IIP:XX – Improving Free-to-Play Gameplay and Ownership Value of potentially all Illuvium-NFTs

[half nova]

Thesis:
Gauntlet is better suited for a Web 2.5 approach, where ownership provides rewards but does not impact gameplay. This aligns with the industry standard for comparable games, avoiding pay-to-win (P2W) elements.

Abstract:
Illuvium Labs should develop a system that rewards players in Gauntlet and potentially future games, where the same rationale is applicable, based on ownership of assets—such as, but not limited to, Illuvials—without those assets impacting gameplay balance or creating P2W mechanics.

Simplified Rationale:

Aligning with Industry Standards: A Free-to-Play (F2P) model with rewards tied to non-gameplay-impacting ownership ensures accessibility and aligns with the success of similar games, avoiding the P2W pitfalls that have historically failed in this genre.

Expanding Player Base: Lowering barriers to rewards attracts more players, reduces ranking manipulation, and enhances engagement without alienating the broader audience.

Better Matchmaking and Player Experience: Integrating ownership-based rewards while maintaining F2P matchmaking improves queue times and ensures balanced competition.

Enhanced Public Perception: Avoiding P2W structures boosts reputation and community trust, which supports long-term growth.

Utility and Liquidity for NFTs: Tying rewards to Illuvials, Land, Illuvitars, and other assets increases their value and liquidity while benefiting the ecosystem through trading fees.

Collaborations and Marketing: A reward system that could account for external NFTs could foster partnerships, attract new audiences, and strengthen Illuvium’s position in Web3 gaming.

Marketing Through Rewards: A low-entry reward system maximizes customer acquisition and engagement, creating a broader and more active community.

Avoiding Leviathan Over-incentivization: Ensuring balanced incentives across modes prevents alienating whales who prioritize prestige and fun over hyper-competitive gameplay.

Conclusion:
This proposal ensures Gauntlet remains competitive in the evolving gaming landscape by embracing the best practices of F2P games while leveraging the unique opportunities of Web3 ownership.

More Details:
For a far more detailed rationale and examples, visit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/108aRmMom3GCeTbRQ8dCQ8KhXCQvVb0ghZKVrMsolW9o/edit?usp=sharing

Proponent: Viper

If anyone wants more detailed and rather podcast like (loosing topic talking to people at times) insights to this; I wrote the long version up on stream few hours ago and you can check the recording here-https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2327375380

I believe I have said everything I want to say to this topic in the g-doc/vod.

I encourage everyone to discuss in good faith, stay on topic, address central points here in the thread.
Further I believe if implemented well this system can ease a lot of concerns and troubles ranging from early holders of things like Balancer-NFTs up to current participants in Beyond Waves or Holders of Land and various Overworld Assets and give reason for a positive future perspective and reasons to engage with the ecosytsem and positively speculate about the future and future games and use-cases of all Illuvium NFTs.

[crisp dock]

the real problem is that we have no idea what Arron and Kieran have planned for the future @viper your idea is great but I have the impression that no matter what people suggest it will be useless because the bosses (Arron Kieran) of illuvium have a plan but don't say anything for the moment we are moving forward blindly

[half nova]

I mean yeah, they can justify to us and or council at least why those plans might be better.
Pretty sure this would overall be a longterm positive marketing tool at the very least though.

[hollow remnant]

Great idea: "Collaborations and Marketing: A reward system that could account for external NFTs could foster partnerships, attract new audiences, and strengthen Illuvium’s position in Web3 gaming."

[hollow remnant]

This could lead us into a multichain approach. We can have our own chain and still tap into all other chains NFT communities. Kind of what Faraway does.

[half nova]

Part of why I think this is good beyond just for current PvP/Games and Gauntlet

[haughty hedge]

The idea is definitely positive and will drive the project in the right direction. The only reason for my downvote is I do not like the method of sleeving or staking random assets (whatever we have). I think it should be done as an album/collection which the player slowly completes/improves over time, instead of staking whatever nfts they have.

Overall this is definitely the right way, onboarding through leaderboard rewards is our best bet, we just need a good system that disables multi accounting so that the rewards do their job and reach the targeted audience.

[half nova]

The IIP mentions nothing of sleeving or staking, Labs should figure out the best way to check for Ownership and how to fit it in with their other products.
I don´t think council would pass anything that forces a specific method anyways, at least not from my exp on IMC.

[half nova]

"Thesis:
Gauntlet is better suited for a Web 2.5 approach, where ownership provides rewards but does not impact gameplay. This aligns with the industry standard for comparable games, avoiding pay-to-win (P2W) elements.

Abstract:
Illuvium Labs should develop a system that rewards players in Gauntlet and potentially future games, where the same rationale is applicable, based on ownership of assets—such as, but not limited to, Illuvials—without those assets impacting gameplay balance or creating P2W mechanics."

This is essentially what council votes on and what is "Law" like what IIPs are.

Rest is ideas and Rationale.

[haughty hedge]

Okie dokie, switched to upvote, although the exact method of achieving this remains vague, not sure what I'm upvoting. Also I don't agree with the p2w part, if leviathan is under a lock and requires certain level of progression in order to be able to queue up, it would have minimal to no impact on web2 gamer's perception of the project as long as they can compete fully on the main ranked mode with no handicaps.

[half nova]

The core idea remains to give value to assets, that currently don´t have value, anyone not on the Team lacks knowledge on upcomming products etc. so it is hard to not make it vague and have it be able to fit in with those imo.

I think it is easier to adjust or include things or specify direction once we have something like this live.

[quick veldt]

I expect to see something like this, an album. So that the snapshot is made as in beond. And the rest of the time we could supplement, change, trade...

[haughty hedge]

Hopefully yeah, it will do wonders

[half nova]

P2W is usually bad marketing, even for games where it works revenue wise, my take Illuvium Marketing and looking good for all the other games and products is more relevant, I don´t think you can get crazy revenue based on leviathan anytime soon.

People don´t have to represent the way it works in good faith as well, still easy engagement farm to hate on anything NFTs

[haughty hedge]

I would agree if the main flagship mode of the game was p2w, but leviathan currently and quite likely will always be a side mode for those who wish to play it. As long as it's gated from f2p players so they don't accidentally click it without knowing what they get into, it shouldn't have any negative impact.

Also, unfortunately for us boomer gamers, gaming is not what it once was. While p2w was extremely frowned upon in the past, it's creeping it's way in year after year and the web2 gamers are more accustomed to it nowadays.

[sly scroll]

According to the abstract leviathan is no more in gauntlet when approved, just f2p where rewards are depending on assets you own

[half nova]

p2w is totally fine, but it also mostly makes people happy who have lots of money, but lack time and or skill, so they can make up for it, so if you make it net positive $ wise to be high rank, you don´t let those low skill/time guys flex anymore vs the tryhards anyways

flexing in games is great and has a super relevant audience, I spend tens of thousnads of dollars on that myself

[haughty hedge]

I don't like that, don't see a reason to remove it. Both can co-exist without any issues. This is a topic for 1 year in the future, if nobody still plays leviathan. It's too early to scrap it, it's fundamentals haven't been built in yet.

[half nova]

Nah, spoon is misrepresenting this.
Nothing in the IIP or Abstract prohibits Labs/DAO from having Leviathan and or giving rewards or similar. The Abstract lays out that there should be a System that rewards ownership in e.g. normal Gauntlet or similar games without p2w mechanics, doesn´t say there can´t be both if Labs/DAO think there should be.

[dense trellis]

Never heard of web 2.5 before. It has always been either web2 or web3. I don't see a need for this as we already have 2 modes that are suitable for the F2P and the P2W.

Not to mention that this would be a complete overhaul of the current system without even trying to see if the current implementation actually works.

[haughty hedge]

I'd like for such a system for gauntlet, but dunno what it has to do with leviathan or p2w, strip that part and just leave the ownership stuff. It's good enough, imo.

[half nova]

The game Illuvium wants to get players from is TFT, a true f2p game, anyone can make an account and from the first minute they have the same chances to win games as anyone else.
For Leviathan you have to buy rare versions of Illuvials/Weapons/Armor (I assume random stats on those count as well?) and aren´t playing on the same level as most others, as either you have better or worse Illuvials/Weapon/Armor.

[haughty hedge]

Yes but you can gate the f2p players from queueing up in Leviathan, so what's the problem?

[half nova]

Problem is ownership only matters in Leviathan then, which is a game/mode that has no existing playerbase or playerbase in similar games to advertise to.
Having the game-mode that is copying the game/genre that people currently play give a reason for people to engage with the economy seems far more likely to give assets including the non supe rare ones value and meaning.

[haughty hedge]

But we can do both this proposal and keep leviathan, meaning ownership will matter in both modes.

Then if we implement a proper album/collection nft multiplier for gauntlet, people like it and start progressing it, they will also slowly be gearing towards leviathan without knowing it. At some point their collection will reach good enough status for it and they can try it. Then it would be anyone's choice whether they like it or not. If not then they can keep playing the mainstream ranked gauntlet mode, which will most likely have the largest % of playerbase anyway.

[half nova]

Yeah outside of spoon misrepresenting it, this doesn´t prohibit Labs from doing both, correct

[haughty hedge]

Yep so we can take out that part as it has nothing to do with the main suggestion. In any case it's your post, I'm just saying

[half nova]

There is no part that prohibits Labs from doing this.

In my opinion Labs should not scrap Leviathan, but shouldn´t pay big rewards for it, as then the big whales will just lose to tryhard players and won´t have fun anyways, that is my opinion and an example of how you can implement this or what side effects could happen.
This again is an example and doesn´t mean they have to exactly do this.

[haughty hedge]

Yeah that's a valid point but I don't see any way out of it at this time. There's no choice but to give leviathan a few seasons to see how it goes, otherwise illuvium would get worse blowback in web3 than axie ever did. It also has the potential to turn out well, so it should be given it's chance.

[half nova]

I am not sure about that, if you do Leviathan big thing, rewards etc. and then you have not even 1000 unique players, that would look very horrible, while spending marketing funds.
Assuming it to succeed and succeed big has been an issue with previous things Illuvium, often neglecting the possibility of it not working out well.

[haughty hedge]

Same goes for non levi gauntlet btw, you never know. Also I think the reward allocation should start higher for ranked and lower for levi, then gradually switch it if the feedback and data supports it.

[half nova]

I do think for ranked to give rewards you should prob ask people to own assets though, insanely exploitable if not.

[haughty hedge]

Aaabsolutely, it's not even only the top players who would exploit it, there would be even silver smurfs if there are rewards for it. So it would be a total clown fiesta, diluting the rewards for everyone across the board who isn't abusing it.

The only positive out of that I see is we would get higher dau and mau, or at least appear to.

[sly scroll]

I don't think so.
Point 1, 2,3 and 4 in your rational literally says so.

If you just want to introduce rewards linked to assets, then why not just write that in your IP. No need at all to mention pay2win/leviathan anywhere.

I would recommend in General to shorten the IP to it's essentials, so it's Clear for everyone what you actually trying to achieve. There's also some repetitions/similarities you could summarize together.
Aswell as maybe consider deleting examples since most current councils don't Like IIP's with detailed and specific numbers even if they are declared as examples.

[crisp dock]

Collectors, players who pay fuel to play, should be rewarded.+ That statistics and a low impact in PvP

[half nova]

Rationale isn´t what is getting acted on, pretty clear and been explained often.

If council has issues with the rationale or similar, they can vote for revisions. But I´d fail to understand why this would be a reason to prolong the process or similar, when it isn´t getting acted on anyways.

[sly scroll]

Mate, you say in your abstract that you want to introduce a System where ownership Matters but not impact gameplay and then move on with 4 bulletpoints telling that it should be just f2p and not p2w.

But you do you 🙂

Just wanted to help

[half nova]

Illuvium currently doesn´t have such a setup or plans as far as I am aware, only monetize p2w.

The IIP says they should build a way for people to utilize Assets in non p2w as well.

[sly scroll]

latest public info was that the team intends to go 50/50 f2p/p2w

[half nova]

f2p doesn´t sound like rewarding ownership or being tied to it, more like make tournaments from how things have been/talked about

If it is, great they can say they already have this build/are building it or similar and will implement it soon.

[lone wharf]

@smoky reef @abstract hamlet 🫶

[lone wharf]

Agreed - we need to keep it more bare-bones and overview of the idea, - WHAT it wants to accomplish, not HOW - leave Labs as the discretion to determine how they want to implement and in your case, the specifics around the requirements/rewards

[lone wharf]

ICC can push this to a vote when it reaches 25 upvotes. We would most likely make suggestions prior to this process to have it formatted a little differently prior to voting. You also have the possibility to make changes based on feedback received in this thread (while being sure to maintain the original intent the community voted on with reactions)

However, as the Sponsor, you get final say on changes before it goes through for voting by Council (ICC = Approve or Decline - IMC = Approve or Decline or Revisions Required)

[smoky reef]

Hey @half nova read through the proposal.
I see your point, but as soon as we add into the free to play game mode additional rewards for ownership it can really blur the lines. We are trying to create a scenario where TFT players can come across and do exactly what you are saying in the proposal, play and win games, no need for NFTs or any crypto knowledge.

That's why we want to keep the normal mode clean only have cosmetics, like a typical web 2 game and leviathan have P2W elements. I do like the idea of adding in ownership of things like Land, illuvitars, etc for additional rewards or special days like a "land holder day" triple reward points based on the land you hold.

In terms of rewards it's leaning more towards F2P, like 60/40, maybe 50/50 but it's nothing like your document suggests say 90 leviathan 10 normal. I agree that would really put off new web 2 players.

We also haven't launched any rewards for gauntlet yet, so we have no data on what is good and what isn't. I think one thing is clear though we must have a mode that doesn't require any NFTs.

[crisp dock]

But if the final goal is to convert players from non-nft mode to leviathan mode, difficult with the big barrier of 3k $ minimum (illuvials with the best statistics)? should we reduce the impact of statistics?

[half nova]

If your f2p-game mode rewards don´t tie to ownership, do you mean tournaments, which prob rewards the same sub 100 people over and over. Unless you catch content creators or known figures with it, seems tough.
Or do you mean ladder-ranks, which is very exploitable via multiaccs and or matchfixing?

The no data point is obv true, but what makes you believe that p2w-ownership would outperform?
Unless you guys release a easier, less time consuming way to even get the high end Illuvials you´d have less than 50 people who even could try and compete in p2w mode atm, how long until it would be more?

Also the game balance isn´t the same for both modes so it isn´t like someone can learn the meta in the normal mode and then play leviathan, they do have to upfront pay a lot to even try.
Meta in Leviathan prob also changes based on how high stat bonuses/levels are, do you guys think you can figure out how it will be somewhat balanced between the supposedly existing lower ranks with lower level NFTs or would it only be balanced for lv 60 300/300?

[smoky reef]

Haha go check the other thread. I have been talking about this for a long time

[smoky reef]

I'm agreeing with you that we should add in rewards based on ownerships of other ecosystem assets.

And yes I think we can get the balance right, we’ve been discussing it for some time that is needs to change from where it is now

[haughty hedge]

Aren't you worried that any leaderboard rewards will be multi accounted to the point they will not fulfill their purpose? Or that only a very small % of the playerbase will participate/win anything from tournaments? And thus making the rewards a bit pointless for onboarding?

I don't believe a system that provides multiplier to the rewards based on ownership for non leviathan gauntlet will impede web2 onboarding. They can still play, compete and earn rewards as f2p without any NFTs. It will just reward those who invest in the ecosystem more. And considering they would already have the imx passport set up, nothing would be stopping them from browsing the dex for illuvials, without having to play OW unless they want to. It covers many pros, with minimum to no cons.

If we have a way to disable or reduce multi accounting to a minimum, rewards through the leaderboards would be the best way to onboard players initially and build up the competitive scene. We just need to make sure the rewards reach their desired target.

[haughty hedge]

6 months of non exploitable leaderboard rewards to gather as much players as possible, with small tournies here and there, followed by a massive tournament to snowball the hype, which if lucky will coincide with the peak of the bullrun sounds like a solid plan ahead.

[lone wharf]

25 Upvotes obtained

ICC will reach out to the Sponsor (Viper) to review changes prior to getting it out to a vote 🗳

[lone wharf]

To keep the Community updated - please note that ** IIP-72 - Improving Free-to-Play Gameplay and Ownership Value of potentially all Illuvium-NFTs ** - will be going up for voting soon for ICC members

Special thanks to @tough star for handling communication with @half nova on this proposal through the process. In addition, handling getting the proposal submitted through to the GCM and ready for upload on snapshot 🔥

[lone wharf]

STATUS UPDATE:

**IIP-72 Improving Free-to-Play Gameplay and Ownership Value of potentially all Illuvium-NFTs **

The 3-day Voting period for Illuvium Community Council (ICC) closed earlier Today for this proposal and the results were DECLINE.

This is due to the fact that 3 affirmative ("APPROVE") was not met per Gov V3 (image below) and it will not be proceeding to IMC.

Summary of Votes:
APPROVE: Paz + Caveman
DECLINE: Garf + Rickytan77
NO VOTE CAST: Fight4Eth

Note: Council is aware of a bug that is showing on Snapshot indicating that the vote "Passed", however, per Governance documentation this was "Rejected". We hope to have this resolved shortly, so that the correct result is indicated.

Rationales for voting can be seen here: https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/809220500756234280

[upper hull]

Why is there a no vote from @fast star?

[fast star]

I still need to vote

[upper hull]

This is a tie vote so requires your vote

[lone wharf]

Voting closed already ...

[upper hull]

Revision and re vote is required.

[fast star]

Oh shit, didn't know I only had 3 days

[lone wharf]

Technically needs to go through community sentiment again and regain 25 upvotes to go back to ICC vote

[upper hull]

Clearly we need a better process when a council member fails to vote

[half nova]

I never expected this to pass IMC, seeing it turn in actual cinema though xd

[lone wharf]

This is actually the first ever split vote where 1 vote at ICC level would have been the decider (thus how we found an error on snapshot showing it as "passed")

Council members should be following formal IIPs that are gaining sentiment (moving towards 25 👍) and we are tagged to vote after @paper lynx (GCM) uploads it to snaoshot

All proposals have a 3 day voting window for each stage (ICC & IMC) unless IMC requests an extension

[lone wharf]

Cannot speak on their behalf but based on the rational the verbiage of the proposal, this would be a tough pass

Removal of Leviathan at this stage seems unwise... but I fully endorse any way/idea to onboard F2P players into asset ownership (NFT)

[half nova]

idk how deep I want to dive into this as I am tipsy atm, but why does ICC have the authority to decline proposals on the basis of "best for the DAO"? If that would be ICCs job, then IMC wouldn´t need to exist.
My understading was always that ICC should make sure people aren´t mislead in any way when clicking upvote, so the proposal represents the community in an honest way.

Also this doesn´t state remove leviathan, only that there should be a system outside of it to reward ownership.
Surely It could be layed out more like this in exmaples or w.e. but it never says Labs/DAO aren´t allowed to have leviathan.

[upper hull]

My understanding of icc is to gage sentiment. If a member fails to vote in a tie breaker but sentiment is in favour this should imo be sent to IMC

[half nova]

consider me mean or scary or an asshole or w.e., but this is kinda a very poor example of DAO governance

[upper hull]

Personality should play no part.

Ideas should be based on merit

[paper lynx]

I don’t consider you any of those things

[lone wharf]

No worries we can chat about it tomorrow

ICC members are elected and have every right to Decline proposals if this is what is best for the DAO

See the snippet from Gov V3:

This is not the first proposal to be Declined by ICC - many have been declined

[paper lynx]

[upper hull]

Fair enough but all council members should be voting

[half nova]

[lone wharf]

Honest opinion - I respect you for being up front about how you feel

I disagree tho, the proposal does clearly state removal of P2W advantages, this is what Leviathan is it's core

[half nova]

It doesn´t state removal, it states that other options are far more likely to be benefical to the DAO

[lone wharf]

This would need to be written into Governance and we can look into this for updates to Governance- but as you stated shortly afterwords, ALL Council members should never miss a vote. This is partly why there is an uneven amount as to avoid a stalemate/tie

[upper hull]

Where can we see how many votes have been missed. and by whom, this epoch?

[half nova]

I myself wrote that it shouldn´t remove leviathan when asked on this even.
Do I think leviathan in TFT-Clone would be good and work, no, do I think it should be removed before tested, no.
I never said or proposed anything different from this.

[upper hull]

Given the feed back that you have received thus far do you see a way that you can revise your idea for a revote

[half nova]

I mean idk, if f4eth would approve it would go to IMC

[upper hull]

But he has missed the vote and no guidelines are in place for this scenario

[half nova]

can write in there keep p2w and check it if is beneficial to the DAO based on Labs analytics I guess idk

[half nova]

I mean nowthing we can do about that, have to post it again and get upvotes again I guess

[upper hull]

That appears to be the case though it is far from optimal

[long cobalt]

We ultimately need to wait for F4E to appear. The remaining options are VONC to get 5 votes again, wait for F4E to return and then recommence the vote, or change the proposal enough so you get 3 approvals.

[half nova]

well yes, but to change that we have to make IIPs to change gov structure

[long cobalt]

I don't think you have to get the upvotes again

[lone wharf]

This is the first vote missed this epoch by and ICC member. All voting is on snapshot - I cannot send the link here 🤔

#1306726224122347600 message

Click the link and then jump around (sorry not more helpful)

[half nova]

ricky said I´d have to

[upper hull]

Fight4eth has responded above

[long cobalt]

Hmmm honestly I'm not entirely sure

[upper hull]

🙏🏻 thanks

[long cobalt]

If F4E rejected the proposal I'd say yes

But he ultimately abstained

so I'd run it back

[upper hull]

Abstaining is different to not voting because he missed it

[long cobalt]

I don't see this

[long cobalt]

Yeah abstaining is probably the wrong wording. But missing is not the same as rejecting

[upper hull]

@long cobalt

[long cobalt]

Just saw it haha

[long cobalt]

Every vote from 3 years ago until now has been 3 days

[lone wharf]

I can help revise it to a state that I feel it could be passable - keep all the same elements and just adding a stipulation along the lines: this is specific to Gauntlet (F2P mode) and does not impact Gauntlet Leviathan

[long cobalt]

Honestly if he types that he approves or denies, I'd take that into consideration

IMC meets in 90 mins, we will discuss.

[half nova]

I mean first I guess we´d need to know what f4eth would vote.
Then sure I could add some redundant part of don´t remove p2w until it was proven to be usless paragraph.

[upper hull]

Setting a precedent now without proper procedure is a bad idea

[lone wharf]

Gimme a sec will get the information needed 😀

[upper hull]

There needs to be proper protocol for a missed tie break vote

[half nova]

we already ignored these guidelines earlier this epoch at vonc, so yeah

[upper hull]

So yeah nah.

[fast star]

I would approve it, I don't totally agree with the proposal but looks like I am in the minority on this seeing as the community voted 30-12. Let's take it to IMC.

[upper hull]

Personally I want a conversation to be had by both councils on a process for missed votes and tie breakers

[sly scroll]

process is clear
needs 3 affirmative votes.
it got 2, so proposal declined by icc

[upper hull]

If a council member neglects their duty this is different to abstaining or declining

[sly scroll]

how?

in this case here

[upper hull]

As Fight4eth just stated he would vote yes. But he didn’t vote

[sly scroll]

yea that's a missed vote.
nothing special about it.

we had many of them in the past

[upper hull]

Yep nothing special at all

[lone wharf]

I think only 1 that affected the outcome of a vote (sadly) I would have to dig it up but I think it was saved from a "Needs Revision" and an "-R" happened either way

[sly scroll]

yea but that's not a factor to calculate in, right? (if it affects outcome or not)

at least i can't remember a mentioning of that in any governance proposal

[long cobalt]

Oh it definitely needs a new IIP number or whatever yep

[sly scroll]

and a total rework.
Garfs rational in #📯〕council-chambers was on point.

[long cobalt]

Oh that's up to the council members. F4E said he would approve, so technically Viper would have no incentive to rework it

[flat birch]

in that case he just starts a new governance ideas thread, gets 25 upvotes, and pushes it to another vote.

[long cobalt]

Would be much faster than us deliberating on if 25 upvotes is necessary

[sly scroll]

it's a new proposal... we see how the votes go first i would say 😄

[long cobalt]

Yeah, that's their decision for sure

[sly scroll]

it is...
proposal got declined.
why shouldn't there be a new proposal needed?

[long cobalt]

It seems like we will need a new proposal yes.

But I am now thinking this hassle is a pain and I'd like to write some new governance stuff to fix that, so 'missing' a vote has a workaround to avoid the 25 upvotes.

But for now that's not an option it seems

[sly scroll]

why even set timelines then 😄
But yea, guess that's off topic

[long cobalt]

Ultimately the ball is in @half nova 's court. He can do a brand new gov ideas chat with an updated or the same proposal. Based on his judgement on whether the community at large still feels the same.

[half nova]

spoon is prob happy I need more work, but sure, will check again on this in like 24h, have to sleep and got some actual work to do as well

if anyone else wants to copy paste post same I wouldn´t care either

[upper hull]

Can we get a briefing on council’s discussion on this topic from your meeting please

[long cobalt]

Anything specific? You mean the councils discussion on F4E missing a vote and what that means for governance, or discussion on the contents of the proposal?

[upper hull]

Yes please

[long cobalt]

Wait I said 2 things. Which one?

[upper hull]

On missed votes

[long cobalt]

Or both

Yeah I can let you know

Feel free to remind me

[upper hull]

Especially tie breaks

[upper hull]

Is meeting today?

[lone wharf]

60minutes or less

[upper hull]

I’m reminding you now… lol

[long cobalt]

Nooo for afterwards

[upper hull]

Got it.

[long cobalt]

I have council meeting, then dayjob meeting then driving home straight after. Won't be back to discord for many hours 😛

But ask any IMC member whenever for sure

[upper hull]

I’ll check back after a couple days. 😝

[long cobalt]

Nah nah I will be around.

Its a great point tho

The meeting minutes take so long for a variety of reasons

Maybe there's a smaller debrief I can do after meetings

Less detailed, but good broad stuff

[sly scroll]

absolutely not.
never happy if one has to do additional work.

[haughty hedge]

I only don't understand that part

2. Creating a system that rewards ownership in regards to point 5 and 6, actually undermines the second half of point 5 as we've seen with Illuvitars. While Ownership creates initial demand, once you have gotten your assets, you don't have to trade them anymore. While ownership-based rewards therefore indirectly trigger a slight price increase, it does not increase trading and fees. to encourage trading, you should do frequent balance patches that cause the active player to sell their out-of-favor Illuvials and the hoarder / swingtrader To buy them up regularly. The removal of Illuvials from the gameplay may instead exacerbate the illiquidity of the assets.

That part makes no sense to me. Players have a certain collection which they are rewarded based upon (combined with playing the game). They can improve it from season to season, and thus trigger the trading fees. The only people who this would somehow apply to, are those who have the full collection of 200+ perfect illuvials. Is there even a single person like that currently? How many of those will there be in the future? And if there are such players who have every illuvial max statted, what difference does it make if we have the ownership system in place or not? They still wouldn't trade and trigger any fees. And unlike beyond, they would actually have to spend time and play the game/arena if they want to earn any rewards. I don't see what's the problem here.

Then we have to take into account that most players will have a budget of 50-200$ or something like that, which will most certainly not be enough for a full collection of perfects. Meaning they will still trade and improve it over time.

Just my opinion on that reasoning, I'm not sure if it's just @flat birch opinion, or overall the teams take on the topic.

[flat birch]

Yes this was purely my rationale.

As we have seen with beyond, once rankings are in place and there is no need to increase your asset library because the cost outweighs the reward, players stop buying/trading.

Adding a fixed reward to holding your assets, to an extent prices them and pushes people away from giving subjective prices to the NFTs.
Indeed, most players would only spend 50-200$ which would not allow them to complete a full collection. They will aim to finish a collection but they are not incentivised to buy only water illuvials one month and then only fire the next. (And then water again the next month)

If you were to change the reward basis, people will feel upset. But if it is part of the game cycle, it may instead be welcomed.

With a full F2P mode as mentioned in the proposal, there is no need to have the assets in the first place. So you are right that it may not apply here. After all, incentivising having ány illuvials even with ownership based rewards, would give a use case to the NFTs that isnt there in a F2P environment. This would inherently cause more trading and higher value than not wanting to own any asset at all.

Point five however stated that ownership would lead to more trading and revenue generation. But if holding onto the assets causes you to get rewards then that is not the primary result. It would primarily lead to slightly increased pricing, which may lead to higher fees per transaction, but a reduced volume and thereby more illiquid asset range. Had they wanted to use this argument: "more revenue from trading", then they should have rewarded trading instead.

[haughty hedge]

Thanks for the reply Garf.

I don't believe it should be a fixed reward for holding your assets but rather some type of multiplier to your seasonal leaderboard placement based on your ownership/collection. Ideally this would take stats and levels of each illuvial into account. That way the final seasonal reward will result from your seasonal performance (leaderboard placement) + the power level of your collection. The overall goal should be to complete your full album with all illuvials to the best of each players ability. So the current meta, i.e 9 water or 9 fire etc shouldn't matter at all, the goal would be to fill everything month by month as a progression system. As the rewards are not only based on the ownership, but to the seasonal performance as well, each player would have to decide how much they want to invest, in order to get the best out of their multiplier.

And if they are happy and enjoying the game, they can improve their collection from season to season by either investing fresh funds or rotating some of their rewards into improving their collection.

Besides increasing the demand for illuvials across all stat ranges (different players will have different budgets), increasing the trading fees indeed (as rn it is almost 0), it will also slowly condition players into leviathan. This brings us to the point where you mentioned how in beyond players stop trading/spending because the cost outweighs the reward. In this scenario this will not be the case, as there is a player skill involved, meaning you can improve and qualify for a higher bracket with each following season, meaning your multiplier will be more impactful. Ontop of that, improving your collection will at some point make you eligible to compete in leviathan, meaning possibility for an additional lane of rewards, which was not accessible before.

It all stacks together nicely.

[haughty hedge]

On a side note and a bit of an off topic, I strongly believe after gauntlet is finished, ascendant should be revived and prioritized before anything else. It's important to have a mode where players can play with their owned illuvials on demand, rather than depend on rng. I think this is absolutely crucial. We will then have a somewhat complete loop, and only then can think of future projects.

[flat birch]

My understanding of your idea is that you split up the NFT assets into seasons of months rather than sets. Currently all illuvials are part of a set, whereas beyond has divided the set into waves.

Monthly seasons would require you to subcategorise all assets that are eligible into bits and pieces for the community to collect.

I could surely see this being a way to ease people into Leviathan. But since you only require a set amount of each asset before they give bonuses, i would expect to see players collect once and then idle with their collection. Granted, you would allow people to hold whatever was in the previous seasons and what is required of the current one, but that does not push people to trade frequently.
Leviathan on its own could be seen as a having a requirement where you have to hold at least one of each illuvial. Your idea would aproach this more stutter-stepped, but you have the same outcome, albeit leviathan having a higher initial investment threshold.

Returning to the proposal and my rationale, I simply stated that the second half of point 5 was false, since there is no increased incentive to trade when rewarding ownership. Changes in seasonal balancing would, as the competitive players trade away their out-of-season illuvials.

While this fundamentally leans on asset ownership, asset ownership itself does not cause increased trading fees. Since I'm part of ICC, i was looking at how the proposal was formulated, found fault in a number of things and rejected it on the basis that the proposal required a number of revisions before I would accept it as a proposal to be sent to the IMC. This also included a body or overview section and further articulation of the intentions of the proposal.

[haughty hedge]

Apologies if I didn't word it properly and is hard to understand. By seasons, I meant competitive seasons 1,2,3 etc. These seasons can be with a duration of 1,2,3 months, whatever is decided. Upon the end of a season, the leaderboards rankings reset (either a hard or a soft reset) and the players start competing/climbing the ladder again with the beginning of each competitive season.

The collection/album/set doesn't need to be split up. The multiplier can be based on your entire collection and how well it is filled. Most players will probably start with the floor illuvials which cost cents, and slowly improve it overtime if they enjoy their time here. It will create demand across all ranges of illuvials, and each player will decide how much they want to invest based on their budget and skill.

50k players will create demand for 10 mil illuvials that way. Then if we include stats and levels into the equation, and the rewards are worth it (it doesn't have to be just ilv tokens), players will continuously improve their collection, either by trading or by opening packs/play ow. Thus generating revenue for the DAO. Combined with the Leviathan effect, this should be enough for people to want to own stuff.

[flat birch]

Thats fair enough, to me it sounds similar to an "expected ranking" in leviathan arena based on the amount of illuvials obtained.

If there was a base X% stat boost for holding the illuvial, then you could likely get to say gold rank if you hold all base illuvials. Then diamond if they are all max stat.

Giving rewards based on ownership would be simpler than that as it is a meta-game based reward rather than having to balance the actual game around it.

It has merit. But then should be worded in that way in the proposal. I could not get that from the 2 sentence abstract. 😄
The rationale and least objective and error prone part of a proposal normally explains why the abstract and the overview, are the way they are. But there was no overview in the first place and the abstract made it seem like Leviathan had to be removed.

If your implementation is the intention, and the proposal is revised to reflect that and conforms to the standards of a Proposal, then I'd naturally pass it.

[haughty hedge]

Yeah my proposal is a bit different than viper, didn't want to open a separate thread but maybe I should have as I also don't agree with several things in this one. But I think we absolutely need a system like this for ownership, it attacks multiple problems we currently have. Multi accounting too, depending on how this is implemented, will be either eliminated or greatly reduced, resulting in more of the rewards going to the right place, achieving their onboarding purpose, rather than more of them going in multi accounters hands to only be dumped on the market.

[long cobalt]

We didn't manage to get too in depth since we had heaps of really urgent topics to cover given we didn't meet for a week because of the holidays, but here is a summary:

1. 2-2 in ICC and the missed vote. This is the first time its happened since basically forever so we are just going to go through the normal process of course, 25 upvotes required etc. More importantly we agreed that it's probably not necessary to write in additional clauses etc to catch these sorts of instances in the future since its a one off.

2. Vipers Proposal. Since it could be updated an additional time we didn't discuss it at length or anything. Seems mixed so far, this doesn't actually have much of a precedent yet since its different to Parallel in quite a few ways, but the council is aware of the proposal and will probably discuss it at length the moment Viper re proposes it, we are unsure if he will make changes.

Sorry I don't have more for you on this.

[upper hull]

Thank you for posting this.

[oblique jacinth]

There needs to not be missed tie breaker votes. That's why we pay 5 people instead of 4. Odd numbers should ensure no split votes.

[oblique jacinth]

In fairness, if ICC was just there to vote exactly as what is upvoted then there would be no point in them voting. It would just be their lead taking all the 25+ vote ideas to the IMC.
I remember past discussion that there are people in community who don't thumbs up or down and instead contact council. I always assumed that was why there have been discrepancies sometimes between how they vote and what the upvotes are.

This epoch is really showing some missing info for governance regarding expectations and roles. I thought all 5 were required to vote in the case of a tie.

[haughty hedge]

You guys pick council members based on popularity, don't expect miracles

[half nova]

I didn’t say vote according to upvotes, but vote according to upvotes gained via presenting the topic honest and fair.

Playing devils advocate if ICC is supposed to vote to the benefit of the DAO in their opinion on how a proposal would affect the DAO, then they could reject Proposals, that would pass with the IMC.
Making „malicious actors“ at least in a sense of rejecting/blocking proposals a possibility.
This would be a scary point of failure for the DAO imo, as it is easier to have 3/5 instead of 3/4 elected if groups would want to collude and elect members to act in their interest.
Also easier to have 51% vILV at VoNC than electing 3/4 IMC.

Further the job of connecting IMC and community certainly has people look for different qualities when voting than when voting for IMC.

Obv even if we have guidelines, ICC could ignore them and if VoNC doesn’t pass same theoretical issue.

[oblique jacinth]

My point was that some community may not want to publicly vote but their voice should still be heard. ICC should be voting based on community sentiment, I agree with that. IMC should vote based on good of the DAO. I also agree that we (community) look for different qualities for IMC vs ICC. However, I would like to see us have better definitions of what the role of ICC should be as "represent the community" is not clear enough.

Always problems in governance no matter what systems are in place I guess.

[half nova]

I agree, having better clear definitions and ways to enforce them outside of VoNC would be great as well imo.

playing devils advocate to the private message part, in private there is no verification of owning staked ILV, which gives the privilege of up/down vote, correct?

[oblique jacinth]

You have a point with the PM part as that is the rule. I do think that people who don't own assets shouldn't get to vote. I also think that there should be a form of anonymous voting. I need to think on that.
Sorry, I am totally hi-jacking your thread here. I will move on.

[half nova]

I think this is somewhat on topic now and the IIP needs a new thread anyways.

The anonymous voting topic would be nice imo, but I don´t think it can be done in this discord system without using a 2nd discord acc.

Thinking more on this dm´s topic btw, feels super scary, as anyone could reason anything with it, by saying people in my dms think this or that.

[lone wharf]

Anyone can up and down vote

Only holders can comment in the channel

Larger issue there but just sharing the facts as I know them

[flat birch]

This caused us to look through all documents related to governance again lol Sorry for my late responses, I must confess that I have yet to fully dive into everything to make sure i'm 100% accurate. (At least 9 pages cover all sorts of voting divided over multiple documents)

My stance for how I have approached ICC voting is the following, and as far as I know is our task in ICC:

1. We firstly look at the up and downvotes of the proposal. High positivity to me is a strong signal for a likely pass.
2. Then we look at the integrity of the proposal itself: Is this a proposal that should be voted on based on structure and intentions.
3. Finally ICC is chosen by the community to represent them. Naturally we are not IMC and thereby should not make significant decisions for the DAO, but it can slightly alter the outcome of a vote by the ICC. In my case, I didn't gain a clear understanding of the impacts of the final proposal due to it lacking substance. Seeing as I was unsure of the repercussions, I expected a part of my following to have similar issues with the proposal. This influenced my decision to reject the proposal and to help rewrite it to be more complete.

Without point three we could as well remove the entire ICC as we could have a bot vote on the attained thumbs-up. Council members should think carefully when voting and present their thoughts clearly in their rationale. If this time it's seen as overextending, the community and council should work together to further define the roles and responsibilities during voting. If it comes down to "I vote up when something reaches 25 upvotes" then I'll gladly do that, as I can leave out my <two hours of rewriting my rationale. If that is preferred, and I currently do not correctly represent my voters, then they can always reach out and give feedback to ensure I meet their expectations.

Adding "Super scary" now seems like an exaggerated tone to me. After all, this is the first out of ~10 proposals during this epoch that was rejected. The council gave clear rationales and points that could be improved upon. So it's not like the proposal is being stonewalled. If the community saw multiple rejections while sentiment was overwhelmingly positive, then a VoNC could be issued (Also something that requires further refining, but has been an ongoing discussion in the council chambers).

Overall, having these discussion once a while is definitely worthwhile, and it caused me to rethink opening a #1020759212172775464 thread on this.

[lone wharf]

Don't forget Viper, you have been on Council before and alot of information is not shared publically that can also skew the rationale and reason for the vote being approved/rejected

If you're going to be reposting a new thread because sadly this one didn't pass due to a missed vote, I would love the opportunity to discuss with you or share some points / changes

I would have voted for "Revisions Required" but this option is not available for ICC (added to proposed changes that could be beneficial to Governance)

[flat birch]

Regarding that thread, full transparency since i just had that idea: I'll discuss with the rest of ICC how we want to approach the tone - setting w/e. Maybe in our short IMC-covering meeting tomorrow otherwise Thursday during our all-encompassing meet.

I want to make sure that we have some agreed upon kind of direction that we can push our collective minds into. More on this later this week. After all, governance is huge. we have at least 80 pages of documents, 72 IIPs and such. So we have to channel your efforts in a productive way.

[oblique jacinth]

Without anonymity I think trusting the people we vote in, I acknowledge that you are correct about the risks, is the only option. I don't have an issue voting with whatever I think is correct publicly and neither do you, but for some people it is really hard to go against the group in such a visible way. I want them to still be heard.

[oblique jacinth]

It would make sense for ICC to be the one working with community, going back to the OP and saying this is what they liked, this is what they didn't. are you willing to change it or do you want us to just vote yes or no based on what we heard.

[half nova]

I meant "super scary" not on this example, but as in this is a relevant risk point.

Obv we haven´t had any of these cases yet, if we would have, either the DAO would be done or there would be other things in place to prevent it from happening again.

I´d, as an investor be much happier, if such a risk of popular people or backed via enough entities people can´t keep proposals from reaching IMC at least.

You say ICC would be redundant if you follow what I believe ICCs role to be, ICC certainly should help people around these governance processes, that is a valid role.
Also judging if upvotes as the current marker of these proposals are in any way non organic is relevant.

[half nova]

The to me problematic part of this is, the version that would pass ICC might be different from the one passing IMC.
Adding more layers and time burdens then.

[half nova]

On this lacking "substance" take, what would you recommend then?
Without any internal knowledge of upcoming plans/features/products I can´t lay out how exactly this should be implemented optimally and Labs is most likely better equiped to figure this out anyways.

You as ICC could get feedback from Labs on how would you guys implement the idea of "rewards Ownership without including gameplay changing concepts"

[flat birch]

I just took 15 minutes so it's not perfect obviously. I would expect something like this:

--
Unchanged Abstract:

"Labs should work towards creating a system that gives players of Gauntlet and future games rewards based on owning assets including but not limited to Illuvials, without having those assets impact the gameplay in a pay to win fashion."

Overview:

Illuvium labs shall implement a reward system based on ownership that ties into the F2P games that currently have no incentives added to them. Aside from a leaderboard system that rewards players based on their ranking, rewards will additionally be based around holding assets tied to Illuvium. These assets may range from Illuvials to Lands, Illuvitars or even Emotes etc. The ownership of assets only affects the amount of rewards obtained from leaderboard or other prizepools allocated to the respective game mode.

This system concerns solely the Ranked Arena or other F2P games currently developed by Illuvium Labs.

Rationale:

Incentivizing ownership allows Illuvium to foster a bond between the holders of NFT's and the games themselves. Currently, Illuvium has two game modes that are too far apart in terms of ownership requirements. To shorten this gap, ownership can be used to reward players, thereby making it more common for them to hold onto their NFT's and explore the possibilities of the Leviathan gamemodes after being introduced to the F2P version of a game.
+any other rationales you wanted to add.

While more specific than your very broad proposal and thereby a reason for IMC to vote "revisions needed", IMC would be able to make changes to this if this particular proposed option is not workable. At least to me, the intention however is made more clear in the proposal and allows for council, team and community to be on the same page when making those revisions.

Obviously, shoot me down if it's terrible 😄 Council does indeed want abstract ideas that they can reform to fit the ecosystem. But having a clear basis helps direct the efforts.

[half nova]

Speaking from my exp on IMC, re the Overview part e.g.
IIPs are essentially law and have to be followed to the word, which makes this tricky.

"Aside from a leaderboard system that rewards players based on their ranking"
-> This forces Illuvium to have Leaderboard rewards, even if those wouldn´t be worth the cost until a new Proposals passes negating this forced rewards system.

"This system concerns solely the Ranked Arena or other F2P games currently developed by Illuvium Labs."
->Why should this be limited to f2p games, if Labs/DAO would see a positive in using the system in other genres? They should be allowed to do so, but the wording here would prohibit them until new proposal to change it again.

"The ownership of assets only affects the amount of rewards obtained from leaderboard or other prizepools allocated to the respective game mode."
-> Why force Labs to implement this in form of leaderboard rewards or pricepools? Labs is best equipped to figure out the optimal system with publicly not available knowledge.

Pricepools could be a vague enough term to use it for anything I guess, but could certainly spark debate on how the OP would define it maybe.

Personally I wouldn´t want to write an IIP, that forces potentially sub optimal systems until a new proposal rewrites this, nor do I believe it would pass IMC, I could certainly be wrong there, would need IMC input on that.

On the topic of needing new proposals to change systems, this could front run or dampen marketing announcements as well btw.

[flat birch]

Well marketing has always been outside of proposals and was mentioned to only require behind the scenes IMC approval.
-This was simple so now im reading back and replying to the rest lol-

[half nova]

But if an IIP is needed to allow for that marketing event to be able to exist, due to earlier IIP prohibiting Labs from doing it, how does that work then?

Skipping upvotes/ICC vote seems problematic as well.

[flat birch]

To my understanding:
There have been discussions in the council during this epoch about having proposals only be "law" for a limited amount of time, so that those issues of previous IIP's prohibiting future escapades would not happen (or only for good reason). TBD how long would be appropriate.

Concerning skipping upvotes, in the end IMC is the representative of the team and community and acts as governing body making decisions for the DAO. So it could be seen as an executive decision that was accepted by IMC and thereby representing the entirety of the community.

[half nova]

To the first part, this doesn´t exist yet, so wouldn´t apply here.

2nd part, feels like this could be seen negative, as DAO ignoring community/stakeholders etc.,
seems like not needing that secret IMC approval to change something would be cleaner and leave less potentially negative angles.

[flat birch]

"Aside from a leaderboard system that rewards players based on their ranking"
-> This forces Illuvium to have Leaderboard rewards, even if those wouldn´t be worth the cost until a new Proposals passes negating this forced rewards system.

Technically true, but since leaderboards have been mentioned in public for months and apparently happening in April according to twitter posts? I didn't expect this to be an issue.

"This system concerns solely the Ranked Arena or other F2P games currently developed by Illuvium Labs."
->Why should this be limited to f2p games, if Labs/DAO would see a positive in using the system in other genres? They should be allowed to do so, but the wording here would prohibit them until new proposal to change it again.

I was mainly implying that Leviathan remained untouched, adding this system to F2P would make sense, but in Leviathan you are expected to hold assets. Would extra rewards based on the rest of your held assets make sense? Maybe yes maybe no.

"The ownership of assets only affects the amount of rewards obtained from leaderboard or other prizepools allocated to the respective game mode."
-> Why force Labs to implement this in form of leaderboard rewards or pricepools? Labs is best equipped to figure out the optimal system with publicly not available knowledge.

Indeed, prizepools was intentionally chosen as it's rather abstract. From my standing I would prefer vague wording that shows intent rather than no wording at all.

In this case it could be a few simple questions to Labs employees that presides over this particular topic:

1. Will leaderboards take place?
2. Can a system like this, that rewards ownership, be created
3. Should Leviathan be exempt from this treatment due to its nature of requiring ownership?

And the resulting information would allow IMC to make an informed decision on their vote. If:
1 isn't true, then they will need to come up with a different system requiring revisions.
2 isn't feasible, it's an automatic decline.
3 results in team / community outrage then it may have to be added to Leviathan as well.

Particularly point 3 I would compare Leviathan to Beyond leaderboard rewards. I don't think it makes sense for Overworld rocks to impact your rewards in Beyond. Neither should Beyond impact Leviathan rewards.
But that's for the team to decide. I, however, much prefer this type of directed conversation where not a lot is set in stone by community but enough for you to get a feel for the proposal's intention.

[flat birch]

First: True. But will be explored and maybe even pushed for and retroactively affect all IIP's. I think that is not normally appropriate but adding a revisions period for all proposals should have been in place since the very start. -community will decide on if this is OK lol
Second: IMC is under NDA, a company can't leak everything to the community without backlash from marketing partners or other groups. So, too bad, some decisions are made by IMC so you better choose carefully who you want to rely on to make the best decisions for your investment for 9 months when nominations come around.

[half nova]

My core critique to your example was, that future Proposals are needed if anything should be changed.
Not if this would be a decent idea or option for the moment of posting the IIP, things might change in the next weeks/months following the approval, not allowing changes unless new proposal seems inefficient.

Fundamentally I won´t post or support an IIP, that I wouldn´t approve due to those concerns (I don´t want to force future needed proposals to adjust systems and I don´t want to force Labs into doing something they might not agree with), someone else can do that then.
If this makes it not pass ICC maybe, then so be it.
(maybe this would have passed if 5 votes were given anyways I guess)

[flat birch]

I think labs would discuss with IMC, thereby ascertaining whether they want to make something and advise IMC to the best of their abilities on what is feasible or workable.
If team doesn't want to do it, and IMC agrees with their reasoning for that, then i would expect the proposal to be declined.

But i understand your concerns. I agree that having multiple IIP's be written to counteract one another would be complete chaos. But if that is to be avoided, IMC could remove the overview and push it without any stipulations on what is expected of the team to be created. At least during the process of voting and community sentiment gathering, however, you would have had something concrete to discuss.
Along the lines of: "Oh so you don't mean to remove Leviathan Arena. then I'm OK with it."

Anyways that's all from me. I want to clarify that I went off the cuff here and don't represent other members of the council with my comments. Please direct feedback at me. 😄 -DMs are always open for that

[half nova]

I believe I gave people more than enough insights into how this could be applied or utilized to be fair, including about 2h podcasty version of writing the IIP, while discussing with viewers.

Also elaborated, same as here why forcing specifics isn´t optimal.

Forcing the "concrete" would imo just create the same old "Yes I can extract money, pls make this system exactly the best way for me to p2e/airdrop/etc."

[flat birch]

It would only work like that if you were the one making the decision. But since you aren't in IMC anymore, you can only propose an idea that may be the best for you. It is not up to you whether it actually happens. So since you aren't in the IMC anymore, you can finally go a little ham and share some cool ideas that then get reworked by team and IMC and then get implemented xD Just like what you have helped do over the course of the last 2 years.
(only a little ham is allowed)

[half nova]

I deeply hate the discussions were it is rather obvious that people mostly want the DAO/Labs to create things for their own benefit while trying to gaslight that it would be in the benefit of the DAO.
So I´d rather not start these.

[flat birch]

Fair enough. Well, i do hope one of the IMC members can put up with reading this discussion and give some insight in their expected Proposal outlinings. They may be able to rectify some of my statements and further educate me (hopefully not just me 😄 )