#Have the ability to purchase wave 3 disks with Fuel

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

last notch
#

This is a post to gauge sentiment

Pros:
Increase interoperability between the ecosystem
Reduce supply and Increase demand of Fuel

Cons:
Depending on how the Fuel purchasing power is pegged it could devalue the disks.
Dev time to implement before wave 3 starts. May need to delay wave 3 to integrate.
May hurt DAO revenue as some players may be stockpiled up on fuel

NOTE: That it may be impossible to integrate in Wave 3 at this point, but this will still gauge interest in having the ability to use fuel to purchase Disks in future sales.

buoyant haven
#

I think buying with fuel makes sense

As fuel bonuses vary so much we should consider pegging the price in $ amount

grand ruin
# last notch This is a post to gauge sentiment Pros: Increase interoperability between the ...

Can you change this to wave 4. With IIP 69 being the main focus there is simply no room for fuel to be used at the start of this sale and so implying it to be possible feels strange to me.

Rather than implementing fuel sales halfway through wave 3, it would be better to see how this sale ends and then based on sentiment introduce fuel at the start of wave 4 imo.

The majority of players would prefer that as well as they can make forecasts, stock up on fuel in the upcoming 4 months and get ready to burn it all on d1sks.

So rewrite the post to: should we use fuel for wave 4, rename all 3s to 4s and the thread makes sense again. 👍

last notch
slow urchin
#

I think everything on the marketplace should be priced in FUEL,not just Disks.

If items are listed in USD with the FUEL conversion visible alongside, the value of the item will remain constant but the FUEL price will vary depending on supply/demand.

I also think outside of ZERO, there should be 1 FUEL to transact in for simplicity, but it could still be achieved with all 3.

May hurt DAO revenue as some players may be stockpiled up on fuel

If FUEL was an ERC-20 token, I don't think this would be much of a problem.

Easy to suggest these things though, but it will be a hell of a lot of time and work, therefore I have to agree with Garf, targeting a future wave makes more sense. Even integrating FUEL sales in it's most simplistic form seems a bit of a stretch for Wave 3.

last notch
slow urchin
mortal lark
last notch
# mortal lark i'm quite surprised this comes up to discussion since i thought everything illuv...

Yes and I think Kieran has mentioned it in a townhall.

I just noticed we didn't have a post where people could vote on the topic.

Specifically with Wave 3 where we could discuss if this was something that warrants a delay. (Maybe it should have been 2 different posts as Garf is suggesting because people will just thumbs up if they like the idea of using fuel for beyond).

My personal belief is that I would like fuel usable everywhere(There are other changes that would have to be made first) but I am still a firm believer in the interoperability. I want it in future Waves as there is the potential for IZ players to become more invested in Beyond as they are more directly connected. However I think it would be unwise to delay because of various external factors such as partners and other events planned and people can purchase disks easily as is.

prisma prairie
#

Sounds like it will happen.

I’d add one comment. Making more things interoperable isn’t necessarily a pro. It might be in this case but for example, if we can’t find a purely OW gameloop that isn’t just ‘because Leviathan’ then we won’t go very far

covert light
#

I have no strong opinions either way, but there are so many moving parts that need to be heavily considered

FUEL was always supposed to be something that ran the ecosystem/universe. It is supposed to be used in the games to Fuel gameplay - BEYOND is a game, and thus Fuel "should" be usable to some extent.

Many may disagree with this point, but similar to sILV2, it will allow opportunities to play the market and present arbitrage opportunities. Being able to have inherently more value ($$) when making purchases for D1sks. This could result in reducing fuel supply (which in turn bumps up Fuel prices) at the expense of inflating supply for Beyond assets (which could lead you to believe the value of those assets will decrease due to oversupply and not enough demand)

** Taking one concern from one area of the ecosystem and moving it to another, in my personal opinion, is not the best solution **

I am all in favor of increasing interoperability, as long as it makes sense for the Lore, economics and overall player base sentiment

#

(I put both upvote 👍 and downvote 👎 so that both options are on the feedback idea)

slow urchin
covert light
# slow urchin Hey! Sorry, maybe a dumb question, but why would FUEL have inherintly more $ val...

Based on current and past "bonus fuels" where you get/got extra buying power for the $$$ spent.

Guess it depends if it works similarly to sILV2... but if you got fuel at a haircut of the d1sk price, the d1sk would be cheaper in terms of $$$

Otherwise I assume the Fuel values will constantly adjust to reflect the equivalent ETH/USD value, so as that fluctuates, you either got a deal (costs less fuel per d1sk) or get hurt (cost you more for fuel than a d1sk - so you may wait for fuel prices to drop to allow more buying power)

desert hollow
#

I'm going to try to be reasonable here, even though this situation really frustrates me. It's situations like these that make me wonder why the team doesn’t have a game economist.

Let's not forget that both founders stated we would have D1sks available for fuel, with one of them even saying it would come with wave 3.

But besides that, the first question that arises is, If we're using fuel instead of ETH, then why the F should prices still be set in ETH?

A mega D1sk should cost $40, whether ETH is at $2,000 or $10,000. Consumers need predictable prices... No one wants to buy a pack of cards that costs $10 one day and $50 the next, are we trying to simulate the Venezuela economy or what?

Another issue is why are D1sk prices pegged to a fixed amount of fuel? Are we attempting to make fuel a stable currency backed by products? What's the reasoning here? I assume there's none. Sometimes we say we want fuel to be like a free market other times we want to stabilize its price to an arbitrary value.

D1sks should have a fixed dollar value, with the fuel cost automatically calculated based on the current market price. All this talk of arbitrage using fuel is nonsense. If people want to make arbitrage plays, they should use sILV2.

slow urchin
covert light
slow urchin
mortal lark
#

I see many advocating for a fixed $ value when purchasing disks with fuel.
What's your pov on a fixed $value for Runs in OW and shard/wespon/armory crafting?
@buoyant haven @desert hollow @slow urchin

desert hollow
slow urchin
grand ruin
desert hollow
grand ruin
desert hollow
grand ruin
#

And in that case it is simple. 1, 4 , 10 dollars for each run stage. Done.

I came up with random numbers. Lol

desert hollow
grand ruin
desert hollow
#

not one bit

#

if the definition of pack opening is you pay X you get Y then when I go to mac donalds and buy an happy meal I'm also doing a pack opening.

timid salmon
#

Fuel should be used for everything as we need the immmersion of Illuvium being it's own world.

This should not happen on this wave if there will be a delay because of it. We need to get Beyond back up and going.

grand ruin
heady delta
#

Here’s a concise summary of the post for gauging sentiment:

Pros:

Boosts ecosystem interoperability.
Potential to reduce Fuel supply while increasing demand.
Cons:

Risk of devaluing Disks, depending on Fuel’s purchasing power.
Requires additional dev time that could delay Wave 3.
Possible negative impact on DAO revenue if players have stockpiled Fuel.
Note: While integration for Wave 3 might not be feasible, this is to gauge interest in enabling Fuel purchases for Disks in future sales.

desert hollow
heady delta
#

They say fuel is cheap, which I dont understand just peg disk price to USD. Am I missing something?

desert hollow
heady delta
desert hollow
heady delta
#

This was a summary of the conversation above. by chat gpt

#

incase someone dosent have time to read through this whole chat

buoyant haven
# mortal lark I see many advocating for a fixed $ value when purchasing disks with fuel. What'...

I think this would be a good idea

The team wouldnt need to move fuel production in the back. Right now if demand is drastically lower than supply price plummets so all assets follow, we lose out on revenue a lot and when the team reduce supply (which they didnt do enough) people in ilz feel rugged even if its basically the same thing

Then when demand is drastically higher than supply the prices become too high and we may also lose out on revenue as the entry barrier becomes too high. Team then needs to increase supply

Its really hard to price fuel on current & expected supply and demand. The team tried to hit their anchor range of ~5$/T3 run, then demand was much lower than anticipated because we didnt launch our demand side (arena) with the rest of the ecosystem launch. They then tried to adjust and forecast how low its going and reduced supply by x4. Here we are some weeks later with a T3 runs under 1$

Fixing the price would enable us to maximize revenue at the optimal price range

desert hollow
desert hollow
buoyant haven
# desert hollow do you play IZ <@249970131222921224>? Saying the team didn't reduce the supply e...

Yes i play iz

I say they didnt reduce it enough because they intended to reduce it so that a T3 run stabilize around its 5$ anchor range but now couple weeks later we are at under 1$

I think i understand pretty well that demand side is the problem, ive been the one trying to prevent ilv from launching without its demand side and then kept pushing to get this going as a top 1 priority

I know reducing supply isnt optimal because it affects people playing with their fuel / progression (especially T1) but i believe it was necessary as a short term solution until we launch the competitive scene

Lower fuel = lower revenue

buoyant haven
# desert hollow also saying that fixing prices would lead to maximizing revenue is a bold statem...

With a fixed price the team could analyze whats optimal

They actually already have to do this and they set T3 around 5$ but with dynamic fuel price they have to guess the upcoming supply/demand which is hard and now we have sub 1$ T3 run

Is it better having 10 players paying 1$ per stage 3 and doing 3 runs per day or having 5 players paying 5$ per stage 3 and doing one run?

Thats a 7 years old math problem, dont think you want me to literally answer but i see your point

Thats what the team can analyze to come up with their anchor price

I dont know if this is an extreme example to show your point or if you really believe 1$ per run could equal to 2x player count + x3 more play time compared to 5$ run but i disagree with this

OW assets are tied to fuel price, i think most people playing are playing no matter whats the price (within a reasonable range)

desert hollow
#

Two wrong assumptions IMO:

  • "Lower fuel = lower revenue"
  • "most people playing are playing no matter whats the price"

It's not that linear cause lower prices means you reach a wider audience.
And most definitely the price does matter on your gamestyle. You're just pricing ppl out and making them play on a stage 2 or stage 1 instead of them doing stage 3's.

buoyant haven
#

I know its not linear but my statements still stand, we can agree to disagree

elder robin
#

Price everything in fuel. Not just disks. But yes including disks lol.

lime onyx