first have to talk to IMC (and maybe ICC to gain insight in community sentiment).

So, they would reach out, but since IMC meets only once a week, it would either be discussed in a text format or get delayed until after the next meeting. This could be the difference between getting a partnership or not. Moreover, if it has to be formally passed in a proposal, we see another 2-3 week timeframe added on top, before marketing would be able to make any conclusive decisions.

With council getting paid as much as a full time job, and with the community voting on them to represent them: what are the public expectations for your main council?

If marketing asks Kieran to ensure funds are ready for a partnership, should IMC:

1. Leave the preparation work to the team? Or

2. Vet the organisation themselves that is being partnered with?

3. Vote internally on whether and how much the budget should be for the partnership? Or

4. Write an IIP for community approval first?

5. Hold an urgent meeting to address the marketing team and partner? Or

6. Address the topic on the next meeting in their agenda?

Now these aspects dont have to be added into this particular IIP. Bút these topics should be written out for future councils. Points 2+4+6 could extend any decisionmaking by easily a month. Moreover if these aspects arent thought out and written up, then imagine being elected next epoch. Nobody told you that partnership meetings are urgent; Then those meetings wont be held. And then you have a week delay already. Another week is added if it isnt made clear that you need to vet the partner. And then instead of 1 month delay, you get 2, 3 maybe 4.

That is the issue with governance, especially our governance where nobody tells you what your tasks are. However, it would allow everyone to chime in. Now, dear community, as i want this added to our official documentation for council, my question to you is:

Do you trust the team to make the right decisions, do you trust the IMC to do a proper check, or do you want proposals and trust your fellow community members only? More steps = longer process

[nocturne vector]

Fully supportive of this.

[tawdry pond]

i think this is reading too much into the proposal. Or that the proposal isnt as clear on this topic.

The proposal (to me) only entails that any use of in-game rewards token will need a proposal as opposed to before where technically, marketing can utilize those tokens freely as long as its for ingame rewards. I envision that breakdowns of ILV rewards will need a proposal or at the very least IMC approval.

[sinful zenith]

I envision that breakdowns of ILV rewards will need a proposal or at the very least IMC approval
So which is it? And how do we structure that?

This is exactly what I'm asking. Which do we want? do we want a new Governance proposal coming from the team outlining marketing expenditure? Because if we don't specify this then the first time marketing comes with something like this, we will have to figure things out while we are already required to make a move, which puts us on the backfoot from the start.

Instead of taking on an approach of "wait and see", I prefer actually understanding what we are going to be passing here.

[warm plover]

FYI =
ICC is aware that this has blown past the 25 👍 in a very limited amount of time (64 upvotes at the time of posting)

We are in discussions with Kieran (& IMC) on when they would like the proposal pushed for voting by Council

[tawdry pond]

If were strict about it then every type of allocation/disbursement needs an IIP. So if marketing requests for ILV to be disbursed for in-game revenue then it needs a proposal to do so. The level of detail of the proposal is something altogether. And if this is where youre headspace is then perhaps a separate proposal on creating the guidelines required for allocation of ILV for in-game revenue.

While its good to have in this proposal, I do believe its better to have it in a separate one so as not to hamstring the general purpose of this proposal which is to ultimately put the in-game revenue tokens into the treasury thus increasing the DAO's stake in RevDis and giving the responsibility to the DAO to disburse said tokens through separate proposals.

[surreal nebula]

i feel this is more of a general question of how the process is set up to handle questions like that.
And i actually am curious on how this gets handled.
Also curious about the general sentiment of token stakers on topics like this, might wana post this in #1020759212172775464

[earnest anvil]

I understand the mechanics - just making my point as loudly as possible that as a DAO we should not just pause but scrap any aidropping of tokens for anything other than esports for the elite players

[fallow ermine]

I fully support this. I just want to know the detailed numbers and the how will it be handle these tokens in the future.

I’m all forward the longevity of Illuvium

[cursive grove]

Would be very sad

[valid torrent]

And this is why its a good thing to have the council in control of allocating in-game rewards. The community will advocate where they want the rewards to flow and the ICC will plan and vote accordingly based on feedback.

[earnest anvil]

For value extractors, yes.

Which is fine.

[white oar]

This proposal has nothing to do with partnerships. They are handled by labs and the marketing team. Unless we were going to use some of the reward pool for a marketing initiative with a partner? But that seems a little weird. Whenever we have done deals with partners they usually want USD not our native token.

[white oar]

The council agreed many moons ago to leave partnerships up to labs due to the sensitives involved. However, now we ask council members to sign NDAs which means we can discuss with the council (and have for the upcoming wave 3 partner) but I'm cautious of speaking to them or team members for that matter too early. If some info was to leak we could potentially lose a partner, which is really not worth it. We've hired a very experienced head of partnerships (previous Gamestop) and the council has agreed between him, myself, and Danny we have partnerships covered so not really sure we're benefiting from exposing a deal too early.

[sinful zenith]

Right, partnerships may be besides the point. My bad on involving those unnecessarily. I was just looking for something that marketing could use/Sell ILV for to make happen.

A more markety example:

With this proposal: How does marketing approach the council for ILV to be used? Will it be: "we want to create an ad for illuvium on twitch to give away 1000 ILV. We need 1000ILV to make this happen?"

1. Does IMC agree with team,
2. does IMC handle the numbers of potential influx of players,
3. does Community require a proposal?

Or is it: "We want 100.000 ILV to be set aside for marketing. God knows what we'll do but it will surely be marketing related."

Again,

1. does imc simply agree,
2. does imc vet a list by marketing on what types of marketing will be done?
3. Will the community get a list of future marketing that warrants 100.000 ILV to be set aside?

And does the ILV then remain in the treasury until it is used, does it need to move wallets to ensure no 101K is taken out on accident? (You can make a limit-spend contract so probably not)

I just want to gain better insight in how the interactions will take place. Do we expect monthly IIP's for marketing allowances now? Or monthly allowance documents going to IMC internally?

A future IIP could allow marketing free range over 1000ILV per month for the first 100K tokens. This would take 100 months or 8 years.

I just cant believe that Im the only one who doesnt understand how this would work in practice 🤷‍♂️
So i hope IMC can clear that up by writing a formal council document on how marketing requests will be handled.

[rocky lintel]

for something urgent, the imc can do discord voting among ourself. discussions made in council chat.

[kindred condor]

Why don't we have a few different options to vote for:
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
And see where it ends at?
I don't think this has to be decided in one go. In all or nothing scenario.