#Get Rid of the Fuel Exchange - Only allow Land created Fuel

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

mint meteor
#

Don't have access to the data to do the math on this - but the fuel exchange properly makes the treasury $$ on a month (minimal profits). Yet it largely ($$$$) devalues fuel farming through Zero land purchases.. why? Because it's so difficult making fuel, it's just way cheaper buying it.

My proposal is to stop selling fuel through the Fuel Exchange and only allow Fuel that was created by players through land.

Benefits:

  • This will unlock a real demand/supply economy for Fuel
  • Fuel prices can rocket, making land purchases make sense
    -> This will in turn lead to more land transactions and land prices going up
    -> It will also increase the daily active player base in Zero, because mining Fuel actually becomes profitable and a worthwhile thing to do

All in all:

  • Players make more money $$$
  • Land value goes up $$$
  • Attracts new user base who buy land for the ROI ^^^
  • DAO Treasury makes similar income as Fuel Exchange from the Land nft transaction revenue
    +++ Dao Treasury makes % of revenue from Fuel sales (similiar to the NFT Land transaction commision)

Anecdotal experience: I purchased a plot of land this past week thinking it would be a great fuel source, but I was very disappointed to learn that my fuel wasn't worth anything.. which in my opinion makes the whole Zero game pointless. If there's no economy in Zero, why would people buy land? There's just simply no point in the game as it stands currently. At least if Zero actually served a purpose in creating Fuel and Fuel became worth something, it would attract a strong user base.

next quail
#

This would be a 1 to 1 ratio that has been considered in the past
This would remove $$$ from the DAO which would not be a good idea
Also what happens if demand is higher than supply? People wouldn't be able to play

I think there's a healthy balance to be found because there are many issues outlined by many previously when it comes to the 19x

limber merlin
#

This would totally ruin the project. I understand it may look like lands make the fuel and the DAO prints 95% out of thin air at the expense of land owners but the way to look at that is Illuvium makes games, arena for now and eventually OW and other games and those games require the fuel in-game currency

As the ecosystem is an interoperable ecosystem made of multiple games they decided to create a city builder like investment that gets 5% of revenue and initiate the fuel production. Its not us, land owners giving 95% away, its the DAO giving us 5% of revenue (Aimed 2 years ROI) for our investment

Fuel is the main source of revenue for Illuvium. Yes that revenue is nothing yet but its because our first game didnt start yet

If we would only use the fuel from land owners that would devalue the token price to near 0 (near no foreseeable revdis), and bring Illuvium on the road of bankruptcy

If you dont touch fuel supply and like you say, "fuel value goes up" this would make illuvial price sky rocket so no one could play arena (especially since rewards would be so small with token price going down)

If people dont play arena, people dont play OW and then fuel and ilz investment goes down too

TDLR: This would brake the project from all possible angles

mint meteor
# next quail This would be a 1 to 1 ratio that has been considered in the past This would re...

@next quail Play what? OW? Right now there's 20k plots of land, what do you think the daily active user base is for zero? it's probably less than 200. There just isn't a strong enough incentive to own land or create fuel. If creating fuel from land was actually profitable, you'd easy 1000x the Zero user base, there would be people from outside illivium coming in just because they see land as a good investment. It'll open up whole new markets like land rental's, allowing owners to passively create income and others to rent and farm fuel. It could be a really good onboarding approach to expand Illivium's community.

@limber merlin to your point, currently it's not transparent how much fuel is created by land owners vs. printed out of thin air by the DAO. I'd be onboard to support the DAO owning say 10k parcels of land, and thereby producing 33% of the fuel, but at least that way everyone knows how much fuel is being created by who. It would encourage clans or guilds to form mini-dao's to purchase larger parcels of land and employ folks to mine fuel. There's a lot of potential, it's just currently dead because it's pointless in it's current form IMO.

limber merlin
mint meteor
#

Why can't that just be expressed as a tax that's visual in-game in Zero then & fuel exchange gets scrapped? e.g. instead of creating 1 fuel, I'm creating 20 and 19 is being taxes. I would still support axeing the fuel exchange and instead being represented this way - or if the fuel exchange remains, then maybe it's more of an auction house looking order book where I'm able to list my fuel for cheaper than the DAO, or alternatively the DAO only sells a fixed amount and users are able to sell their fuel for a premium to the DAO.

All in all my feedback here is centered around the fact that Zero is dead because there's no ROI, literally no value in playing. And that it can easily be revived and even increase the size of the overall pie by just improving the economics

#

Also see my OP about "Dao Treasury makes % of revenue from Fuel sale commission" -> even in a player selling fuel world, the DAO will still continue to make revenue from fuel (they can both tax it when it's minted, and tax it when it's sold)

remote vault
# mint meteor Why can't that just be expressed as a tax that's visual in-game in Zero then & f...

the dao is seeling for the same price as landowners.
If you create a sell order of 1 crypton for 1$, the DAO takes that 1 crypton, adds 19 and places a sell order for 20 crypton for 20$

As you can see with the change to a fee system, the revenue you make as a landowner would stay the same.
However, it could solve other problems with the system change.
But as patate already pointed out, the demand is the problem, not the supply.

autumn viper
# remote vault the dao is seeling for the same price as landowners. If you create a sell order ...

How can we verify that this is exactly what is happening? Can you point me to how I can see this in a transparent way? 😊 fuel should have been a token which was traded. How can we know how much fuel is produced and sold by land owners vs how much is minted and sold from the DAO? If the aim for ROI for land was/is 2 years, something needs to be adjusted in some way, don’t you guys agree? Fuel production was nerfed 4x wasn’t it? And now the bonus is sometimes close to 20x vs rail. Where is all this fuel coming from, that’s what i wonder about, or is it simply that the demand side is totally gone

limber merlin
autumn viper
# limber merlin Theres no demand until we launch arena thats whats hapening

What do you mean launch arena? Gauntlet has been out for months now. There are more than 1m illuvials and despite that I don’t have the numbers, my guess is that it is probably not more than max 1k players in free to play gauntlet. Plenty of oversupply vs what is needed for leviathan at this moment. Do you believe that gauntlet a game mode where you need close to max stat illuvials to compete will have thousands of players - driving up demand? Might be, but not so sure on that one

remote vault
autumn viper
remote vault
limber merlin
wide remnant
# mint meteor Don't have access to the data to do the math on this - but the fuel exchange pro...

Hmmm, sorry,
And what about players who just enjoy "simcity" building a land and then generating gasoline on their mobile phones and don't want to play OW?
You'll send them to hell and defacto deny them access to the ILV economy and lose them in the future as players who would like the arena or the future "rogue-like OW? Because they won't be able to do anything with the fuel right now?

In my opinion, a bad suggestion. All that would be needed would be a better exchange, where the normal price of fuel would be displayed instead of the dubious + 2000% free.

#

And what about players, which want to play active OW (for example me), which consume 100K fuel per week... How do I buy and click 6x T4 land (need 40K USD?) so I can play the game I enjoy?

Not good idea.

solar nexus
#

I absolutely love this idea..... This has my full support. I used to play EVE Online back in the day.... And we would do well to copy soooo much of what they did well.... And economy of player created resources is the way!

proven totem
proven totem
mild blaze
#

I say get rid of 19:1 fuel being created and make it 1:1. but I’d like to hear from the economist the team hired more though

kind cipher
wide remnant
remote vault
mild blaze
kind cipher
kind cipher
kind cipher
remote vault
mild blaze
#

I have 7 plots, two are bps focused. The rest I have never gotten to max storage fuel yet. Which is around 4K for the t2s

kind cipher
mild blaze
#

Yeah been saying this since July 25 when the chats, or a bit part of the chats, only cared about their own ROI.

Consumer experience/satisfaction > roi. Once the 1st part is there the ROI comes naturally.

remote vault
kind cipher
kind cipher
remote vault
proven totem
#

Paz AMA clarifying changes I advocated for since 5 days into mainnet: pegging to USD, reducing unit of account to 1 fuel, and focusing on fuel consumption. The 19:1 issue is unaddressed and converts a commodity (fuel) into a derivative (voucher). I do not believe this will be resolved due to the Illuvidex running on top of an NFT store IMX built versus a real DEX with a liquidity pool. So Perry/Kieran will likely dictate the price of fuel based on data and set the FMV. The entire original premise of the Landsale is voided, but this is progress.

mild blaze
wide remnant
# kind cipher Price is forever down until there is more demand than production. You could set ...

Easier solution 🙂

If we (ADMIN) want fix price 🙂

Admin can setup price for (example) 1000 FUEL / 4 USD

Zero owned can setup any price which they want 🙂

If any player buy FUEL, example 2000 FUEL / 8 USD.

Now what happen:

Buyer buy chepest fuel from land owner... (theire setup price for exampl 1000 FUEL / 1 USD), there is 8 USD:
Land owner gain 8 USD. And it is deducted from him Land 8000 fuels (Land owner price offer).
2000 fuel will be sent to buyer.
6000 fuel will be BURNED

**the price will be stable forever... and the selling price of fuel will also be more stable, because if someone offers too cheaply, their offer will burn quickly, even with little activity on OW.

And very easy to implement.**

#

If there big activity on OW, price for Land Owners will be really 4 USD for 1000 Fuel, no problem.
If there is less activity on OW, Land owners receive less... but much of fuel will not accumulate on the market, but the excess will simply be burned by this mechanism. It will not be realistic for a situation like the one now to occur, because with this mechanism, 30K of fuel would be burned for 1 OW run, and its "over-limit supply" will be burned extremely quickly.

It is up for consideration whether to send fuel directly from the land to OW, or to lose everything through the market, or to introduce mandatory burning of the forwarded fuel during the transfer (which will correspond to the market price at the time of burning). But this is a minor issue and whether to burn this fuel or not has its pros and cons and depends purely on the admins, in which direction they want to steer the economy.

wide remnant
#

PS: This system is easy to implement to the existing 3-fuel system. It would not be necessary to change / simplify Zero Lands extremely. On the contrary, there would be a nice variety of the game... and at the same time there would be a clearly given fixed price for all 3 fuels... with the surpluses from the lands being burned, which would also benefit their owners, because now the stocks of the senseless surplus of fuel on the market would naturally be burned within a few days of this implementation. And then the price would self-regulate itself only according to the excess of production over consumption... My estimate is a real burning of about 3-5:1, instead of the current 20:1,** so both players (they will have a stable and predictable market - I assume that running OW will be more expensive anyway because the team thinks it is necessary.) and land owners (they will have a more stable and predictable purchase price) will profit from it.**

twilit valve
earnest sandal
# twilit valve Is there an argument to be made that land producing such little value at the mom...

Theres hardly anything to play on zero, it's hard to even call it a game, it's just some fuel simulator that you tap your screen 20 times per day in the morning and close it.

Best option would be for the DAO to sell all fuel themselves, landowners get distributed 5% of the revenue through one mechanism or another, and then actually focus on building a fun mobile city builder game with actual gameplay content, cause the potential is massive.

twilit valve
wide remnant
earnest sandal
kind cipher
kind cipher
earnest sandal
earnest sandal
kind cipher
wide remnant
remote vault
wide remnant
remote vault
wide remnant
# remote vault - fixing the price will likely come, kieran was talking about it here and there...

The landowner theoretically doesn't care if you burn his gasoline or the player gets it. He gets his 1 USD / 1000 fuel (for example).

The advantage is that the "bonus fuel" (currently +2000%) is not given to the player (who will then last a very long time), but is actually burned... so there will be no accumulation of surpluses (and thus a decrease in price), but the price will really correspond to the real production : consumption ratio

If you (ILV team) want a controlled economy with fixed prices, this is the simplest and most economically sensible solution.

Depending on your needs, you (ILV team/DAO) can of course collect fees and also sell fuel if a situation arises where consumption > production.

remote vault
wide remnant
wide remnant
# remote vault Maybe i just doesn't understand it right 🙂

I'll try to simplify and describe it differently...

Now production is slightly higher than consumption -> thus the surplus accumulates on the market -> thus the price systematically decreases to the current 5% of the original price (+2000% free bonus)

If burning is introduced as I propose (instead of "free" bonuses), the purchase price will practically exactly correspond to the production / consumption ratio. Because the surpluses will not accumulate on the market, but will be burned.
Thanks to this, the selling price will remain at a much higher level and will be more stable.

Now, when the bonus is +2000%, I will buy about 2000 + 40000 fuel for 16 USD... and I have a supply for a week. (31 maps)

If there is burning which i propose... I will receive only the 2000 for 16 USD (I have that for 2 maps) and the 40000 will be burned as surplus.

In both cases I pay 16 USD and the land owner gets 16 USD... but in the second case 40000 more fuel disappears from the market... and thanks to that the price stabilizes somewhere between the "original original price" and a maximum of 3-5 times the "original original price"

Then it's up to the admin team whether to allow normal market fluctuations within this range. Or whether to set a hard FIX. I would be in favor of FIX.

#

Example matematics model:
Daily Production 1M fuels, Daily consumption 900K fuels
Daily you have 100K abundance/surplus

NOW: After 1 month, on the market are 3M of surplus and price going down and down... (now price is at 5% of basic price...)

"My burning model" - I used a common economic model of a centralized economy with overproduction, just adapted to ILV:
After 1 months - You have still on market only 1M fuels minus 900K daily consumption and again, and again... because the 100K abundance was burned day by day...
Price still be between cca 80 - 100% of basic price.... for ever ... 🙂

#

The original ILV idea, hoping that when fuel is cheap, consumption will increase, turned out to be wrong... unfortunately, the main parameter is the smaller number of players and the limited "playing time" of these players.

This burning system is practically independent of the activity of the players and there will never be a surplus on the market.
The price will always correspond (+/- a small %) exactly to the ratio of production and consumption.

wide remnant