Fuel conversion rate

[upbeat lantern]

I have serious concerns about the 89:1 fuel conversion rate and the reasoning behind it. The justification seems to rely primarily on the argument that fuel was acquired too cheaply, and therefore, a drastic conversion is necessary to protect the in-game economy. (Asking for numbers and calculations justifying that claim was kindly ignored by councils)
However, this logic is inconsistent if we consider that Overworld remained open for months, allowing Illuvials to be farmed at extremely low costs. If preserving economic balance was truly the goal, why is fuel being devalued while Illuvials remain untouched?

Furthermore, Illuvium sold in-game currency (fuel) at x price. Manipulating that price after a certain period of time fosters an environment of distrust for any current and future customer or investor. People made purchases based on the conditions that were available at the time. If those conditions are later altered in a way that drastically reduces value, it sends a dangerous message that assets within the ecosystem are not secure. Why should anyone trust future purchases if precedent is being set that conversion rates or asset values can be arbitrarily adjusted long after the fact?

I understand that with the upcoming overhaul, the value of Overworld runs will change, and factoring that into the conversion makes sense. But I fail to see why cheap fuel prices or the pegging difference from ETH to USD has anything to do with the conversion rate. If anything, the decision to keep OW open and allow farming at low costs contradicts the claim that this is purely about maintaining economic stability.

Before finalizing a rate like 89:1, I would expect a detailed risk analysis that takes into account at least:

• Total fuel currently held across all accounts + Total fuel in zero wallets
• Burn/hoard rate (how much fuel was used vs. hoarded?)
• Top 100 wallets holding fuel
• Projected impact of the conversion on the in-game economy
• How does retroactively adjusting the price of an asset impact confidence in the ecosystem and the willingness to purchase assets in future?
• Should there be a compensation for high volume buyers?
• **Why should 2 assets (Illuvial/fuel) experience a different treatment? **
• ** What are the reasoning to choose this conversion model and are other models that can be used?** (for example put new fuel swapped out of old fuel on a vesting shedule of for example 1y)

Was a similar analysis done? If so, it should be shared transparently. Without this data, it feels like a rushed and arbitrary decision rather than one based on actual economic risks.

If there is a justification for such a drastic reduction, it needs to be backed by clear numbers, just as it should have been when deciding to leave Overworld open. Otherwise, it just looks like one group of assets is being selectively rugged while others retain their value.

[upbeat lantern]

<@&814435151307866142> <@&1107754780744487002>

[odd yarrow]

I'm truly curious why there is such a want for making this much more complicated than it needs to be

The fuel market valued fuel at a certain $ in the week before closing, that amount of $ is preserved, it's really that simple

Furthermore, Illuvium sold in-game currency (fuel) at a set price

What?

[upbeat lantern]

the $ value shouldn't play a role but rahter the ingame purchasing power.
1 could argue that a simple 1:1 conversion rate is simpler than the forumla that got created with the goal of eliminating ingame purchase power

yea thats an unfortunate wording, let me rephrase it

[limpid steeple]

In-game purchasing power was inflated by almost 100x. You could do Stage 3 runs for 12 cents or something right?

All illuvial values were dumping consistently to my understanding.

[odd yarrow]

Of course 1:1 is simpler, but multiplication by 89 isnt the hardest operation in the world
If we make it 1:1 we're giving you 89 times as much $ purchasing power, how does that make sense?

[upbeat lantern]

you don't give it to me, i already have it.
now you take it away

[limpid steeple]

You had it but never used it. Now this "promotional sale" of catching 90 for the price of 1 is over.

[upbeat lantern]

seriously?

[odd yarrow]

Discussions like

"Why did Illuvial hoarders get much more anticipated value than fuel hoarders, who only got made whole on their $ power"

Is something we can chat about

"Why aren't you giving people who bought fuel at the pico bottom 89 more $ purchasing power than they had"

Why is this even a discussion?

[upbeat lantern]

are all illuvials that haven't been used in leviathan gona be revoked aswell?

[upbeat lantern]

nobody is talking about more. I want the same.
And yea, why is it even a discussion?

[odd yarrow]

You are getting the same
You are even getting more if you bought the pico bottom

[upbeat lantern]

#1346770169871073311 message

[odd yarrow]

Ok so you think we should preserve in game purchasing power, I think we should preserve $ purchasing power, agree to disagree. Good thing there's only a 89x multiplier between those two

[subtle pike]

Isn´t pico bottom -> illuvials similar though as buy fuel to hold for anticipated and promoted drone runs?

(note I had 0 info on this topic outside of checking this chat for a sec)

[subtle pike]

To tldr. the long following and just quickly, prob poorly written up text.

I think it is a massive and maybe longstanding lost in trust for current and future users of any Illuvium product, if people only get the $-purchasing power, no bonus (not saying pic bottom number) to the Illuvial one.
Illuvium has a record of overselling products and ideas, you need to make a stand that you changed and learned, just another blog post of "mistakes made, we learned" then repeat same mistake won´t work at some point, maybe already past that.
At very least, refund people or give them the option, likely most wouldn´t have bought without the X times purchasing power expectation, so they will justifiably feel rugged.

I think at best you can say labs indirectly mislead people into you can spend your fuel at drone things in the future without time.
Logic conclusion is buy currently at a discount, obv revenue was higher and price was higher due to people doing this.

Saying we made you misunderstand/believe it to be different to what we planned, so we got revenue from current players and you were our exit liquidity there, bad luck, sounds very bad, coming from council especially.

At the very least refund the people who bought and still hold fuel then, it is revenue you got, likey not even much.

ILV will just get more "hate followers" and fudders then.
I´d be on the edge of giving up trusting anything that is said then as well, not because the 1000$ or w.e. I had in it, but because it feels like a soft rug and again a betrayal in trust and what was indirectly said.
Same as many other times, were expectations were said and in the end to the downside for users/buyers not meet.
Or people were mislead and every single time it was Labs/DAO profiting in some way or another in the end.

Even if playing Overworld to get the X times more illuvials would be required, sure fine, one day I or others could have done that.

If Labs had expected to do something like this, there would have been no problem saying "we might change fuel, this or that, numbers, etc." the moment we had the down spiral, after months of people playing in it/buying fuel and then saying get rekt guys...

Obv if you say this, you fud current revenue, if you don´t, then rug the ones who bought, well you rugged them, choose.

Refunding people, maybe even give them some ILV as sorry (idk how much $ we speak here obv, prob not much in the grand sheme of things and sure make an IIP as you take potential rev dis away from stakers), seems by far best way to "solve the issue" and not rug your community.

[odd yarrow]

X times purchasing power expectation

Could you elaborate what this means? Where does it come from? If I buy fuel at the pico bottom what is my "X times purchasing power expectation"?

[subtle pike]

That you get more NFTs than people who buy higher or in a future of Illuvium doing better.

That was the idea of free market-fuel setup.

[odd yarrow]

As stated before, I'm open to discussion on the best way forward, I just don't think starting that discussion with "89x or else" makes sense. What if we pegged fuel to $1? Would we have to give 8900x in illuvium coupons?

[subtle pike]

I don´t agree with give people 89X of things, like I said.

I think some X if you want to keep it in in game currency or refund people, maybe refund + a bonus of ign currency or similar, debatable if that is worth the marketing expense etc.

[subtle pike]

I think the relevant number is mostly how many Illuvials can you get for the ign currency.
If you peg it to a $ cost, not an ign currency cost moving forward, assuming it is low 6 figures, maybe only 5 figures, refund people the eth prob easiest, maybe get sentiment, as eth was obv higher than atm at times etc.

I mostly think this is a huge trust issue for the future.
In the end ILV especially with drone runs wants whales who swipe a lot of money, but if you just before that setup rugged people who wanted to do something similar, looks very bad.

[odd yarrow]

We didn't pick the bottom number for $ parity, we picked the average of the week before closing, we also picked the highest priced fuel out of the 3 for that calc

[subtle pike]

I think e.g. a t5 s1 illuvial was something along the lines of 2500 fuel to get, right?
If you do the conversion, how many would you get for the amount of fuel you got after conversion?
(assuming you bought not 2500, but 40/50 or so + bonus)

(let´s say 2500 is a placeholder number)

[odd yarrow]

0.15 for 2500 fuel converted give or take

but that illuvial's acquisition cost has 10xed or so from the week before

[odd yarrow]

What if even if we did 10x better, 10x more lands would activate and the future of the old fuel system would never be reflected on our success due to its broken state?

[subtle pike]

Would be a similar issue, people would argue ILV mismanaged the value proposition of NFTs and artificially messed with cost of aquisition so they could sell more land.

to tldr. my point again, I don´t think it is good to talk publicly about things like drone runs will come up and you can use all your fuel, then reduce the purchasing power of that fuel later, after you promise people the time part of the equation will be gone

many would argue this is close to rugging the people who did buy under wrong impressions given by company or at least kieran

[odd yarrow]

we should have released autodrone in the old broken economy and make illuvial prices trivial before fixing that system?

We didnt reduce the purchasing power of fuel, we upped the acquisition cost of illuvials

[subtle pike]

You should disclose at least, that you might adjust the fuel->illuvial cost with that broken system if you are going to do so, earlier than last minute

[subtle pike]

sure, pretty much same thing, as it impacts fuel->Illuvial cost

[odd yarrow]

Would be the same as giving you 1:1 on fuel but increasing fuel price of illuvials

[subtle pike]

yeah I get that, still after you had the fuel down spiral issue, obv in web3 people wanna speculate on if it can make it back etc. or not, that was the highest risk time to buy and it was even advertised that you can do auto drone runs in the future.
Never said you wont get the fuel->illuvial rate (or close to at least).

We can argue about how fair or unfair this is and that everyone should be aware of risks, but it is different if the market ruggs people, products don´t sell, or if economy revamp from company rugs what people expected to get imo.

In the end sentiment being so low around Illuvium and Illuvials is why original system failed so badly, if there was good senitment and people speculating on future games, system would have worked.
Any system until you have millions of players would need the good sentiment and people wanting to invest into the assets, not only have few maybe thousand, who play with them in any realistic near-midterm future; to get relevant revenue.

[odd yarrow]

I disagree on this, sentiment doesn't fix a bad system which isn't robust to a full spectrum of sentiment and playerbase
How we handled and prioritized the system, sure that's a big one on us

[subtle pike]

I am not saying it wasn´t a bad system and it would have been fixed long term, but that the issues in "hype bull market" sentiment wouldn´t happen, so quickly at least.

[plain stream]

I bought fuel because it was cheap. I expect to get the same value I purchased it from in game. So if I bought 1 stage 2 fuels worth. I should get that much, whatever the is the new price in $

[subtle pike]

Likely there is an inbetween, that is better, I do agree with if you do the 1-1 fuel to asset thing, we just have infinite amount of stuff getting dumped on floor.

Maybe that´s not even bad though, but then no one would buy the new fuel until you are through those cheap ones, giving bad metrics to team I guess?

Could just cope and be like X amount of fuel, worth Y$ was used to buy our new Drone runs and not point out that they got the fuel cheaper, same as silv2 at landsale kinda.

[odd yarrow]

The Dao will also have no revenue from a significant part of the playerbase due to the 89x increase in purchasing power pretty much forever, not to mention selling an account on second market

[subtle pike]

Yeah it is lose lose, the question is rather what is worse.

-rug what people expected to get, be it justified or not
-reduce revenue from the new products, but preserve sentiment of the ones who were willing to be on ILV still

[odd yarrow]

If I buy a 5$ gift card for a mobile game and they raise their prices for their 1,000 in-game skins from $0.01 per piece to $1 per piece, would I send them a message that I still expect to get 500 in-game skins?

[subtle pike]

People would make reddit threads and social media posts complaining yes.
They do in fact when you look at riot charging more for new Skins e.g.

[odd yarrow]

I was never expecting to make this change without complaints, but that has significantly less gravitas than the words you are using

[subtle pike]

Maybe I do overrate it.
But after having another "burn rate reduced" "we learned from mistakes"- kinda timeline, then this, it is tough, makes credibility drop again.

I´d love to have people post making wins with ILV or related NFTs or assets.
You certainly reduce revenue, but doing airdrop or other campaigns at current token price seems tough as well.

Giving lots of ing items could be the better option, especially if you have products, people want to buy them for.

Yet another, ILV took my money and now I get less is maybe not that bad, as not the first time etc., maybe it will be one too many idk.

[odd yarrow]

I'm not opposed to discussion on that as I stated, but you're the only one so far who agreed with me on "89x is wild" so there's that
Was hoping for more council involvement as well (but Garf is a chad)

[subtle pike]

Picking pico bottom obv is crazy, as volume there was prob nothing.

[kindred cove]

I also bought to take advantage of a good bonus to spend in season 3 otherwise I would never have bought I would have invested in other projects each time I feel betrayed by illuvium

[subtle pike]

Prices were around 40-50x for a long time and the pico bottom numbers were people selling to themselfs I assume. (I obv did that)

[odd yarrow]

Yeah the amount of "selling to self at 20% discount" was an implicit advantage as well to be taken into account, but that possibility being open was on us

[subtle pike]

Yeah I mostly mean that from a I assume volume wasn´t high there pov.

[kindred cove]

I should have spent all the fuel before these changes, just had to warn us a few months before the drastic change, I would have just spent all the fuel, play seriously to farm illuvials

[subtle pike]

In my example above you said it is about 1/7 less we get for fuel?

maybe 1/2 or 1/3 would be better, again idk the numbers and to how many Illuvials this would equate
being able to bulk buy the then for cheap listed ones on Illuvidex might be a high prio as well, to make them liquid and boost floor

you could also release drone runs under some version of current price maybe bit higher than what it will be few months from now, then people can choose buy now to dump quicker or later to have more Illuvials

argument there could be drone runs now regular price, in future leading up to next set, they get cheaper before the end?

the lifelong player argument I don´t think is that bad of a thing, as it is still a user in the game

[subtle pike]

I don´t think I could have spend all, but I´d have started to do few auto scan runs and just look for super rare, port out after maybe spending 1000-1500 energy e.g.
could have burned a lot of the fuel if communitcation was better

[upbeat lantern]

Me2 was hoping for council involvement, especially delivering some numbers

[odd yarrow]

You're getting purchasing power for all other first-hand Illuvium products as well (Beyond/Cosmetics), whose prices have not changed

[winged granite]

I loaded up on fuel a couple of times after council members calling it a good time. Please don't involve them 🤣

[odd yarrow]

Us not making it easy for players to spend tons of fuel without spending tons of time is fair

[subtle pike]

I hadn´t realized all products will be in that fuel to be fair.
Could boost rates for drone runs/Illuvials only then, right?
Do it for a time period, maybe slowly reduce the boost to flatten out the buying?

[subtle pike]

was this me?, I wasn´t on council anymore and feel rugged with this topic bro^^

[winged granite]

You tweeted about it yeah but no worries. Seems like nobody saw this coming and the market is disagreeing by selling boatloads of ilv and land

[kindred cove]

Yes !!

[subtle pike]

everyone is selling everything alt-coin, gamefi like to be fair 😅

[winged granite]

Like they put on the drain and created supply, as we've seen many times. I did not expect them to fail at creating any demand for another 9 months and then force us, the people who stuck around, to this conversion

[kindred cove]

I have the impression that they don't take current players into consideration because there are very few people, it won't have much impact, the priority is to make as many changes as possible even if it ruins the few current players before bringing in all the web3 players.

[subtle pike]

obv, which in theory isn´t bad as value of token is a mandate of DAO and many other assets exist.
Issue is how big is the sentiment lose, how bad is this precedent for future buyers.
And how good would a positive one be, like people posting on timelines they are happy and made gains.
Airdrop season had lots of negtaive stuff surrounding it and markets tanked, so that never really happened there e.g. sadly.

[odd yarrow]

You tell me, analyse your emotional brain, tell me how much you'd need for your own sentiment

[subtle pike]

I am bad example on this I think, because I did buy about 1.2eth worth at 7x and couldn´t use due to ip-ban thing+ minting issues end of season 1.

For me to feel good on fuel including that uff.

I was expecting 40-50x value (fuel to NFT compared to toprail, not 40x $ in the end) when I did buy more later, but also personally was like this could go to 0/be illiquid.
In $ Terms I thought I take a calculated risk, that I eventually when Illuvials reach close to the wanted price in Labs previously in amas etc. talked about model, this would be 5-10x in $, likely not at first, as many others do this as well and we wouldn´t have buy pressure to clear the floor quickly.

I also thought either ILV honors the fuel->loot rate or they rug us on it, aware of that option I didn´t buy that much, think I only have 10mil fuel.

If I´d get something like a 4-5k fuel->1 T5 Illuvial rate I´d be happy compared to what could have been and prob post about it though etc.

In my case, getting the holo/dh/t5s3s from drone runs, easy content for socials/shorts/pack opening video/stream etc. as well, idk to how many others this would apply.

[odd yarrow]

Your ask is data-wise quite the effort by the way, council would have no clue so they have to ask me

But mostly the ask reminds me of a quote: "Insights without actionability are just fun facts"

For the questions sure, curious for their take as well

[upbeat lantern]

I wouldn't be surprised that council has no clue, but how can one make an informed decision without having any facts about the topic?
How can one make a claim that "it is not about revenue but about not totally destroying the ingame economy" without some basic numbers and think rugging the current playerbase is worth it?
I don't think that quote is fitting the situation, or maybe i don't understand it right 😄

from my observations of the ledger on the FEX from january and the scalping and observation in february we are talking roughly 100 accounts, where a big part of them is the most loyal playerbase, having stacked up some fuel for the coming months/years.
And the only argument for the rugg-pull i heared so far is that those people span together and try to wreck the whole economy.
I don't even think it would be doable even if they would try tbh from the amounts of fuel there are floating arround in the aether

[odd yarrow]

We don't think using that word is appropriate in this context but I can understand why it feels that way in some scenario's

[odd yarrow]

That's not the only argument, it's a risk but I don't think it's massive (unless we give 89x upfront then sure), it's mostly

preservation of $ purchasing power (current system)

vs

preservation of illuvials purchasing power and increase $ purchasing power (Viper)

vs

preservation of max fuel price and cover ETH going down and put 20% on top for good measure (you and some others mentioned being in favor of this path)

havent seen other viewpoints

[upbeat lantern]

the r word?
I asked cgpt to do a rough analysis of the ep, the circumstances which led to the ep, the changes with Zero and the fuel conversion rate.
Even it came up with the r word. (can try it for yourself 😄 )

[covert marsh]

whats the r word

[upbeat lantern]

i'm in the viewpoint of simply preserve ingame purchasing power. Never said you should cover for eth going down, i also don't ask for a refund of my cosmetics i bought because eth value went down

[odd yarrow]

That's what 1:1 implies and what you were vouching for

[covert marsh]

i think i asked hw much fuel is out there. trying to find the numbers

[upbeat lantern]

i wasn't.
neither in DM's nor here

most arguments viper brought up in here you can read from me in zero/ow/general governance or i mentioned it in dm's to other councils

[odd yarrow]

Your arguments were aligned but you also wanted 1 new fuel for 1 old fuel correct?

[upbeat lantern]

Reread first sentence of the last paragraph of the OP

[odd yarrow]

Perhaps before a stage where the implications were clear (covering ETH's price and the difference between max fuel price then and $0.01)

It matters not

[covert marsh]

ok this is pretty clear, you will get the new fuel at an amount equal to the purhasing power....

so if i bought fuel worth 10 x s3 run before the migration, i should get new fuel worth 10 x s3 run after the migration

or am i reading it wrong

[upbeat lantern]

not sure i understand that right.
With value in Overworld runs i'm simply talking about possible changes in fuel cost per run and the value change of loot one can expect with the changes to the droprates of tier/stages including changes to mechanics related with the ow capture, such as ergon energy.

[covert marsh]

in the same proposal
New fuel price is 25% of top rail, if current price is 5% of top rail, you just have to divided the amount old fuel by 5, right?

to receive the new fuel at an amount equal to the purchasing power of the old fuel

what was the price of of the old fuel?

[upbeat lantern]

the calcualtion is pinned in #🎮〕illuvium-zero

https://tenor.com/view/jack-black-sexy-hello-hola-looking-good-gif-4828187

[next elbow]

Yours didnt direct link initially now it does. gahhhh - love discord

[upbeat lantern]

lol it indeed does, even tho i didn't direct link it 😄

[covert marsh]

i see the issue, it's because the price of runs increased too muh

[upbeat lantern]

i think you manipulated my link with your link.
Power of head-role i guess... lol

[covert marsh]

so S3 was $0.12?

so, S3 went from $0.12 to $9, thats a 75x

ok landholders will get the same amount of fuel in $, but since the cost of run increased by 75x they gonna feel they got less

[shell abyss]

Wouldn't the best solution be to take the Ascendant approach, be able to enable the old build of OW from options, where you can spend your 'old' fuel on the 'old' ow with the same drop rates and all that, but without being able to see the stats? That sounds like the most frictionless solution

[covert marsh]

either landholders need to get more of new fuel because cost of run increased so much, or we need lower the cost of runs

without playing, i think $9 is too high
and the ADR cost is too high

[shell abyss]

You guys are floating in the vacuum of space with this numbers. First you need to determine what these illuvials will be needed for, how many of them you are going to need, and how much that's gonna cost you. Then apply a reasonable pricing.

[covert marsh]

whatever it is, it's too high

[shell abyss]

Next will be too low and 5 changes later we still don't know

[covert marsh]

S3 run was $0.12, u dnt go to $9

[shell abyss]

If there is no demand for them even 1$ is too much

[covert marsh]

cmiiw the top rail was $12 when we launched?

so 25% of top rail is $3 for S3

[covert marsh]

yea thats the issue. pokemon tcg pocket is $1, and u get free packs

[winged granite]

Hope we didnt fire the entire marketing team

[covert marsh]

maybe we should go lower than pokemon tcg pocket
@onyx forge thoughts?

[shell abyss]

We shouldn't.... Just apply more utility to the creatures ffs

[covert marsh]

is everyone playing wilds lol

[winged granite]

I think this was done with the 375$ catch em all price

[covert marsh]

thats something we can say after we see gauntlet 2.0

[covert marsh]

i forgot the number.
but pricing is such a dillema.
web2 games are undercutting us, but web3 cost are much more

[shell abyss]

Not necessarily, you can plan ahead and announce said utility in advance, which can justify a bit higher prices.

[shell abyss]

We misused the web3 opportunity like astronomically bad

[covert marsh]

Maybe web3 is more expensive because u can trade them?

[winged granite]

Instead we are still aiming for web2, 50 active players left

[covert marsh]

like u cant trade pokemon tcg pocket

[shell abyss]

Smh

[stable sentinel]

it's too soon for web2.

[shell abyss]

Maybe we are non believers and gauntlet 2.0 will pop off and carry leviathan with it. Stay positive summoners

[edgy sun]

I don't know what the correct conversion ratio would be, but I do think 89:1 feels too low.

Did I buy more fuel because it was at a low price (big bonus)... absolutely yes, and I probably also spent more on OW runs, crafted and fused more then I would otherwise have done.

My approach to buying fuel has been to buy a little bit every single day, (some days more, when needing it for shards, or crafting/fusing), and I have done so since the beginning of August. My fuel balance has fluctuated a lot and I currently have a balance at around 200k fuel, which I know is not a lot (some have a lot more than that). But I got this fuel at very different prices, yes,, some of it with a big bonus, but also some when bonus was a lot less, and also transferred a bit from my land… so taking a snapshot from the last week, and making the calculation based on that feels a bit wrong.

As others have stated in ILZ chat, the fuel was sold at this discount price for some time, and people would buy some extra with the expectation to use the fuel for drone runs etc. So when finding out the fuel you bought was in fact not discounted at all, when converted. it’s only natural to feel cheated. However I also understand it would be wrong to do a complete 1:1 conversion, as the actual value of fuel has changed with the new cost/acquisition model.

It is hard to come up with an alternative and fair suggestion. As Dr. Spoon also states, there is data we don't have, like how much fuel is actually held across all accounts. (that obviously plays into the impact of lowering the conversion rate)... and again how does that actually impact the whole system,.If lowering the conversion rate, how many more Illivials would they actually be able to acquire..

But then you can also argue that people who have been busy spending the fuel collecting Illivials have done so at a big discount. So at the end of the day, I guess it comes down to how people have interacted with the game in the past 7 months.

Open up OW with the Current system and let people use some of the “old fuel”, for about a week, is not a bad suggestion. At least you would give people more choice whether they want to go “burn” the stocked fuel. (you would obviously not be able to buy any new fuel). I doubt that would have a big impact on the future economy as there is a natural limit to how many OW runs and fuses you would be able to do in a week.

[kindred cove]

Give us a few weeks the old system so I can spend my fuels 🙏🙏

[kindred cove]

@frail pike 🙏

[onyx forge]

Wilds is incredible. U gonna get it? Or r U not a true gamer

[onyx forge]

Illuvium U get 8 cards, have trading available and the asset will be used in more things. Also we have 600+ cards available including the 2 variations and excluding stats and each TCG pocket set has 150 at most.

The point is they r too different to compare so strongly.

But the TCG pocket strategy is dependant on adding new sets every 2 months. If we had that same ability this might be a different convo.

[timber yarrow]

Why not take an average from when fuel was first sold til the last week?
Why choose the bottom of the barrel?

Other thing about this 89:1

I didn't buy fuel over the past few months to get 89:1
No one told me the fuel I was buying would be devalued to such a degree. Do you think I would have bought fuel if I had known it would be converted at a rate of 89:1? F no.

[covert marsh]

Wht do u think about OW and ADR pricing

[onyx forge]

We were in the same meeting with Perry lol. The pricing is based on the data available to the team. It's not super robust data but it does exist.

If we need to adjust it after a month of additional data then that's fine too, but I refuse to change it on vibes

As for fuel conversion. I am in the same boat as I'm sure many are, I bought most of my fuel probably 2-3 months ago.

But I bought it full knowing the price was likely going to decline over time until it was fixed.

Basing it on current prices makes sense and basing it on all historical pricing probably makes some sense too. Not really a winning answer here

[covert marsh]

if i remember correctly we talked about the collection cost but not the pack pricing.
For the same collection cost we can lower the pack price and also the expected outcome per pack.
psychologically looks "cheaper"

old fuel holders will be happy too because they are getting similar purchasing power

OW revamp might resulted the same expected outcome on paper, but a higher price will mess up the customer perception.
theres a thing called "shrinkflation" in FMCG

it's when the product becomes smaller but at the same price because brands dont want to increase price

[timber yarrow]

Everyone is referring to OW and ADR as the only use of fuel

But there's also Disks

Purchasing power for disks has SIGNIFICANTLY been reduced with the conversion

If disks are priced at 499 and 3499 fuel then that cripples the previous purchasing power and there's no 'added value' like people have been saying with 'buffed ADR'

[covert marsh]

i think we can come with a compromise

some might have been buying "cheap" fuel to support/invest in the ecosystem and some might have been buying to speculate.
either way, we can admit that it is our fault to let price went that low before shutting down the market.
imo, we should not punish people for our own oversight, while at the same time we cannot give "full value" because it will greatly impact revenue and asset prices.
what if we meet in the middle

[hybrid cradle]

Pocket also has a burning mechanism. To trade mid value cards you need to burn 4 of the same rarity. Even though most people think this ratio is insanely high they try to keep supply at a low rate so people actually keep buying packs

[hybrid cradle]

That is a nice example. So how will my fuel crates work? I still have a few "$405" fuel crates so I will be able to buy things for 405 Dollar, right? As you said even if the runs cost 20 Dollar now my fuel crate (gift card) should have a purchasing power of 405 Dollars, or does "keep the dollar purchasing power" only apply if it suits the latest approach.

[upbeat lantern]

a compromise is a way to make sure that both parties will be unhappy

i would still like to see the numbers IMC had for their analysis to make claims such as "while at the same time we cannot give "full value" because it will greatly impact revenue and asset prices"
(see OP)

[covert marsh]

just note im not talking on behalf of imc

we gonna do our weekly meeting tomorrow

[odd yarrow]

nah fuel crates/sILV2 are good

[covert marsh]

i dnt have the whole numbers of pricing to expected outcome

[upbeat lantern]

i don't doubt that 😄
So it's more of a "feeling" that this will happen, right?

I would argue if the conversion rate happens like it is intended in the formula you will loose out on revenue aswell. Impossible to quantify how much, but some already existing customers will stay away from paid stuff in future, some possible new customers won't try it out if they know about changes like this one can happen over night to their assets and the mouth to mouth marketing will be lowered from all those who are affected by it now.

[covert marsh]

im just using a very simple calculation:
S3 run was $ 0.12
the new S3 run price will be $ 8.99 or 75x
will you get 75x more value from the same run?

alternative calculation
5610334 crypton sold during the week, if S3 run cost 1350 crypton, you can do 4155 runs.

now we are converting 1:89
5610334:89 = 63037
new S3 pricing is 899, you can only do 70 runs instead of 4155 or 59x less runs

do you get 59x more value from the new OW S3 run compared to the old S3 run?

to get the same number of runs you will need 1:1.5 conversion rate

$0.12 a run is definitely too low. imo we fcked up for letting OW and FEX still open for so long.
it's supposed to be an "emergency" 3 months ago and beyond wave 3 was in the way.

what if we stick with 25% from top rail:
S1 8 fuel
S2 49 fuel
S3 299 fuel or $2.99

like whos gonna spend $8.99 from a 45 minutes run?

[winged granite]

And who needs to feel pain for that mistake? The people that stayed around? My wounds from beyond gold illuvitars printing to infinity are still healing

[covert marsh]

what if we calculate how much fuel is worth in $ if the conversion is 1:1.5

[winged granite]

https://tenor.com/view/laughing-hysterically-gif-23342968

[covert marsh]

im gonna propose to imc
if the amount is not that much, maybe we should just give better conversion rate and/or lower the prices

the last thing i want it is for this project to be called a rug

will be very hard to come back from that
thank you for your patiencr

[winged granite]

It's already very hard to come back to anything

[tawny minnow]

I didn’t want to write anything until I saw everything on the mainnet, because it’s strange to talk about something that doesn’t exist yet. But it’s probably worth expressing some thoughts beforehand, so that later no one says “why didn’t you say anything before.”
Ratio 1:89 sounds very scary. For those who had a lot of fuel on their balance. For those who did not have time to spend it. For those who bought fuel for future runs in overworld, mmo-lite or whatever is further on the horizon. This will not affect new players in any way. As well as those who did not keep fuel on their balance.
I consider fuel as a game currency. Under the old system, I would buy, for example, 1000 of any fuel, and would receive another 31,000 fuel on top as a bonus. But in fact, I bought 32,000 fuel at the current price. And the calculation of the cost of a unit of fuel was based on this figure, since this was the amount paid for. Next, having this amount of fuel, we look at how much the fuse t5s3 cost: 32,000 solons. That is, having bought 32,000 fuel, I will be able to make 1 fuse t5s3. Purchasing power of money. After converting fuel 1:89, I will have 359.9 fuel. At the same time, the new price of the fuse t5s3 will be: 6,000 fuel. That is, I will not be able to make the fuse t5s3. And this value becomes equal to 0.059. This is a clear drop in purchasing power.
Another example on krypton, and with a higher bonus. Buying the same 1000 fuel (crypton) +38150 bonus, I received 39150 crypton, for a certain amount. With this amount I could make 29 runs in stage3. But after conversion I will have 439.9 fuel, and a run in stage3 now costs 899. That is, I now have fuel for 0.5 runs? I can't understand this at all.

I consider each old type of fuel separately, since any player could buy only one type of fuel for his purposes in the game, and never buy another one at all, since he would not need it.
And I still don't understand where 1:89 came from? Based on the last week's estimate? I wonder how much the bonus was (on average) when buying 1000 fuel? I haven't been following the fuel market, so I don't know. But I know for sure that many people bought fuel not in the last week, but all the time since the launch of the mainent. So it's not right to take into account only the last week.

Before the change, the cost of a run (s1/s2/s3) was 150/450/1350. After 24/149/899. Let's say we had 100k crypton on our balance. This means we could make 666.7/222.2/74.1 runs. When converting 1:89, we get 1123.6 new fuel, and this will give us 46.8/7.5/1.2 runs. The difference will be 14.2/29.5/59.3 respectively. These are very huge values. I was considering some average value: the difference in the price of a run before/after is 6.25/3.02/1.50. If we take 1:3.02, we will get 33112.6 fuel, which will give us 1379.7/222.2/36.8 runs. The difference before and after in this case will be: 0.5/1.0/2.0.

That is, the number of available runs in s1 will be twice as much, s2 will remain the same, s3 will be half as much. It seems not bad. But.

Can you still catch 3 illuvials in each encounter? Is the starting amount of energy the same? Is the cost of catching 1 illuvial the same? And most importantly, is the quality of the illuvials the same? I'm not talking about traits, but about what tier and stage can be found in a specific stage and in what quantity?

After all, if the new s1 is as good as the old s2 (or even s3) in quality, then all the calculations above are incorrect, and first you need to understand what to compare with what to determine the conversion factor. And this only applies to crypton, as I said above, I consider each type of fuel separately, and I also consider the conversion factor separately for each type of fuel. But I still don't have enough new data, and I haven't yet formed a clear understanding about hyperion. Everything that required hyperion in the old system, doesn't require fuel in the new system. That is, even a 1:10,000 conversion... doesn't mean anything, since there are no new prices. But since there are no new prices, does that mean a player who bought hyperion can now just throw it away? No, I don't think so. In such cases, compensation is usually provided. But I'm not talking about refunding money (eth or others). But this needs some more thought.

That's all for now. I hope that something will change.

[onyx forge]

Trading doesn't count as a burning mechanism sorry

[wary quarry]

@upbeat lantern I think this is the most substantive conversation Zero has had since mainnet and its less than 24 hours old. Good job!

Feasibility: Today is the 1,007th day since the Landsale. Danny & Labs has been unable to produce a smart contract to distribute the revenue owed to Landholders from Beyond sales. How is Labs going to administer accounting and monthly reconciliation for this emergency proposal? Until that is built, tested, and verified by the IMC I would warn this is a recipe for reputation suicide. This will put a bullet in the brand of Illuvium if not handled well. <@&814435151307866142>

[plain stream]

It's like the very definition of scam 😂

[stable sentinel]

yep, every single one of us that has been accumulating fuel all this time and was actually creating some demand for it got wrecked...

[wary quarry]

Rationale: Fuel, by definition and expressed intent in the Landsale, is a COMMODITY that was to serve as the in-game unit of account for an interoperable gamefi ecosystem. IIP-EP-1 converts fuel into a coupon redeemable for some centralized contrived conversion rate that then can be submitted for ETH redemption at some undefined period in the future. This is a radical permanent alteration of the basis for investors in the Landsale without any disclosures. Technically, this is a failure to perform and breach of contract from Labs to the 6,000 wallets who purchased these NFTs.

[stable sentinel]

I've been very supportive of this project but this was the worst decision they could have ever made, even worse was the fact that the council backed it up. Just shows how council does not know what they are doing and doesn't protect the community and its investors.

We let the economy drown all this time without taking any action with a failed fuel system that was OBVIOUS to those who understand economy it was doomed to fail if the game didn't explode and hit mass adoption. We stopped the OW updates, we didn't start the Arena competitive scene and then we convert all fuel to nearly it's lowest value.

Could this be any worse?

[shell abyss]

You forgot the failed airdrop campaign

[wary quarry]

Concur. It was OBVIOUS from the mainnet launch that the supply side was doomed, and nobody on the team wanted to engage in constructive dialogue. Then we have the 75% NERF with in mere days of the launch of mainnet, and I once again illustrated how the geometric growth of supply would not cease. It did not! By mid-October, it was unquestionable per the data, and still, no remedial action was taken as the "bonus" rate spiraled out of control...and yes I know that demand for fuel had practically ceased by that point as OW was a total failure. This 'emergency proposal' is taking a similar manipulative approach shrouded in secrecy and it will not end well!

[grave gull]

I really like this guy's solution to the problem. Please take a look at it.✅

[winged granite]

In that case everyone feel free to dm me for fusing at 50% of the future cost! I have fuel that you can't buy and you have illuvials that you can't fuse!

[grave gull]

@edgy sun @upbeat lantern @winged granite But it's unclear how to solve the issue that will arise from this idea.

People don’t have a perfectly balanced amount of fuel. There will definitely be an excess of some resources. You’ll likely be able to spend Krypton on leveling up Illuvials, but where will Solon go? Most of it was used for crafting weapons, which is now (as we know) useless.

And what about Hyperion? Its usage is extremely low.

I admit that I may have jumped to conclusions a bit too quickly.

Still, it’s probably best to simply establish a more reasonable conversion rate.

[wary quarry]

progress is painful in a world of pure imagination

[upbeat lantern]

Kirito's solution might be a nice fit for a couple individuals.

Keeping up the ingame purchasing power is in my opinion the only legitimate solution customers can look forward to.

[timber yarrow]

The fear is what... allowing too many holo this or that onto the market? I'd argue the damage caused by eroding the current playerbase even further is far worse for reputation and project credibility than some extra holos floating around. Make people happy and you have people who want to play and engage... piss off players, rug them, deceive them, make decisions that continue to create negative sentiment and you create worse obstacles than some extra this or that.

[edgy sun]

Thats a very fair take.

Opening up for OW for a week to allow some to spend fuel they have in stock, will not solve the purchasing power "issue" or address what the conversion rate should be, but it could potentially help lessen the "bad experience" that some will be having... but I guess it can also creates other problems, and also don't know if it's actually technically feasible at this point in time, so its probably better to keep working on, what people would think is a fair conversion rate.

[upbeat lantern]

yea
one one hand it doesn't adress the problem, on the other hand it opens the door for what the council tried to avoid with making the proposal an EP.

[timid dawn]

I would disagree. It's fine for unclaimed crates but anyone that turned the crates in for fuel didn't get to use the bonus system and now their purchasing power is ass with the new system.

[timber yarrow]

Furthermore...
@odd yarrow
I knew back in Nov/December there would be significant ramifications for Zero back when the whole talk of fuel rework began. I messaged @covert marsh @severe plover to try and find out if the fuel rework would be good or bad for landholders. Of course they were people with integrity and couldn't speak about it because of NDA. But they knew... even though they couldn't speak about it... how negatively it would impact landholders and anyone holding fuel. Eventually @limpid steeple hit me up and same thing... he also has integrity and couldn't speak about things. That's a shitty place to put those people... knowing the new system would have adverse consequences to a subsect of the playerbase for several months. Terrible.

[covert marsh]

it has been terrible

thanks for noticing that mega

i knew it's gonna be impactful for landholders. i thought ill be ready and well prepared for this.
but the past few days proved to me im not

im just holding on to my faith in the team that these changes are necessary pain for a better future

[severe plover]

Thanks Mega - appreciate you noticing 👍

It was a tough tightrope to maneuver for several months and even after I resigned (still under the NDA for what i knew from my time on council)

It comes with the responsibilities of being on council and privy to information. As well as helping gather information without divulging information....

I kept playing zero everyday and continue (or try to). The impact was going to hit hardest to landholders, especially those that bought at the sale - it hurts, it makes me sad 😔

Not to throw fuel on the fire or deviate from this conversation too much... but there are 80k more plots that are still pending release... and tier 5 plots. Since there is no more "demand vs. Supply" someone on IMC or ICC should start reviewing a certain proposal that outlines the release of those plots (hint hint nudge nudge)

(Ricky outty- back to work)

[covert marsh]

i think rn its pretty clear that selling more plot is a very bad idea

when the plot price is way below average mint price

[upbeat lantern]

he might not have hinted to sell them.
Anyways... completely different topic 🙂

[limpid steeple]

he gave me more hints. time for me to go and fly into more governance fun!

[upbeat lantern]

https://tenor.com/view/pug-funny-animals-stairs-one-step-at-a-time-pup-gif-16521383

[covert marsh]

we gonna have our weekly imc meeting in 10 hours,
So what is the conclusion here? U guys just want better conversion rate? Ru ok with the new pricing?

[wary quarry]

Thank goodness for @covert marsh and the landholders that supported him back in the fall for Epoch 10. He is the only IMC member who publicly posted his opposition to EP-1. This now the Landholders fight to push back, try to reason with Labs, and make it clear what the stakes are for them. If this gets implemented it takes Land NFTs essentially to zero. So if you are holding Zero NFTs and you care about your capital it is time to grow a spine and at least state your case.

[upbeat lantern]

EP got approved from all councils

afaik

[wary quarry]

Jag opposed it, and he stated it in his vote in the council chambers.

[covert marsh]

i opposed using an EP

for this exact reason

[upbeat lantern]

I'm not too impressed by words if the action goes into the other direction tbh.

[wary quarry]

Understood. I am content that Jag 'did what he could' and operates in good faith. The elected IMC is powerless.

[covert marsh]

tbf i believe all IMC acted in good faith

and also the team

[winged granite]

https://tenor.com/view/the-simpson-people-power-gif-8939538
Don't be rigid, don't rug zero!

[covert marsh]

like seriously no one here is purposely trying to harm the community which is the customer

i think whats happening is choosing the lesser evil out of a bad system to make something good out of it

[winged granite]

Don't lie to me after reading them post about the great idea of stacking some fuel at lower prices. Maybe not purposely but it did hurt

[wary quarry]

1. validate this proposal can be implemented by Labs before migration takes place. 2. payout Beyond proceeds and demonstrate RevDis prior to migration. 3. Peg fuel to a unit price of USDC that can only be adjusted/modified by elected members of the IMC/ICC.

[wary quarry]

where is the system my friend? how are they going to implement this proposal? it is stone cold silence from Labs when you ask any tactical questions. this is going to be a shit show once it actually tries to get implemented.

customers should be made right before any changes. this starts with settling the aggressily delayed RevDis from Beyond sales and any other in-game revenue that has not been paid out to date.

[covert marsh]

i think thats a reasonable ask

[upbeat lantern]

maybe check out https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1347194091418419352 before meeting 🙂

[wary quarry]

how would reconcile literally thousands upon thousands of micro transactions that are off chain on a monthly basis and then precisely account for them against an adjusted revenue period over say 30 days?

I run an operation that processes thousands of transactions per month for others and I respect how difficult it is...we use the best AI and automation in the game...it still huge over head to get right.

[covert marsh]

already a second thread....

[upbeat lantern]

different topic

[timber yarrow]

Conversion rate should be pegged to the price fuel was at when the decision was made to overhaul fuel. Because that is the point when fuel should have been discontinued from sale or at the very least announce that the new fuel would be given at a conversion rate. Neither of those things happened... so conversion rate should be pegged to that point in time.

As for price of ADR and OW
My opinion is that very few sales will happen for OW and ADR until there is significant utility for owning the NFTs no matter what the price. So figuring out pricing for current demand and projected demand seems difficult. I don't really have enough data to make a claim of what pricing should be.

[kindred cove]

I don't understand, you just had to warn us a few months in advance of the future changes to give us time to prepare (stop buying fuel and spend the fuel in stock)......

[wary quarry]

My recommendation for fuel conversion rate. Peg it to a stable power of ten unit of USDC. So it should be either $0.01 or $0.001 or $0.0001. Otherwise, there is absolutely no hope that the day-to-day accounting can be done accurately and proficiently. ZERO probability.

And if you do not, you will confuse the hell out of the customer. Who will never trust the numbers! The long-term cost of distrust is an immeasurable expense. Nobody will ever buy Land NFTs again.

[covert marsh]

ill forward this

[iron harbor]

You know what I don't get. If Council and Team knew this was going to happen why not limit the amount of fuel people could hold in their wallets or purchase? Is that really hard to do from a programming stand point? Would it have taken hours, days, weeks, months?
Honestly asking as I have no clue about how to do things like that but it seems it would have solved a lot of issues now.

[timber yarrow]

Team willingly selling fuel for months while also knowing fuel would be converted at the lowest rate possible without making the community privy is the equivalent of skam. I don't believe they intended this... but it is the outcome and therefore I expect they will change things.

[stable sentinel]

you expect too much.

[stable sentinel]

the whole economy could have been saved with a single line of code. They just had to pause the 19x dao fuel printing. This is not about programming difficulties it's about incompetence and lack of vision.

[timber yarrow]

If not the skam will now be attached to this change... I doubt they want that

[timber yarrow]

10:1 would be ok

[wary quarry]

I suspect that the "emergency" was to allow folks to spend with Stripe directly (w/o crypto). Thus, Zero Fuel MUST be changed....tell me its not so? @upbeat lantern @stable sentinel

[wary quarry]

What is sad is i had to implore scoriox to appeal to Kieran for stripe so we got away from a shit onramp. Zero innovation or ambition exhibited by the team on the Stripe front.

[upbeat lantern]

https://tenor.com/view/dont-know-idk-dunno-no-idea-no-clue-gif-22858277

[upbeat lantern]

since <@&814435151307866142> had a meeting last night, i would love to get some feedback.
Was this topic talked about?
Will parameters get changed?
Has IMC got some numbers to actually analyse the situation?
What's the next step?

[wary quarry]

I second @upbeat lantern

[timber yarrow]

https://tenor.com/view/thinking-batman-uhmm-gif-13580262

[covert marsh]

[stable sentinel]

https://tenor.com/view/puppet-awkward-looking-what-side-eye-gif-15476992

[covert marsh]

we had a meeting and we talked about the pricing. We havent talked about the conversion rate.
it was a short meeting because scruba wasnt unavailable for this change of schedule and kieran was very sick.
we will have another meeting on monday.
i did speak with perry in the council chat. ive asked kieran if we can say something about it.
thats all i can say rn

[wary quarry]

Good job Fight for ILV

Think we need to call a "Fuel Summit" to Make Fuel Great Again. Get on a live call and share some live discourse to substantiate why this is justified for Landholders.

[timber yarrow]

Appreciate it. If nothing gets done about it I plan to make a mission out of bringing awareness to the injustice.

And I don’t wanna do that

[covert marsh]

yea the council is definitely aware of the sentiment.
but i dont and cant say anything until we discuss it further or given permission to talk with the community about it, since it is a very sensitive matter

[covert marsh]

like a ICCP?

[timber yarrow]

Understandable… Ty for your work

[timber yarrow]

Whatever means necessary

[upbeat lantern]

can you make sure at least one of the council shares a feedback in here right after the meeting?

[wary quarry]

Prompted Gemini to run a comparison between the written EP-1 and the original landsale page (/news/51-illuvium-land-sale-explained), and it easily captured the dilemma at hand in 3 points with no further prompting.

To articulate the potential issues to a board of directors, it's important to highlight the apparent contradictions between the "IIP-EP-1 - Illuvium - Fuel Exchange and Economic Model Rework" and the "Illuvium Land Sale Explained" documents.

Potential Concerns

• Impact on Land Value: The changes proposed in IIP-EP-1 could negatively impact the perceived value of Illuvium Land, as the ability to generate and sell fuel at a market-driven price was a key selling point.
• Landowner Dissatisfaction: Landowners who purchased plots based on the original economic model may be dissatisfied with the changes, potentially leading to negative sentiment and a loss of trust in the project.
• Centralization: Fixing the fuel price and controlling its distribution centralizes the fuel economy, potentially diminishing the decentralized nature of the Illuvium ecosystem.

To summarize, IIP-EP-1 fundamentally alters the fuel economy as it was initially presented during the Land Sale. This shift could have considerable implications for land values, landowner satisfaction, and the overall decentralization of the Illuvium ecosystem.

[timber yarrow]

Any lawyers familiar with crypto in the Zero community? Might be worthwhile to consider class action options

[covert marsh]

i cant force anyone to do anything

[covert marsh]

ok i have tried my best to ask the other IMC to comment

my advice, if the community wants to do an ICCP you should do it before EP-1 gets implemented

[wary quarry]

sound advice. you got my vote if I still hold any ILV.

[covert marsh]

all i care is to finish this epoch without being called a rugger

so will try my best to do whats right

one of the issue is we let landholders to send fuel to OW without creating a sell order on the FEX.
that means those fuel are created for "free" not bought which can create a fuel debt to the dao

[wary quarry]

well then I ask the IMC to fair review the IIP and comment in the open before the final vote. I and the entire community got rugged with IIP-64 and I got the receipts. Might be the time to show the cards.

[covert marsh]

i pinged @frail pike asking why he let landowners to send fuel to OW without creating a sell order to maintain the 1:19 ratio, still hasnt got a reply

practically bypassed the dao's revdis

[wary quarry]

@frail pike @craggy saffron now would be a great time to play the hero in the story. this is unjust and will stain illuvium. the mod @upbeat lantern that slaved as a volunteer for this project for 3 years started this thread and the founders should step in and finish it in public. the sale of land preserved this project’s reputation through the bear market and compromise is warranted. this path you are going down will not end well. <@&814435151307866142>

[desert river]

id be happy with a 1:30 ratio on fuel.. fair to say theres always be an advantage for early birds in any web3 project. .
whilst i understand the dao doesnt want to devalue all the other products, it feels like the strategy is to control the market. personally, i feel you shouldn't be trying to control something that should be considered a free market.
If the Dao is worried about overflow in the market place.. maybe consider a burning mechanism for skins/ battle boards/ rewards as a preventable measure

[wary quarry]

Gemni, Grok, and Common Sense agrees with you

[covert marsh]

ive provided the imc with various conversion rates and the resulting values in USD.

hopefully when they have a chance to look at it, we can work out a better conversion rate

[wary quarry]

leadership!

[upbeat lantern]

it doesn't seem that Councils are of the opinion that another rate makes sense, since they approved current rate and are not willing to share in this thread after multiple pings that they want something to change.
Therefore writing an ICCP, hoping there are 25 community member left in this discord interested in governance to vote it in, to then just be declined by imc which again approves the current ratio, doesn't make much sense.
Therefore if you are asking community members to write an ICCP you are basically asking to write a VONC first (which we all know are useless except for throwing mud arround in peoples faces) and then do an ICCP with hope that the new council would approve it.
A VONC to the whole IMC next to the rugg accusations would be detrimental for the whole project, especially if that thematics are floating arround on the discord and social media right before labs want to push marketing again.
I guess IMC is well aware of the current situation and and are also well aware that those people willing to write proposals are well aware of that fact aswell, and therefore letting the community no choice than getting rugged and pray that this topic will vanish out of discussions before marketing starts.

[covert marsh]

im asking for a delay, at least to give time for imc to meet again

[upbeat lantern]

that's totally fair.
Was an unfortunate coincidence that Kieran was sick and scruba not available to attend the meeting.

The reason i asked if there could be an immediate feedback of council after the meeting is because i want to hold back on writing a proposal before IMC had the chance to properly discuss it again after the ratio didn't applease pretty much the whole community, and the timewindow to act to change the ratio as a normal community member is very short and closing.

[wary quarry]

you are right because and we have both experienced this futility of the IIP process. This should come down to integrity of the founder’s words and reputation. @craggy saffron has set a precedent with his public relations that the fuel rate should land at .3 to .5 of the “top rail” that we just now learn was targeting a $1,500 creature capturer. Well, show some integrity and proceed with ~0.4. rate of conversion.

The players should be given an option to swap for the in-game IP or ETH, or it's a breach of contract from the landsale. If you need to protect the rarity of certain illuvials, come up with some BS mechanism, such as Tier XYZ requires XYZ in addition to fuel. KISS common sense, but do not ruin ILVs reputation. You destroy $60M+ of capital, and you are begging to create an army of militant TROLLS until the day this IP dies. It's a dumb strategy when you are down to your last legs of capital.

[wary quarry]

By the way, the value of ETH is below the land sale back on June 22, so what I am proposing is already punishment enough. If Labs really wanted to use this as an opportunity to build goodwill, it would get us off this dying token and settle everything in USDC. This would simplify everything by a scale of magnitude and could actually tease new comers to consider buying land (novel idea). If you destroy "$72M" of capital from the landsale, do you think anyone ever is going to show a vote of confidence in your iP? Get real.

[timber yarrow]

Yah breach of contract is one option to explore

[wary quarry]

Kieran's AMA, '...maybe 1,000 to 2,000 players who want to part with a lot of money to collect all of the illuvials.' so here is the math 1,000 x $1,500 = $1.5M gross or 1,000*$300 = $300,000...2x the $1,500 target and its to $3M or $600K customer lifetime value of season 1 illuvial collection. He referred to this as "a shit ton of revenue." Are we doing all of this to fulfill that strategy? This covers 1-2/months of runway and exhausts the theoretically full addressable market of whales per Kieran's statement? Where is the proforma? Where is the Go To Market plan? The DAO should be asking serious Qs at this point.

[dense oasis]

the ratio didn't applease pretty much the whole community

To be fair, I don't think any ratio would have pleased the community. The sad underlying reality is that there are flaws in the Illuvium ecosystem, and holders will often lose value when those variables are adjusted for improvement.

If we keep focusing on "maximizing value for early adopters," Illuvium is just digging a deeper hole for itself, making it harder and harder for us to succeed. The priority should always be "giving the project the best chance of long-term success".

[covert marsh]

i disagree

we need to balance between project's survival and maintaining holders' value

how can the project has long term success if people no longer believe in the project

sure we can keep paying expenses with the $9m left in the treasury, and then what?
how can we attract new players and investors if our current ones decide that this is a rug?

[covert marsh]

i believe we (council and team) have made a bad approach in solving these issues.
Let's own it and make amends.

[timber yarrow]

This is the sentiment that will continue to spread...
It is not that actions taken for Illuvium survival is bad... it's that the way they go about it is terrible and negligent... Especially the fuel conversion... not forewarning of how it would happen and letting people continue to buy fuel for months. And by breaking trust from original land path. Zero hasn't been development in earnest for a long time. So landowners just have to say... oh well, they are abandining land and focussing on arena and mmo... okay - keep smiling

I only see Jag trying to facilitate... but I don't really see anyone else on the team or council interested in resolving... just seems like, let's plow ahead and this will blow over

[iron harbor]

Investors take hits to try to ensure long-term success to get future profits. Customers do not. Illuvium now has customers to worry about. People are paying for products.

No one expects someone who buys a shirt to care about whether or not the store they buy from will be there 5 years in the future. They care that they are getting value for their money and the store has to keep them feeling they are or they will shop elsewhere.

Most of the customers Illuvium has currently know the situation. They do want Illuvium to succeed and that helps.

I will take hits for Illuvium. I care more than maybe I should about it succeeding. But I don't expect everyone to feel that way and I sure don't expect people on the outside who haven't played yet to feel that way.

I don't know what the answer is in this situation tbh. I don't have the numbers. I am scared that we could lose paying players because of this and if there is a way to minimize that then the council and team should re-evaluate.

[iron harbor]

I have already written a wall of text that most won't read so I may as well get it all out.

Where is our IMC? With the exception of Jag, they have been nearly silent. I think Scoriox made 2 posts, can't remember for sure and I am not scrolling back.

Maybe if the council we elected had been here helping smooth things over this would have gone better.

[dense oasis]

Of course, when I talked about "giving the project the best chance of long-term success," I was referring to happy customers and an existing user base. How can we have long-term success if we don’t have users? The key here is balance. And another key is communication and transparency.

[odd yarrow]

web3 gaming: when customers become investors and investors become customers 😅

[signal geyser]

I regretted it. It was a mistake to invest in this game.

[winged granite]

Would like to see more numbers from the team regarding the approach. Another issue that I see is the current price of illuvials. We are proposing a conversion of 1:89 to protect our future economy and revenue. On the other hand we have more than 100 t5s3 listed below 50$ in the marketplace right now while on average it would take us roughly 100$ to pull one in the future. We are rewarding the sellers, that probably have minimal asset exposure, by pushing up the floor price. In the meantime we punish investors and expect this thousands of dollars floor price 'problem' to somewhat resolve itself? How many new players will prefer buying packs instead of buying straight marketplace for a fraction of the price? Buying packs and then finding out will leave a bad taste in their mouth and is bad for retention. I've seen this happen multiple times in games with pack opening experiences, for example gods unchained.

[upbeat lantern]

i disagree.
Bring forward a reasonable approach and the most people might feel bad in the first moment, but understand why a specific converion has to happen.
But creating a formula with the approach of "how can we delete as much old fuel as possible" is resulting in what's happening... distrust, anger, uncertainty etc.

I don't think anyone who wrote in this thread is sitting here "noice, how can i abuse this change to maximize my profits" i think majority of those people who are actually affected are interested in the long term success of this IP.
Also, we don't have seen any numbers yet and is hard to quantify, but this approach with this rate is likely to suck way more value out of the IP than a lower reasonable conversion rate would.

[subtle pike]

I think this is very true, when items are tradeable everything is more or less an investment, that’s why many governments consider the gains taxable.

I also think some here have these grifter language again and just wanna hate on team for hindsight reasons.
Like the group that wanted to make Zero Securities.

Issue stands though that Illuvium so far has always chosen to be short term revenue > sentiment/returns for asset owners/buyers (obv some especially with land were expecting peak Axie revenue, so they won’t be happy no matter what).

But like torial said this time it is about the actual gaming assets, very devastating precedent, if those get soft rugged, worse than land/roi, that’s tied to revenue and nothing else anyways or popularity or pfps etc.

Short term revenue would also have been fine approach if launch success or any timely success would have given good metrics and washed away the earlier pain, but it feels like we are quite far away from those.
Not only due to ILV fault but markets are down, liquidity is drained, gaming isn’t the hype thing atm, web2 is cope atm, etc.

[covert marsh]

this is how i calculate the fuel debt using difference conversion rates.
note that the supply of Old Fuel is under NDA, so i just put 100 millions there. i will update the calculation once they give me permission to share the number.
some people in the community is asking to use the fuel price in november 2024.
im guessing fuel bonus was around 2000% and eth was $4k, so about 4x of current price. so about 1:20 ?
maybe someone can help letting me know the fuel price in november.

right table shows the differences in "ingame purchasing power"
note that the illuvials rarity will be increased. the amount of increase is also under NDA.

[wary quarry]

@odd yarrow Since nobody cares about the customer/investor, how about we just 89:1 reduce the RevDis to ILV stakers and the DAO treasury and redistribute that ratio to Landholders? 👀

Commercial Break from the world of imagination saga: Remember the 89:1 comes after the 75% production in fuel production and not performing for over 30 months on what you sold. When you did perform the primary demand, the generator for the product (OW) was self-admitted by the founders of the project as totally "under cooked." OK, let's keep the ludicrous conversation about how landholders should shut up, smile, and write down their entire investment.

[iron harbor]

Yeah, the blurred lines make things difficult to say the least. I don't envy you. Hard enough to be in a spot where you are trying to make people happy and make money to pay the bills with regular customers.

[odd yarrow]

Illuvium so far has always chosen to be short term revenue > sentiment/returns for asset owners/buyers

Could you provide some examples? Curious what comes to mind first for you

[wary quarry]

Suggest retitling IIP-EP-1: Emergency Confiscation of Fuel

[iron harbor]

It's good to see it laid out Jag, thanks for this. Another thing to note along with Illuvial rarity increase is that with the new runs we don't have the forging costs. The old runs there was the fuel cost for the actual run but also the fuel costs to make shards, suits, weapons, gems. I don't know what the cost of those microtransactions averaged. Not sure how many in this thread have tried the OW on Testnet. I have only done a few runs but the rare Illuvial rates do seem significantly higher and the shards as well, more resplendents than before.

The fusing costs are much higher now. Depending on what wallets are holding the fuel; what Illuvials they have in them and what their past playstyle has looked like, would depend on how much fuel would be burned up there rather than in runs.

Your chart does make it obvious that a 1:1 fuel conversion isn't reasonable.

[odd yarrow]

The fusing costs are so high because we want to try what the game feels like in "capture first"-mode rather than "fuse first"-mode

We want to preserve some rarity between stages and tier so this means something has to give which is cost

Alternatively, we could ask for more input illuvials for a fuse, but not sure how the community would react to that, I'll put it out there

Would help as a burning mechanism as well if people will use it

[stable sentinel]

just give us a XP burning mechanism... No need to re-invent the wheel. This was exactly what you did for skins and the only thing it accomplished was players crafting less skins. Why did it increase to 3 burnt illuvials instead of 1?

[stable sentinel]

even if you want the game to feel like in "capture first"-mode rather than "fuse first"-mode why does it have to be so darn expensive...

[covert marsh]

thanks torial.
yes, 1:1 is definitely not possible because the cost of run in fuel is decreased while, as you said, rarity increased and some costs are removed.
i will speak with the imc tomorrow, and maybe we can review the differences in conversion rates

[upbeat lantern]

i don't think if you calculate with old pricing vs new pricing you will ever make a customer happy.
It feels like altering the value of already sold products and now you trying to find a balance of not hurting your former customers too much but still be able to burn as much fuel as possible.
What's the reasoning for this approach other than "there's too much fuel minted for a too low price"?

An approach i would rather like to see is calculating the difference of old fuel cost per run with new fuel cost per run.
With a multiplier expressing how much more value you can take out of new runs compared to old runs.
Something like following pic: (Loot efficiency Value i obviously picked just random numbers, that's something perry would have to quantify)
I'm also no math genius, so i might have calculated it wrong 😄 but you get the point i guess.

[odd yarrow]

because otherwise it wouldn't be "capture first" mode

[potent lance]

That's right. And that's why Illuvium has failed so far. You need to get away from that web3 mindset. Otherwise Illuvium may just disappear after the bull market.

Every web3 part you tried to implement into the game has failed so far. Fuel as a token has been canceled, NFT items are now being removed from the game, land value collapsed, Illuvial value trending to zero, fuel value going to zero. Despite the fact that NFTs caused a bad experience ingame (minting issues) your main mistake has been to attract web3 players by promising things that are out of your control. You said what land ROI they could expect, you tried to predict the average fuel price, you set a price tag on a full Illuvials collection and you promised that they will increase in value by setting them on a bonding curve which would increase their rarity.

And now you are doing the same thing again. Your main argument for fuel conversion rate is that you want the Illuvials collection having x value and players now already got Illuvials for cheap. You are trying to promote an open market and are now punishing players because they got Illuvials "too cheap". You simply cannot predict what Illuvials will be worth because in the end players will decide what they want to pay for the collection. Trying to enforce a price on any NFT in the Illuvium universe has failed for every asset so far.

The thing you should do is set a price tag on the time a player is playing and having fun. You should pivot away from trying to sell NFTs and glorify pack openings into trying to sell an awesome gaming experience where player want to pay money for the time they play not for the assets they own. We are years away to be able to see what an Illuvials collection will be worth

Just make the change and set 1 fuel = 0.01$ and then we have to wait for the MMO to see what players are willing to pay. Stick to your goal to reach 100k+ players and grow the game. No need to extract the maximum value out of the few hundreds(?) players who may be left

[stable sentinel]

well I gotta say. This approach is completely wrong. At least if you're keeping the OW. Increasing the drop rates just to justify the increased pricing is such a bad move and shows you guys don't understand the essence of OW. I don't care if the run is packed with T5S2's or 3's if I have to pay 9 $ to play 30 minutes...

the playing costs are insane. And stages should never be gated by wallet size but by the player's progression in the game.

I played over 1000 hours to find a single T5S3 to now getting one on the first run I do.

you guys are playing with fire with all the changes you're making.

what's the point of such an increase in rarity when you don't even have energy to catch half of the stuff that shows and have to leave so much behind? Just gives a bad feeling that's all...

[odd yarrow]

Every web3 part you tried to implement into the game has failed so far. Fuel as a token has been canceled, NFT items are now being removed from the game, land value collapsed, Illuvial value trending to zero, fuel value going to zero. Despite the fact that NFTs caused a bad experience ingame (minting issues) your main mistake has been to attract web3 players by promising things that are out of your control. You said what land ROI they could expect, you tried to predict the average fuel price, you set a price tag on a full Illuvials collection and you promised that they will increase in value by setting them on a bonding curve which would increase their rarity.

I personally never said this, we as Labs might have, I don't have all external communications top of mind

But:

• Land ROI they could expect
• tried to predict average fuel price
• set a price acquisition cost tag on full illuvials
• bonding curve which would increase their rarity make their acquisition cost higher (damn, hope we didn't use the word promise here

We, as Labs, should be very careful about these kinds of statements

Your main argument for fuel conversion rate is that you want the Illuvials collection having x value

Not really, I want their acquisition cost to not be extremely low, which is, imo, a FACTOR of value but not equivalent to value

You are trying to promote an open market and are now punishing players because they got Illuvials "too cheap"

Illuvial hoarders are not punished at all imo, the acquisition cost for their illuvials went up 10x vs before, I don't think that's a punishment.

[stable sentinel]

bonding curve should just go away tbh... It's only something that ends up favoring early players.

I don't see how the bonding curve adds anything to the game

[odd yarrow]

I want OW to be this game as well, but it is currently not, it's a gamified pack opening and it is economically balanced for that

The market did not like that game as much as so we are pivoting to turning it into a MMO-lite with good gameplay first, cool economy second

[stable sentinel]

"The market did not like that game" - saying this while having an incomplete game loop, overpriced fuel costs and a broken economy shouldn't really come as a surprise.

[odd yarrow]

I don't think in $ for gameplay time terms because I don't value the gameplay time as much

[stable sentinel]

but I get it OW isn't meant to be played. Just close it. Almost no one will play at these prices.

[stable sentinel]

and that's why the OW is doomed as a game.

[odd yarrow]

If the gameplay loop was solid and the market liked it, I would change that statement instantly ofc and balance the economy around it

[stable sentinel]

you guys never really gave it a shot. Because of a bad economic model.

I had to spend thousands of $ just to play the game. If it wasn't for the airdrop I would had never spent as much. The moment the airdrop stopped I stopped playing as well because it was simply too expensive to play the game. And I only returned once fuel prices dropped significantly.

[odd yarrow]

But there's the thing, just because I think this doesn't mean it's true and I can be very wrong

[stable sentinel]

in any case the game was never fun enough. They should have simply kept the orb wakes and stick to the initial vision. Would have saved us all a lot of time, money and frustration.

[odd yarrow]

We can lower prices and put less rare illuvials in runs, not too hard to rebalance

If people think in $/gameplay terms then why not

[stable sentinel]

when there's no other game to play, how do you think ppl would think?

it has always been about $/gameplay time...

[odd yarrow]

Arena is not a game?

[stable sentinel]

arena is a niche game... and you need to play OW to level up illuvials for the arena

we all got hooked on the premise that the competitive scene for leviathan would start soon

and here we are today still with no arena...

[odd yarrow]

For me personally, I did some "start from scratch" runs for OW testing the economy and I personally kinda like the first 5-10 hours of it quite a bit. But once you clear S3 runs consistently there's nothing left for me. If within those first 5-10 hours you can "buy your way to endgame", just loses all meaning for me

[stable sentinel]

fusing is very addicting. But it's a pain to have to level up the illuvials.
if I could burn illuvials for levels I would be spamming fusions all day

[stable sentinel]

after a while of consistently clearing S3's the thrill comes from hunting good illuvials that could be used for fusion. At least for me that was it.

it's the only thing that the game has anyway, since there's no progression system for the ranger nor an engaging combat.

[iron harbor]

Depends on how many more Illuvials it would take?

I understand why you want to make it capture first but that is an easier sell with ADRs. OW runs have a different TM imo. People who do runs will spend effort over money to try to get the perfect Illuvial. I question whether the same luck of the draw system will be more fun for them and therefore get them spending the most money over a fusing focused system. We can't make every Illuvial in a run have high stats or stats become worthless. In ADRs it takes very little time to open between packs so it's OK if there are a lot of Illuvials between high stat ones. There is such low effort that the brain just wants to try again, try again, try again. This is not the same for runs, there is too much effort, the brain instead says to just give up. Unless it has a goal with a reward it views as worth it. Seeing higher Tiers and Stages will work for awhile because we aren't used to them but after a bit that will become the norm. We need there to be an attainable goal that makes it worth going back in. Which isn't a "chance" at a rare encounter but instead a fuse with almost a guarantee that what you put in is what you get out - sometimes a little less lucky and sometimes a little more lucky - but nothing wildly unpredictable. We can't make OW runs have less good things to find than ADRs or people will feel cheated but I'm not sure the price difference between the two is enough of a draw without using fusing as a draw. I think we have two different brain types and should cater to each. ADRs are for those who want low effort, high risk and runs for low risk, high effort.

Maybe give people the option right in game. Spend more Illuvials to lower your cost - like with morphopods in Zero. Could even do levels with that - the higher the level the less the cost, that way people who are spending on the runs are spending less on the fuse. But not sure how hard that would be from a programming angle.

[stable sentinel]

Torial gets it 👆

[stable sentinel]

one question though, if you spend more illuvials for fusion to lower the cost wouldn't they influence the hexagon outcome?

[iron harbor]

Yes. The most controlled fuse you would have is if you went out and levelled up 3 Illuvials and then spent more. The least controlled fuse would be throwing in a gazillion level 1s.
I don't think that is a bad thing.

[stable sentinel]

one thing I think the game is missing is the evolving option without fusion. If I have a perfect atlas I would like to evolve it at some point to an axon and axodon eventually. Even if it meant having to gain XP to lvl 60 and resetting XP back to lvl 20.

but I digress, sorry guys. Won't spam it here anymore.

[iron harbor]

That would actually be a cool idea. It would encourage doing runs with the Illuvial so the money for Illuvium would be made that way. It would have to be a hard slog though since it is a guarantee.

But yeah, I guess this is off topic.😂

[timber yarrow]

It’s pretty simple.
The EP will cause more harm for the project than benefit because of trail of distrust it adds to.

I 100% want illuvium to succeed. I have been here for a good long while now and I enjoy aspects of the ecosystem. I have been very patient and forgiving along the way… albeit frustrated at times. This last maneuver with fuel conversion and devaluing land without communication was over the line for me.

I’m hanging around until the outcome finally settles. But if it isn’t altered appropriately then illuvium loses another top customer.

[timber yarrow]

Things that should be altered:

• Enable sending X amount of fuel from plot to account
• Peg conversion rate to when fuel overhaul began (Nov/Dec)
• Actively develop Zero along with the other games (even if it is only one advocate - like Beyond has Rogier... Zero needs a Rogier)

I accept land decoupling from the ecosystem and creating a unified fuel system. I think it's a good pivot But how it is being handled Fuks over a lot of ppl.

[potent lance]

You are right. Your wording sounds correct here. Idk who exactly made the statements about land ROI, fuel prices or Illuvial costs. But as a player we see that they are far away from reality which reduces the trust into the team. Seeing now that the team again tries to predict the value of Illuvials based on the new acquisition cost doesn't look to promising tbh.

The way of the implementation of the change and the change itself are destroying the trust even more. You could argue that we are still in Beta and big changes are to be expected but it is concerning how it is implemented. You are shutting down OW and announce afterwards that the fuel will be devalued (by increasing the acquisition cost by 10x) and converting every fuel by 1:90 without giving the player any chance to react. I did not expect such a drastic change from a game studio that promotes ownership of assets and the ability to trade them. So how can anyone be sure that there won't be another devaluation or change in acquisition cost in the future if the DAO is not happy about the current price of Illuvials?

Raising acquisition cost by 10x doesn't benefit the Illuvials holder at all as long as there is no demand for Illuvials. The value of the Illuvials won't change (for now). It would just be nice to see that there is finally some change in demand instead of altering with the supply again and again.

[subtle pike]

To me things like price adjustments on beyond d1sks/alphas, it was very clear going into wave 2 you´d sell far less even at lower price and wave 2 and maybe waves after that would be more scarce than wave 1 (market conditions and further delays on ILV-launch), which was marketed as this super special first wave and product etc.

Could have airdropped d1sks to wave 1 buyers/holders e.g., but then you miss on first hand revenue and only make trading fees.

Labs often said many things about wanting to do good for the og-creators as well, but realistically ranging from early access to any creator program those never happened to the level that was teased and were in favor of new creators, who had larger followings talking about other projects first and before.

Not saying I don´t understand or agree with it short term, but longterm picture on it sucks and makes you lose these early core community people. If you can´t replace them quickly, bit tough and that´s imo how it played out.

Re Land, could certainly have made an IIP saying current holders will get future land airdropped instead of new auctions, if you do that not all at once, you obv have sell pressure, but not to an extent of killing floor/value entirely. giving future airdrop benefit might make people value land more atm as well. (obv this could still ahppen, but has been opposed severly by Labs/Dao as far as I am aware.)

Starting Fuel cost at upper rail, could be argued was also a short term revenue gain, bad for anyone who bought assets obtained that way, not entirely understanding how the economy and fuel work, which again sure they could know better, but most didn´t, that´s why people complained a lot about costs as well.

Having silv2 and crates only buy at upper rail.

Current debate of soft rugging people who did understand how fuel works.

Could even argue that around launch we still had the idea any Illuvial would have value, which then was shifted to only ones with good stats matter, as that’s the new game mode main thing.

In the end I´d agree with a lot of this could be argued people should have known better, but whenever they didn´t it ended up in max revenue favor, not in creating value for customers favor imo.
So we can argue this is very hindsight, but if someone makes a timeline of what happened in Illuvium the last few years they would come to that conclusion, which is a very bad brand to have.
And it doesn´t matter that much how rational some of those thoughts or conclusions are, if people think that way and talk/present it it that, tough, then at the very least they were given wrong expectations to some extent.

[wary quarry]

ILV just sunk to new lows, breaking the bear market support bands. Capital tends to flow to confidence...

[subtle pike]

Bro eth just dropped to 2k, close to everything drops.

[wary quarry]

in terms of 'relative strength' ILV is hitting new all-time lows.

ILV has lost value against BTC, ETH, and SOL almost every week for 4 years.

[subtle pike]

We had a bear market, not much new capital flowing into the space and the capital we had rotated between ai/memes, got burned in memes.
Obv non ai/meme tokens do bad compared to the majors.
Gaming isn´t doing well overall.

[wary quarry]

agreed and concur with your analysis. simply pointing towards an objective variable that supports the case of whatever we have been doing has not worked.

I believe over 50% of the landplots are controlled by long-term ILV holders although due to lack of transparency I cannot confirm this. If this trend continues then it might correlate to some degree with EP1

[subtle pike]

Land was mostly bought with silv2, so by people who had staked, fair thesis, likely not too hard to check on chain if you want to invest the time as well.

[wary quarry]

Perspective, ILV was tradaing higher when BTC hit ~$16,000.

[subtle pike]

yeah, many gaming tokens were, we didn´t have liquidity drained by ai/memes back then

star atlas was roughly 3x current price back then as well

Also you should look at fdv/market cap, not price anyways (yes fdv-price correlates)

But picking timeslot in the past, when staking/stakingrewards were things etc. inflated fdv compared to current fdv e.g.

[wary quarry]

ILV certainly has better tokenomics than most of GameFi, which helps the FDV/CAP argument.

Note: ILV is down 29% since we started debating EP1 in earnest on these feeds

[subtle pike]

I would bet money, that no one with size is trading based on these channels.

Correlation doesn´t mean causation or however you say that.
We could say eth is down since we started being mad about this idea as well.

[wary quarry]

ETH down 22% to be far...so relatively porportional

[subtle pike]

I guess ILV-governance impacts eth.

[wary quarry]

simply offering a potential point of confluence. Implement EP1 taking long-term holders assets essnetial to zero with land and watch the token closely is all I am saying.

ILV has broken all support bands is the bottomline TA

[subtle pike]

To fix any long term asset or token holders you need a product, that generates revenue or is expected to, so people buy on speculation.

We can argue how relevant sentiment from these long term holders or roughly 100 people who get soft rugged on fuel is though.

Sentiment of people who likely won´t be happy no matter what you do can be ignored imo, which likely includes land holders/early beyond buyers at this point, unless we have peak axie like revenue, well rip them (obv this includes me).
People did calculate rev dis and land revenue on those 1bil/year numbers after all back then.

[wary quarry]

you speak truth

[iron harbor]

Anyone who was going to sell token based on what team does with Illuvium Zero did it years ago.

[wary quarry]

no I think kain sold out in the last six months....a few whales dumped in the last 30-45 days.

[iron harbor]

So? That had nothing to do with what happened in the last couple days with IZ.

[wary quarry]

you got dumped on right before and after the landsale six months in advance of FTX collapse. go look at the charts

[subtle pike]

Smart people selling a gaming alt-coin before we have fear of trade wars etc. seems not out of place or project related potentially.
obv selling before number go down is smart, number did go down for pretty much all gaming

[iron harbor]

What I am saying is price right now of ILV has nothing to do with this conversation.

This market lately has been tough. People didn't get their Alt season and they are broke.

[subtle pike]

Other projects are down more even, look at prime, even though it is pretty much only positive news there.
Just more that goes into that than are few hyper engaged people happy or not.

[wary quarry]

of course

agreed macro is bad and the tightening liquidity cycle has been brutal...however, global liquidity trend is turning with 5% expansion YTD.

ETH is being eaten alive by the new tech in SOL, Sui, etc. DeFi summer for ETH will never come in my opinion.

[subtle pike]

Fair, but then why try to make it sound like ILV price correlates to any of these topics here?

[wary quarry]

Labs has no response to how they would even implement EP1...because there is none. This would create unknown amount of offchain microtransactions with fuel burns that would need to be balanced, reconciled, and paid on a monthly basis derived from revenue proceeds and converted into ETH if the proposal got implemented. So our bear bones team now is going to take in thousands of additional microtransactions on both the sell and buy side, account for them off chain, and reconcile dispursing 6,000 plots monthly payments.

They still never made the first payout for Beyond. This EP1 is a total joke that signals disparation.

[subtle pike]

Aren´t those $-owed numbers tiny though atm?, like w.e. if it is fixed at some point when the number isn´t tiny seems fine.

Isn´t this thread about soft rugging people on purchasing power in terms of illuvial-nfts anyways?

[wary quarry]

yes, I am off topic.

[subtle pike]

It doesn´t seem in land holders best interest to fix this to get a few cent or maybe dollar payment, as it prob reduces the revenue they could gain from having better products in the ecosytsem.

Then again, if council is 5-0 in favor of soft rugging, we prob just waste time here anyways.

[wary quarry]

no doubt = wasting time (only do this when performing my bubble clicks on IZ...waste of time as well)

[timber yarrow]

I provided three concrete amendments to the EP

They are relatively small changes that wouldn’t impact the ecosystem nearly as much as going through with the EP as is.

Sentiment erosion kills

@odd yarrow seems so worried landowners would over saturate the market with illuvials gotten with fuel transferred from land to account.

But here’s an analogy… you walk by a restaurant that has people eating in it and enjoying themselves. You are more likely to go in there than the restaurant next door that is empty and has a bad reputation. Make your customers happy and they spread the word… fuck over your customers and they spread the word. The latter isn’t ideal for project success.

[subtle pike]

My take is mostly if that worry with over saturating the market is that bad, they should just refund the eth used to purchase, make an IIP reduce from rev dis, so the impact on treasury is half? (Only the rev dis amount) or pay people in IlV instead of cash even.

I think it is outrageous to let the majority of fuel buys which going by this logic was to use later, just keep at it even though months before they internally said they do this.

Like actual rug people for some $ and have some higher MAU/DAU logic.

[subtle pike]

I also agree the mouth to mouth of this is very bad (X-timeline-mouth to mouth especially).

[potent lance]

Illuvium should better realize that numbers in a spreadsheet don't generate revenue, players do. Ofc you can't please everyone and some are only here to make money. But players who are still here are the true supporters and want the project to succeed. All the greedy airdrop farmers already left long time ago.

It just doesn't make sense to me to base Illuviums future on precise calculations made in spreadsheet when in reality players are rioting and nobody is left to play. The logic to force players into a system nobody wants doesn't work. Customers only pay when they are happy with the product, not because the game tells them to pay. And the fuel conversion rate feels forced and very unreasonable.

[potent lance]

The most frustrating part is that this thread is the most objective and non emotional discussion I have read here in a long time (or maybe ever). Although the topic is highly controversial and effects all players we are witnessing peak community feedback that should help the team and the game.

So we are discussing what was described as "one of the biggest updates in Illuvium’s history" and the whole <@&814435151307866142> is absent and silent. @covert marsh and @odd yarrow are the only ones here with us to help with the topic.
And where is the rest of the team? Why don't we get any data or comment that would help the discussion or at least show that the team still cares about what the community is thinking?

[onyx forge]

Dude I told the team and council it was a god awful idea the moment it was added 🤣🤣

[stable sentinel]

they were just trying to decrease the supply pressure at the time. The problem has always been on the fixed 19x. But I guess now it's too late and doesn't matter anymore.

[subtle pike]

Jag wants some popularity points, rest prob thinks they get the least uproar, negatively screenshotable comments if they just say nothing.
Obv no one impacted or currently/recently playing is happy about this.

I don’t fault them for this either, maybe correct strategy. Community at the same time seems in favor of reducing pay to up to 0, why bother and do anything, from an incentive pov.

[odd yarrow]

What multiplier should we use to not rug?

If you bought fuel at max rail at launch pre-supply nerf and then a bunch at the pico bottom, only giving out $ equal to the max rail is "not a rug"?

[odd yarrow]

Where can I read the amendments

[odd yarrow]

I know sentiment exists and has consequences, looking for compromises

[next elbow]

@odd yarrow think these are the amendments

[odd yarrow]

What conversion works for you?

[odd yarrow]

Enable sending X amount of fuel from plot to account

I can only look into this as an additional feature once we have a conversion rate that strikes a balance and not gonna risk another broken economy just to promise this feature

Peg conversion rate to when fuel overhaul began (Nov/Dec)

I'm not opposed to something in this direction, but we need some consensus

Actively develop Zero along with the other games (even if it is only one advocate - like Beyond has Rogier... Zero needs a Rogier)

Not up to me how much priority is given to Zero, I would love to be Zero's Rogier ;p

[subtle pike]

Maybe it is late and allergies bother me too much, but I don’t get this exactly.

[covert marsh]

I admitted that this was a mistake, it should have been done 3 months ago. And currently I am trying to amend the mistake by proposing a better conversion rate.
And after this we have a bigger issue, the $1m fuel crate airdrop (partly claimed) that is a MUCH bigger fuel debt than this AND the 2nd fuel crate airdrop, both which you approved. Don't forget you approved the top rail too with the fact that IZ didnt start launch before OW, while the new OW pricing and the ADR pricing were not consulted with us.

[subtle pike]

I think if you don’t want to refund, maintaining purchasing power in Illuvial terms seems correct, maybe find a compromise and reduce that even a bit, sure.
Idk exact economical numbers on how much fuel was expected to be needed to get e.g. a t5s1 before.
Was it roughly 2500? (Number made up from my experience playing) Maintain that maybe?

[potent lance]

It's hard to say without knowing the data and knowing how many fuel is in existence. So I can't know what is the best for the DAO.

But if I had to decide now from a player's and landholder's perspective I could see the following solution which could also help to shift the sentiment in the community:

1. Convert the fuel in players wallet 1:20. The reason for that is it would remove the whole fuel the DAO minted by converting 1 land holder fuel + 19 DAO fuel into 1 new fuel. The DAO could even argue that they remove the DAO fuel with his conversion rate and try to "fix" the broken old system.

2. Show some love to land holder. Transfer every fuel from land 1:1 into the land holders wallet. Why punish land holder even more? The fuel has to be spend in the Illuvium universe anyway and they can't directly profit from it.

[winged granite]

I could live with 1:10 if there's no other way, for the sake of moving forward. Cant turn it into dirty fiat anyway without demand for illuvials and the floor are stacked well below adr EV

[covert marsh]

I dont think we will give fiat tho, that would be a refund

[subtle pike]

Good question, how much fuel are we even talking about 100mil? 200mil? Less?

[covert marsh]

I know the estimate but cant say yet, i will ask for others to disclose

[odd yarrow]

We are already doing 2 btw 🙂

[covert marsh]

Perry has the numbers 👀

[odd yarrow]

Why are we not disclosing exactly?

[covert marsh]

NDA?

[subtle pike]

Do we also know roughly how much eth was used to buy that fuel?

[odd yarrow]

Why is this number under NDA?

[subtle pike]

In theory anyone could research on chain I believe, but a hustle.

[covert marsh]

If it's not then please share

[stable sentinel]

everything is NDA, that's the trick Perry, you still have much to learn.

[plain stream]

Jag has been active and openly participating in discord threads since 2021 at least, supporting some of the communities ideas (and his own) even though they were sometimes highly controversial. You know that because you've seen it aswel. And you accuse him to be seeking for popularity points?

[odd yarrow]

I don't know if it is, not my field ;p

[covert marsh]

IMC will have a meet in 2.5 hours tho

[odd yarrow]

you guys run this place remember and determine what's NDA and not, sounds like a good topic to discuss

[covert marsh]

I need to ask the rest of the IMC, which hasnt been around

[stable sentinel]

long live council

[next elbow]

oh i saw

[covert marsh]

https://tenor.com/view/jedi-starwars-mind-trick-obiwan-gif-685007112373189563

[stable sentinel]

https://tenor.com/view/its-just-kinda-wild-derek-muller-veritasium-its-weird-thats-strange-gif-25090675

[potent lance]

Then could you clarify how it will work? In the town hall you mentioned that every fuel on lands above the threshold of 1k will be sent to the players account. After that every fuel in your account will be migrated which would convert the landholders fuel 1:x too.

In my solution I was talking about leaving landholders fuel 1:1 in the players account. This means you would have to migrate first and then sent all landholders fuel into the account to keep it 1:1. So if someone has 100k fuel in their account and 6k fuel (2k crypton, 2k hyperion and 2k solon) on their land then you would migrate the 100k and after that add 3k fuel (1k crypton, 1k hyperion, 1k solon) from land.

[covert marsh]

So, we didnt have a meeting today due to mishap in google calendar still showing friday, and national holiday in AU.
I did requested perry to calculate the conversion rate in the week before we voted on EP-1 on 9th of december.
After the calculation is done, hopefully the IMC can vote to accept or reject it.
Worst case scenario, we have to write an ICCP to set the timeframe or set a new conversion rate

[odd yarrow]

Ah I misread, I don't think we should 1:1 anything, quite unfair for people who just transferred a lot to their account before the block

[upbeat lantern]

So wo basically had 4 options presented;

• rugg
• keep ingame purchasing power
• 1:1
• rugg a little less

Are we setteling now with "rugg a little less"?

[odd yarrow]

the two g's does it for me

[stable sentinel]

it's a rug G

[upbeat lantern]

What conversion Rate we are talking to keep up the ingame purchasing power?

[odd yarrow]

for illuvials?

[upbeat lantern]

Yes

[craggy saffron]

Hey everyone, acknowledging I’ve read this thread. I’ll post what I think the best solution is once I get some data back from the team. Will be tomorrow. Sorry for the delay

[craggy saffron]

Hey all,

First off, apologies for the delay in jumping into this discussion—I’ve been dealing with a virus (apparently, having a baby means constantly bringing home new illnesses).

I want to touch on all the key points as concisely as possible and give you transparency into the reasoning behind our decisions.

Context and Numbers:

• 40% of fuel is held by 10 people.
• 70% is held by 250 people.

Why This Happened:
Our intention was to implement the fuel merge much earlier, but team changes and other products made it a significantly longer task than expected. In hindsight, we should have shut off fuel sales earlier—but that would have also meant shutting down Overworld entirely. Some of you might remember that I suggested closing Overworld three months ago for this very reason, but at the time, there was strong pushback from the community. Given that, we opted to keep it open, which unfortunately allowed more fuel accumulation.

The Core Issue:
The goal has never been to “rug” anyone or screw over the community. The reality is, we’re in a balancing act between migrating to the Unified Fuel economy and ensuring Illuvium’s long-term sustainability. Players are also investors, and it’s easy to conflate in-game assets with ILV holdings.

There are 50,000+ ILV holders, and around 250 people heavily hoarded fuel to gain a purchasing power advantage in the new system. While I completely understand the strategy behind that, allowing the economy to take a massive hit for the benefit of 250 people isn’t a viable option. Many of those who accumulated fuel acknowledged the risk in Twitter threads, stating things like "This could be risky, but surely ILV won’t rug me." That in itself is an admission that people understood they were leveraging a loophole that shouldn’t have existed in the first place.

Addressing the Concern About Illuvial Farming:
One of the main arguments is that while we adjusted fuel, we didn’t adjust Illuvials farmed during that same period. This is a fair question, and the short answer is that we are taking steps to balance that over time. The biggest change is the upcoming Overworld redesign, which reworks progression, acquisition rates, and overall game balance.

The Solution:
The most rational and fair resolution is to refund all fuel purchases that were below 0.25 of the max rail (the target the new fuel price is balanced around).
This way:

• Players who genuinely wanted to play still got value from their experience.
• People who were arbing the system don’t get their purchasing power advantage.
• The economy doesn’t take an unnecessary hit.
• The DAO loses some revenue, but that’s money we arguably shouldn’t hav been taken below a certain pricepoint if we had a minimum rail in place since the fuel system was flawed.

Caveat

I need to speak to the council about this and Perry has to come back to me with some additional numbers on what the refund amount would be, additionally, this would need to be a proposal that is approved because in theory it would mean witholding revenue distribution that has already been paid out on these fuel purchases. Which obviously comes with its own challenges.

Looking Forward:
We’re in the process of redesigning Overworld with an improved pricing structure, better progression systems, and a much more engaging gameplay loop that enhances social interaction and replayability. Our goal is to build the best game possible while maintaining fairness and trust in the economy.

I know this is a heated topic, and I appreciate the passion and feedback. I also appreciate how rational everyone has been, as someone else pointed out, it's pretty rare when discussing things like this!

[upbeat lantern]

Hey Kieran,

Hope you feel better now 🙂

That's probably what most expected even tho many (myself included) will be a bit surprised about 40% sitting on 10 accounts.
The 70% held by 250 people is what one can expect i guess, those 250 hardcore followers illuvium aquired over the years who just wana have a fun time palying the games in the ecosystem and some couple newcomers since launch last summer.
I gues 10-15% is sitting arround in Zero?

Refund would be a legit way to handle the situation in my opinion.

However, since the most fuel is held by likely your most loyal consumerbase, have you thought about conversion of purely ingame purchasing power and to protect the economy putting x amount of the converted fuel on a vesting shedule to lower the concerns of an economical impact? The amount x could be calculated as the difference of $purchasing power and ingame purchasing power.
I don't know how technically feasible that is but would offer multiple advantages, such as:

• Not having to do a refund and the resulting witholding revenue (icluding reputational damage of a refund)
• 250 super happy people (since i think most of those anyways planned to use it over time and not in a shock dumping behaviour)
• You don't have to explain why you sold products for x price and had to recall that product.
• The in previous post mentioned uncertainty.
  -->example: in my case; fine i get my money back, but observing economy and then scalping took a considerable time, since i didn't use bots. But it could happen with other stuff aswell, like raid loot that has to be recalled because it's too op or whatever other stuff that comes in your mind. Spending time to aquire ingame assets which then needed to be revoked to protect the IP sucks and sets dangerous precedents.

---

To be completely honest about my personal situation... i genuinely wanted to play the game, and i did so.
But obviously since fuel was on a low price i also stacked some to get a "discount" on future playtime.
To me a refund is legit and of course would accept that since in that case no harm is done except time waste.
I genuinley played the game because it was affordable up until super cheap.
The new pricing is simply too expensive for me to play the game on a regular or fun basis, so with a refund i would have to stick to the f2p aspect only which would be a bummer obviously 😄

I also honestly still fail to understand why we risking any reputational damage because 1% of the targeted consumerbase to get to sustainable revenue hold some fuel.

[subtle pike]

To tldr. and reiterate my take, I think refund purchases below 0.25 (400% or higher bonus?) are a fair solution.

Realistically there would be no liquidity to sell anyways for these top 10 especially.

Idk about calling it a loophole is fair though, as it was just the system it was and with the flaws it had and that were known from the beginning, but weren’t respected, as the low demand outcome wasn’t considered realistic enough.

[iron harbor]

Glad you are back Kieran and feeling better, kids are truly germ factories.😂

I think your solution is a fair one. We all knew fuel prices wouldn't stay at what they were. 40% being held by 10 wallets is pretty crazy.

I am guessing I am in the 70% group. I was one of the ones who begged you to keep OW open as I really do enjoy playing it and am missing it now, not being able to create skins. I just wish that fuel caps were put on accounts to mitigate this. I wonder if it would be worth offering a one time low % discount to keep them from pulling the money out and instead encourage them to keep it in and spend it in Illuvium? BTW saying that, I honestly have no idea if this would apply to me or not. I went into playing tracking purchases and treating it all like a business and somewhere along the line, I stopped caring about that, becoming a player who was just having fun and didn't track anything. I have no idea what I spent and when. Which is going to be an issue when I sell the skins I made. I naively didn't think about the whole thing being taken down without warning so I couldn't get the necessary numbers needed. 😫

[wary quarry]

Glad you are recovering...lived through two child-rearing seasons, so it's easy to empathize. If refunding 250 arbitrageurs' accounts as stated helps streamline the transition to unified fuel and honors the landholders' units of fuel produced 1:1 with the optionality to use in-game by transferring to their IMX account, then to me, this is a "no-brainer decision" to help preserve Illuvium's reputation and ILV token price. This is a significantly better alternative than EP-1. I must state that EP-1 was an extremely odd approach to resolving such an issue. Nobody on the IMC/ICC was able to advise the community in your absence on this fairly simple issue of 250 horders. As someone with an extensive background in accounting and reporting, I will go on the record to say EP-1 would turn into an operational nightmare for your team with off-chain fuel microtransactions. The precedents of both ICCP-17 & IIP-54 still being outstandingly beyond anyone's time expectations creates in Landholders zero confidence that EP-1 would be administered well.

[timber yarrow]

This seems like a fair solution.

Doesn’t address the wreckage of Zero and all the issues around that… but this thread is focused on fuel conversion rates anyway.

Refunding everything below .25 of max rail would at least show that community has been heard and steps taken to address the rug concerns.

Glad ur feeling better… being sick sux

[covert marsh]

Nice resolution guys

Depending on the amount of the refund, we do have 8.89E in the fuel wallet and 88E in other sales wallet (wave 3)

the simplest way of doing it is to use these

[open veldt]

I am one of the large fuel holders and a mega city holder (that I currently can't play due to the "loading" error) and, like @upbeat lantern , I don't think an ETH refund is necessary. Just a fuel credit is fine. I am also concerned about pulling the team to figure out how to refund ETH. I would rather them focus on the games. Also, I invested in fuel purchases and I don't view any of this a "rug". Rather, it was a failed launch in an environment where game launches were difficult (especially in crypto). Lets all accept it and move on. I see a team that is getting wiser, an improving IP, and battle tested leadership. If the game succeeds this conversation rate discussion will be a giant nothing-burger. If it fails, this conversion rate will be the least of our worries. I appreciate @odd yarrow listening to everyone and trying to do the right thing. Lets adjust the fuel conversation rate to something fair and move on. No refund necessary. Folks who feel this was a rug can do ADRs, sell their illuvials and move on.

[odd yarrow]

This is a refreshing take, but to me the majority seems to be in favor of a refund otherwise we are "rugging"

A fuel credit seems to be only acceptable by most resulting in an incredible revenue debt for the DAO

[upbeat lantern]

What exactly do you mean with revenue debt?
And how do you calculate it?

[kindred cove]

Maybe who doesn't want to get a refund because he has too much money

[iron harbor]

I don't consider this a rug by any stretch of the imagination. Things happen and I truly believe in the integrity of the team and council.
It's more than just the fuel conversion rate though, it's the changes in all the assets and gameplay that makes a refund more fair than just converting fuel for fuel. There are things that we spent money on that are now included with play and/or being redesigned. Suits, weapons - some of those weren't all that cheap to make, especially the higher tiers and stages. I don't know what the plan is for the ones we already spent money on but that is a different conversation.
Back on topic, when I loaded up on fuel it wasn't just to do runs, it was to make suits and weapons as well. It was also to do runs for the main purpose of levelling up Illuvials for skins. With the new fusing costs for the high tier, high stages, it is cheaper for me to purchase those Illuvials to make my skins rather than do the runs to level up and then fuse.

[subtle pike]

I did use „soft rug“ a lot in this thread, but feel like it is a fair use of the word.

People also obv felt betrayed by things in the past, so telling them how to feel or what fair emotions are doesn’t work well, we see that in how many people spend lots of their time and go out of their way to be publicly negative via stretching truth or entirely making things up.
Seeing scoriox eg refer to it as an exploit to use fuel at the high bonuses to get Illuvials is outrageous imo, as it is entirely on DAO/Labs that the system was the way it was and they could have acted once bonuses approached 1000%+ or so.

Obv you can’t live at the mercy of those hate followers, but creating more and more of them also isn’t how you can market your game to the people who are in this space currently.
We aren’t at a point where it looks like you get millions of regular customers yet, products are far away of competition with polished AAA titles as well.

[wary quarry]

Can you explain why the 'fight for eth' was abandoned completely outside of regulatory/legal concerns? The only financial path I can imagine to reach a sustainable model before the runway is out is through competition in the arena and players wagering on their play (we can get more creative in how). Everything else sounds like a 'world of imagination' fairy tale financials to me.

[subtle pike]

I think that is a question for Labs or for the council at that time.

[covert marsh]

Wager, was because they were registering in dubai. it's illegal there.
F4E slogan, was to distant ourself from crypto jargons

[wary quarry]

Labs and council have been unable to supply a coherent response to this question as I have tried over and over again. They always came back with "Dubai" while simultaneously exiting. The whole idea of reaching a million players with an autobattler or, in two years, with a new MMO-lite and having them spend $300+ on Illuvial sets is a farcical fantasy. There is no rational basis for this. Four years and $100M of capital has proven they have no clue.

[subtle pike]

I am not sure what you expect from me, I am just a community member.

I have no insight into current plans etc. outside of what is publicly available.

[wary quarry]

Dubai is dead for Illuvium. This DAO is not domiciled in a nation state and has hired full-time employees across the West. If this all goes bad, the DAO will be subject to U.S. employment laws and disclosure requirements because of its hiring practices. If I were on the IMC (or past) I would be concerned about that.

[covert marsh]

Afaik, you need a gambling license for each locale that you service

[wary quarry]

understood and just appreciate the response that you have. I know you are one of the only people with proven industry knowledge left in this thing. I admittedly have no professional background in any of this.

[wary quarry]

take what we funds we got left and get us a gambling license in China. translate and mobilize arena and to that to market.

[covert marsh]

so the option was to provide ethlizard the API and they build the gambling platform

[wary quarry]

how about the imc making this an agenda item every week.

this gives the dao hope. the other stuff that we are talking about is like 0.0001% odds of ever getting this dao to a sustainble runway path.

[covert marsh]

the last we discussed this, we were only gonna provide the API and we dont get a share in the rake. alternatively we just charge the API queries

[wary quarry]

well go back to the negotiation table. ani should be vested in the success of this dao. I hear the LIz experiment is bleeding funds as well so both parties need a winner.

[subtle pike]

I appreciate you asking and I do have opinions on this or on what options there could exist, I don’t think it is in anyone’s interest or productive to debate that here though, I don’t believe anything actionable could come from it.

I also don’t think gambling is the only way to make money in gaming, people can gamble on a lot, they underlying thing has to be entertaining anyways.

Mostly the entire space had goals and expectations that were far to high due to axie revenue success.
Doesn’t mean games can’t work or succeed, but the timeline and the level of success have changed for short to medium term imo.

Memecoins never happening or AI, would have been good e.g. as people would have had more money to gamble on games and gaming related assets.

[covert marsh]

taking a rake means being involved in gambling activity idk why we want that atm

[upbeat lantern]

let's try to stay on topic here 🙂

[wary quarry]

sorry

[wary quarry]

what are the next steps for fuel conversion rate? what is our follow up with Kieran?

[upbeat lantern]

looks like he discussing with council after getting some numbers from perry and will then come back so say how they like to proceed

[wary quarry]

do that have anything to do with the 89:1 conversion rate? from what I read the team is stating implementing that next week and the primary issue of this feed was completely side stepped by this refund pledge to appease discontent and bad sentiment.

[upbeat lantern]

you talking about the 89:1 conversion of fuel hold in Zero?

[wary quarry]

yes, this seems unaddressed in kieran's reply to me.

[upbeat lantern]

yes

i do hope we hear exact plans on how to proceed when he comes back.
His post above sounds more like his own opinion on how to solve the situation in general.

[wary quarry]

When he comes back? My understanding is that labs is working on the EP-1 implementation for next week per Lab staff posts. My interpretation is that we are talking past each other, and I am assuming we are all English-literate. @twilit brook can you help us close this gap as its important.

[upbeat lantern]

I guess they have a Meeting soon(today/tomorrow)
Or talk in non-public-chats about it. Solution should definetly be there before the patches go live 😄

[twilit brook]

Not sure what you’re misunderstanding

[wary quarry]

@upbeat lantern can you state for RIch concisely?

[upbeat lantern]

Fuel that currently sits in Zero will be transferred to the OW ranger before it gets swapped to new fuel.
The current situation is that it will be swapped with the ratio of 89:1.
This specifically hasn't been adressed yet really, not from imc/team and also not in kierans post.
There are concerns that this will be handled as it is outlined in EP-1.

(Think it's actually not outlined in EP-1 if i remember right...but afaik it should have been.)

[craggy saffron]

We will discuss it in the council meeting and then I’ll get back to you guys

[onyx forge]

The fuel that currently sits in zero stays as is? It doesn't need to be converted to anything? Do you mean for future fuel transfers?

[odd yarrow]

Want to hear some opinions

If we do a refund, how should one price "unbought fuel" from send to self and claims
I'll leave my own opinion out for a bit to not muddy the water

[upbeat lantern]

yes, everything above 1k storage will get transferred and swapped.
I recommend listening to the townhall with perry on the official youtube chanel to get a feeling for all the changes that are about to happen 🙂

[onyx forge]

I think send to self needs to be analysed separately, e.g how much actually exists in $ value. But really it should be taken at fuel's value at the time of sending it, or it could be ignored entirely and use the EP last week of fuel sales average price system.

[onyx forge]

Maybe I'll relisten to it thanks.

[timber yarrow]

What’s the rationale for fuel being transferred out of zero automatically?

If it must be transferred out then conversion to new fuel at whatever rate exchange was at when overall was approved.

Otherwise just leave fuel in zero accounts. Or give ppl the option.

[wary quarry]

If not, they and everyone will realize inside of 60 days the disaster of switching from a cash-based accounting with automated instant settlement by the IMX NFT store or the 'IlluviDEX' being referred to as FEX to an accrual-based accounting system matching revenue over 12 periods per year with credit card transactions on stripe (72-96 hour settlement lagas), weighting it against aggregate fuel supplied, converting USDC units to ETH, going to Sushiswap to convert, transferring back to IMX accounts in ETH. Lets all not be naive and think a "script" is going to solve this. Look at this diagram on a cash-based accounting method and think what possible could go wrong migrated to accrual-based that the team and devs probably have no context or experience with.

Nobody has replied with a single character as to how this will be implemented, and the plan is to migrate next week. Wake up, everybody.

[covert marsh]

well revenue is not much to be distributed, dont you prefer to use those fuel for ADR and OW?

[timber yarrow]

If the rationale is to use the fuel for ADR and OW then we are back to the original issue of conversion rate. 89:1 on fuel transferred doesn't work... and therefore a reasonable conversion rate should be chosen.

Some T4 plots prob arent holding more than 75-150k fuel... and the majority of plots are prob at nominal fuel for conversion. So coming up with a conversion rate that will address player happiness along with realistic value makes sense.

[iron harbor]

I took the question from Perry to mean the fuel that has already been transferred out and is sitting in our Passport accounts, not the fuel that is still sitting on our Zero plots. Is that not right?

I think it would be fine to do a transfer at whatever the rate is to new fuel rather than do an ETH payout to landowners, in the form of fuel crates that they can then list if they want to.
My opinion is, no ETH was spent on that fuel so none should be returned.

[upbeat lantern]

Yes you are right.
AT least i understood it the Same

[subtle pike]

Assuming Torial is right with "fuel trasnfered to acc and unused", I´d assume that isn´t much, could prob give people a good rate and have them be happy without relevantly impacting economy?
Maybe refund people would be unhappy about those getting a good rate?

Could also drop that fuel to the IZ accs instead? (idk how technically possible this is)

[covert marsh]

i reckon the majority of fuel has been transfered from iz to ow since landowners have limited storage. I think this is what perry is asking. how should we convert it?

and for the remaining fuel which is still in IZ and waiting to be transfered out, maybe it is okay to use the 1:89 conversion rate

[timber yarrow]

1:89 shouldn’t be a thing at all imo.

A standard would be ideal… again based on when fuel overhaul started.

Personally I didn’t sell much fuel and kept it in my plots… having forced conversion to 89:1 feels bad for sure.

What is the ratio if it’s pegged to overhaul start?

[covert marsh]

how much was the bonus in the first week of december?
if the bonus is half from before the announcement and eth was 2x from here, maybe 1:22?

[wary quarry]

Agreed, transfer equivalent adopted rate of the rail. The last I read was 0.25 of the original 'top rail' after Kieran stated in the last 60 days 0.33 figure, so who knows? I hope it was presented and approved by our IMC. It seems like the promises always decay for ILZ...

our entire economic converstion is based on some magical unicorn 'collect them all model' so who knows what is equitable or shapes equilibrium value...I know taking the lowest sold price when Labs created Zero demand for Fuel is not equitable.

[covert marsh]

guys just for clarity we are talking about 3 different fuels:

1. Purchased fuel
2. Non-purchased and already transfered to OW
3. Non-purchased but still in IZ

[wary quarry]

1. Purchased fuel - refund under the 0.25 and send the rest back. 2. non-purchase in OW leave alone. 3. non-purchase in IZ transfer at 0.25

This would align with Kieran's reply.

I would offer a grace period to owners to transfer fuel to OW if they wish 1:1 with maybe some cap. Only about 100 people are playing land right now is my guess so how could this destory the future economy? We are 18 months away from generating any revenue per feedback this week.

[timber yarrow]

Yep

Purchased fuel: refund

Transferred & in zero: 1:22ish is fair if that’s what it was back then.

I wouldn’t expect 4:1 conversion tho it would be nice

[wary quarry]

I am guessing season 1 of Illuvials is going to equate to about 30+ months now. About the same lag from Land purchase to mainnet 😉

[timber yarrow]

Also agree with relax to an extent… how much fuel are we talking? Is it that big of a deal to convert it and make players happy?

[wary quarry]

Lets be honest; it will take Labs six months to create a money management system for fuel that converts to ETH if they ever get there.

@covert marsh we appreciate you and I know my stuff can be read as critical cynic, but I am just stating the obvious from past performance

[covert marsh]

need perry for that info

[covert marsh]

haha ur always keeping us on our toes, and that's good.

[timber yarrow]

Just hope whatever gets decided is digestible. A lot of players not even here to see what’s happening. There’s still going to be backlash when ppl see their fuel is less… but you can justify 22:1 a lot easier than 89:1

[wary quarry]

About 35 Landholders have gotten back to me since EP-1, and they are now aware. Many still hold ILV and plan to use it in May.

[covert marsh]

Update.
IMC had a meeting this morning. There will be a proposal coming. End of message.

[timber yarrow]

https://tenor.com/view/side-eye-suspicious-puppet-gif-2729624127692369191

[tall anchor]

Ooof I wonder who the top 10 Oil Oligarchs are XD ❤️

[covert marsh]

Oil Barrons

[upbeat lantern]

No Word on what's in that proposal?

[silent sleet]

Is there going to be some kind of "chief economist" role filled at Illuvium? Like a J Powell, able to operate independently of governance but with a mandate for a healthy economy? Give them some levers they can push for balance, and charge them with locating supply/demand imbalances throughout the games and their related NFT markets. Make them a dotted line report to the dev team for prioritizing game updates to address economic needs.

This is meant as a constructive criticism, but ya'll need to be way quicker and more nimble than this weeks of analyzing, meeting, discussing, voting, and implementing.

[covert marsh]

hi
as per IIP-39, the team can already do that.

and they have been

• set initial fuel price, supply per plot and ingame cost
• increased production
• cut production
• set new pricing and balancing

in this case, it is actually the community who is asking for a change on the proposal that was proposed by team and worked together with council

the community also pushed the council to give a better outcome.

[still elk]

No offence but this doesn't look good at all....all changes you guys make for the good of the game are implemented to late....for ex when players obviously got excessive fuel the market should have gone in a stop on the day....not punishe everyone with a 89:1 exchange rate. Not everyone got a deal on the fuel for ex i got it at 5x 7x 500k and spent on some runs and lots of shard curing,with now because they don't get to be NFTs in the future i can't sell so my fuel has been spent in vain...anyway i still should have more than half off that fuel for you to exchange it at 89:1 not only i am not getting good drops for what i pay i am getting runs off 40$ from 200$ .... so not everyone got fuel only at a discounted price....the fact that i kept buying fuel and playing it's not because i am speculating I have Bought A Product To Play Your Game....assets value goes up and down that's a given , not everyone needs to be punished if you move faster i could give more examples but they not on topic. I would like to see my fuel exchanged at the value i bought in eth at least at the time i bought it that would be fair 😅 i understand we need changes for the best off the games but you need to speed up your process, the tokens the market all that itwss build is plummeting because off distrust and even we recuperate that feeling will linger always,if you think just changing players will help you rough if we don't change the way we do things we will get in the same place.

[wary quarry]

how many “economists” did Labs hire and the DAO’s treasury pay in total? Tell Danny to run those numbers for us “Token holders” and report back to the board. 😉

[covert marsh]

afaik
we had khaled who moved to bigtime.
and we had a head of econ for a bit then laid off.
afaik perry is person who designed most of it.
you want us to ask their salaries?

i have requested labs for breakdown cost per department, and the request was denied.

[wary quarry]

understood. this was my understanding as well. thanks for being a champion for the dao. interested to see what labs cooks up for EP1v2

[craggy saffron]

We are reusing the claim system for airdrop seasons. It will be a manual process to begin though as we don't have capicity to automate it yet. Similar to revenue distributions. I have read several of your comments and understand you are an expert in accounting systems, but suggesting we have no ability to do these things is incorrect, we have many of these systems in the past and they have worked perfectly fine. Revenue distributions, airdrop claims, sILV2 hack claim, staking claim. No we haven't automated them yet (although rev dis is now complete with automation, just need to test) but again that doesn't mean we're not capable. Nor does it relate to the topic either. So please stay on topic...

[gloomy bloom]

I didn't read everything here, but I don't understand where the numbers 1:89 come from, I bought fuel for a maximum of 50 thousand bonus for 12 dollars I got 51,000 thousand fuel, if I convert this to 1:89, then I will get a loss, not to mention fuel with a much smaller bonus

[timber yarrow]

Summary

• 3 fuel changing to 1 fuel work started December

• People kept buying, transferring fuel

• team decided to convert fuel based on fuel price it was when they shut down fuel sales 3 weeks ago

• community felt that was unfair and equivalent to rug

• Team listen to community and working on an alternative proposal that will include a refund for fuel bought below .25 top rail

So wait to see what’s in the proposal

[gloomy bloom]

Got it, thanks for the information.

[wary quarry]

Good to receive a confident and constructive response. This has been requested from Perry since the EP-1 AMA with Rich and only elevated after receiving no response. The 40+ Landholders who replied to me pertaining to EP-1 find this to be a high-priority topic based on the past performance of ICCP-17 & IIP-54. To stay on topic, we would welcome feedback in this existing feed: https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1347194091418419352

[wary quarry]

Observing this makes me extremely uncomfortable. Misstating nominal balance sheet reporting is confounding. <@&814435151307866142>

[tall anchor]

Bah we are all human

[wary quarry]

For clarification, my remarks are not targeting an individual. Any basic accounting system should prevent such an error from happening. Obviously, the "burn report" is not a standard form report, and I must assume it is manually created, which allows for such human error. However, this would be a BIG deal if this happened at a standard operating company in the U.S.

[tall anchor]

Even automated reports can have bugs/errors, i doubt the accounting is anything but basic when it comes to crypto. But yeah this is probably off topic once again.

[gloomy bloom]

Are you considering such a possibility and does it exist at all, when the % of fuel conversion will be in proportion to who has more than 10 million 1:89 5 million 1:75 1 million 1:50 something like that, the numbers are given randomly and are not specific, the point is that those who bought not much and at different prices, for example with a bonus of +30 thousand, will actually be robbed@craggy saffron@frail pike
thanks for the answer in advance)

[subtle pike]

"robbing money is ok, if you rob from the rich"

[upbeat lantern]

Any news?
Proposal dropping before or after conversion?

[covert marsh]

Been trying to push this through

<@&814435151307866142> can we agree to have a resolution proposal before implementing the fuel overhaul?

[onyx forge]

I've made my stance clear internally.

[stable sentinel]

by the pace council works I expect a proposal by summer and fuel refund next year.

[subtle pike]

Maybe eth will be up by then and we were forced to hodl!

[covert marsh]

The question is about having a proposal before or after the fuel overhaul implementation

And i appreciate you for always showing up scoriox

[covert marsh]

kieran has proposed a solution and the imc has discussed it last friday.
ive been trying to ping him to ask when hes gonna post it.
lets it one more day then if theres no proposal, we'll write one

[onyx forge]

Tis a great timeline

[upbeat lantern]

It's honestly a bit disappointing how this get's handled...
As far as i understood the intention is to patch OW + Arena + Zero as soon as possible when testing is done.
There were talks about this week, now it's probably gona be next week.
And then here it's said we working on a proposal and then there's a week of silence?

i also don't understand why the content of the proposal can't be disclosed to the public.
IMC obviously weren't able to set themselves into the shoes of the community with that EP-1 in general, which likely wouldn't even have happened if there were actually a path choosen to include community feedback with fully disclosed information.
Why isn't it a working with the community but rather a "we found a solution but we don't wana tell you, you will see soon"
Since last epoch, i feel the whole governance shifted more and more away from being totally public, approachable and working with the community towards "NDA" or "can read that in meeting minutes" (roughly two months later)

[timber yarrow]

https://tenor.com/view/lafuddyduddy-quite-dead-quiet-look-gif-18064169

[covert marsh]

Im as dissapointed and discouraged as you

let me ping them again, at least i tried right.
hi <@&814435151307866142> guys please say something

off topic, we supposed to have roundtable meeting on thursday to discuss pay removal/reduction, to my surprise im the only imc who showed up lol

[covert marsh]

https://tenor.com/view/toy-story-oh-well-we-tried-oh-well-we-tried-rex-gif-18203469

[covert marsh]

well good luck guys

[onyx forge]

Who said it cant be disclosed? Its basically just what kieran said in this very chat. We are just discussing the specifics, but should come here any day now. Kieran might have something on for the weekend idk.

[covert marsh]

and what would we do if he does not

[onyx forge]

The solution we are discussing doesn't require execution before unified fuel goes live, so it's not too bad. As long as the proposal is with the community in advance, it's voting can wait until later kinda. But what can we do?

[covert marsh]

Yes we need to post the proposal well before the fuel overhaul goes live.
i reckon a refund will take time like everything else.
alternatively, if we give people better conversion rate, they can get the new fuel at the same time as the fuel overhaul

i see that the community has two options:

• get a refund and wait for god know how long, or
• get a better conversion rate

remember, the 40E still hasnt been distributed since our meeting last friday

[onyx forge]

It won't be until after the fuel overhaul either way

[upbeat lantern]

Well, firstly there's the "Update" which let one assume it can't be disclosed:
#1346770169871073311 message
Then there's no answer when i asked for info on the proposal
#1346770169871073311 message
And additionally... it's the common standard procedure this epoch 🙃

[covert marsh]

maybe keep ping ing

[odd yarrow]

How does it not? it's radically different than a conversion

[onyx forge]

As long as a snapshot has been taken it's not too bad? I guess you'd be deleting existing fuel for the reimbursement which I half forgot about 😂😂.

My brain was fcked earlier today, pretend like I was drunk (I was sick)

So yeah it does need to happen beforehand I now realise.

Anyways we r waiting on Kieran so idk what to do

[stable sentinel]

why do we even have council when IMC = Kieran?

[covert marsh]

i mean lets be honest here
the power resides with labs and the signors of the treasury

the IP, assets, codes are owned by labs. imo the council is more like a counselor instead of a governing body

[stable sentinel]

well I can guarantee you that this is not what the community thinks the council is doing otherwise IMC wouldn't be getting paid such an high amount just for counselling. So maybe it's time this misalignment in perception is rectified.

this entire DAO narrative is nothing but a façade and in the end it's purely centralized in Kieran.

[wary quarry]

Agreed that any non-insider would interpret the IMC as the board of directors and the DAO to be governed by its members including real world governing authorities. Any individual being compensated, with an outside business activity that profits from the DAO, serves a fiat signer and custody of the crypto wallets, controls the IP, and raises funds for other businesses in the same industry, and does zero disclosures while rejecting the motion by the IMC for a standard financial audit and reporting is…

[covert marsh]

well

[covert marsh]

directors actually have powers under the law.
illuvium dao is not registered anywhere

it's more like student council

[wary quarry]

no but the outside businesses just might have security and employment laws

this “DAO” is a vehicle/instrument to raise funds from the public for the benefit of who?

[stable sentinel]

I appreciate your transparency.

[wary quarry]

I as well, and transparency might prove in time to be a wise strategy

[craggy saffron]

I wrote the proposal last Wednesday and sent it to the council. On Friday we were discussing adding in a refund for the Land Holders. That got settled over the weekend, I'm now posting it today. You were more than welcome to post the proposal I drafted @covert marsh all it needed was an update on the Land Holder refund. You didn't need to write anything. I also told you that I was away for the weekend. So not sure why you're throwing your hands up like you have no idea what was happening.

[craggy saffron]

#1353554628830302210 message

Proposal above

[covert marsh]

Thanks kieran

[onyx forge]

Despite what it might seem like, we vote internally on minor changes to structure and numbers for different things and affect the strategy of the DAO.

Kieran is often the proactive one with using the Labs link to form key proposals or implementations and if even 2 members from the Council disagrees with the strategy, then we discuss it and adjust accordingly.

It's not always obvious from the community perspective but for all topics, we have our input and Kieran works with the council to push forward in compromise with Labs.

[covert marsh]

@upbeat lantern wake up

[upbeat lantern]

very sad to see we are going the route of a refund instead of a proper conversion rate or a vesting schedule for fuel bought below the new fixed price.

Many of us made decisions based on the old system... speculating and playing the market, buy low, plan for future demand. With a refund, that entire process was effectively erased. We didn't lose, but we also didn't gain. It creates a sense that strategic thinking and taking risk aren't valued, which is especially tough in player-driven game economy.

Beyond just Eth, a lot of us put time and thought into navigating the market, reading every news post, meeting minutes etc. trying to understand how fuel would integrate into the broader economy, playing and observing the fuel markets etc.
That time has now been wiped aswell. For players who engage deeply, time is part of the investment and it feels that gets totally overlooked with the refund option.

This change also sets a precedent that major economic mechanics can be rewritten and even refunded retroactively at any time. It introduces a level of uncertainty that makes it difficult to fully commit to future systems.
If i engage again deeply, will those rules hold or will they shift once the game evolves further?
Refunding users removes short term pain, but it also signals that major rules of the game can be rewritten at any point. That uncertainty impacts future confidence. If customers feel that the foundation isn't stable and can be changed retroactively, they’ll hesitate to engage or invest time and capital again.

Reputation isn’t just about how a system works today, but whether the community believes it will hold tomorrow. And that’s what’s at stake when big retroactive changes happen even if they're done fairly.
I hope everyone who worked on that proposal and upvotes it is aware of that.

This isn’t a rage post. I’m still excited about Illuvium. I want it to succeed. But if the goal is to build a thriving player-driven economy, the rules and incentives need to feel consistent especially those affecting the economy. Strategic engagement should carry both risk and the potential for reward.

[winged granite]

I totally follow this post but would still up vote the proposal considering:

1. there is no reputation to defend right now
2. rewriting major rules is nothing new
3. it won't take too much time
4. A refund is probably the best we've ever gotten, it's so much better than a "whoops, sorry"
5. Sentiment is low and some people want out at this point. Getting ETH doesn't sound that bad considering the sell wall of illiquid illuvials lurking around the corner. We're only fixing the fuel issue here and whatever conversion rate we would get, it might leave us with less than a refund

[still elk]

1. there is always reputation.... 2. major rules changes don t need to feal like a rug but the other way around. 3. leaderboard and other drops took months..... 4. i want fuel to run as thats why i spent the eth . 5 Sentiment is low because off this kind off ilogical management . throwing players under the buss every time do not work.

[upbeat lantern]

1. there's always a Reputation you have. Especially important if you want to crank up marketing. As far as i can Tell, we are going to spend $ for marketing soon and AT the Same time have the refund happening where we basically say "sorry we have to refund you because you get x assets too cheap". I would argue thats more on the negative side than the positive side. Who in the right mind gona invest time and capital if he's aware of that?
2. even if true, thats not really an Argument, it's Like saying "that System is Bad, but we don't have to fix it because it was always Bad" 😄
3. maybe, maybe not. There are outstanding payments since 7months
4. the only difference you get now is that you get a refund, the ratio is still the Same. So if you intend to reinvest and buy fuel again, it's still roughly the 89:1 ratio if you bought cheap. On the other Hand, if you want to take your stack and go invest in other Projects, the refund is for sure nice, since you couldn't do that with a simple swap.
5. agree, for people who are looking for Exit this solution is probably the best.

[iron harbor]

It will be interesting to see how much of that 70 ETH is invested back into Illuvium.

[wary quarry]

my guess is 80% gets converted to BTC or USD stable ASAP

[upbeat lantern]

I guess you can roughly see the ratio in the up and downvotes of the proposal

[winged granite]

Im probably investing it back but just not in fuel. The EV from ADR is probably going to be really bad and I'm not sure if the market will ever catch up. We will probably be throwing around fuel, our in game currency, left right and center to anyone joining the game.

[iron harbor]

If you didn't get a refund would you have put more money in anyway to buy other products or is it just because of the refund that you will other things with the money?

[winged granite]

I did put in more to average some of my prices. Like buying another t4 put my avg price down with like 7k
Im hesitant to put in extra at this point:

Zero: calculated the return with some turnover assumption and it's not attractive

Illuvials: i basically have a full set and don't care about cosmetics like holo

Beyond: I will probably keep participating in waves but less than before due to low ilv rewards and too many oopsies like the gold illuvitars

In summary there is not much to game or chase...

[upbeat lantern]

Zero number probably far Off since there are no numbers public Like how many plots are played, how many actually sell fuel etc.

I feel beyond is not too Bad if you speculate about Rising ilv prices

[winged granite]

Yeah i did write down the numbers somewhere. Believe it was like 20 bucks per mil rev (t4) if all plots are played and you can speculate from there

[iron harbor]

Thanks for the breakdown. I like knowing what others are thinking. At this point the things I had an interest in chasing and would have been putting money into were Illuvials, as well as levelling the best ones and skins. Illuvials I have all except a couple of lynxes and a whole bunch of T0 -so mostly free runs. The reason I bought a bunch of fuel before OW shut down was to level Illuvials and forge skins.

I also wanted to explore OW when we finally got the lore. With fusing costing so much now and who knows what happening with skins I guess I will save my refund for when we have lore.

[winged granite]

Most of things seem very far away. Zero abandoned, leviathan not working, no OW, no revenue, no playerbase. Much of it comes down to illuvials: they need to have value. After a long time it seems like they realized that and ADR (in theory) supports their value

[upbeat lantern]

Ya, got roughly the Same number

[winged granite]

Holding some ilv might not be bad since if they keep failing to deliver, you still have the chance of an irrational crypto pamp

[winged granite]

Once the burn to win leaderboard comes out we might be able to figure out how many plots are being played

[subtle pike]

nah, people won´t buy low risk assets, when they gambled on buying fuel before 😅
only degens did that trade

[iron harbor]

So...it's all going to fartcoin?

[subtle pike]

I hope not.

[iron harbor]

Same

[wary quarry]

guess I was speaking for myself…prefer low lev btc perps over every other asset over the last 4 years or 14 years

[tall anchor]

I'll throw all mine at ADR and probably some extra as well ^_^

[vast gale]

All in illuvials for me

[ripe osprey]

Anyone using ADR hasn't been paying any attention to Illuvium at all....good luck

[timber yarrow]

I'm a little confused
All fuel over 1000 in Zero has now been automatically converted at 1:89
But I thought any fuel existing in Zero over 1000 was also going to be part of the refund
Is that not the case?

[upbeat lantern]

It's no mentioning of that in the refund proposal, nor in ep-1 so i guess no it's not Part.
But can just assume

[timber yarrow]

oof

[upbeat lantern]

Ya

[timber yarrow]

that was close to 300k in fuel for me

[subtle pike]

rip bro

[iron harbor]

I've been a slacker on my lands, only signing in twice a day most days, not building fully and only caring about making skins. 5/9 of my plots sit basically untouched. They can do what they want with the 1,000 extra fuel I had, it's so insignificant, but I feel for you @timber yarrow. That must have taken you a lot of time to get all that fuel.

[timber yarrow]

That def feels like a rug

[wary quarry]

@covert marsh can you help clarify this 89:1 issue? The ILZ patch announcement references it.

This transfer of fuel interface does not even align with the patch notes

[upbeat lantern]

Don't think he knows

What he said 3 days ago

[still elk]

how is it 1/89 if i bought 5 months back?

[timber yarrow]

I'm referring to Fuel transferred from Zero plots today

[still elk]

well hope they did not do that with the bought one... thats .... no words

[upbeat lantern]

https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1353554628830302210

[timber yarrow]

So while the Refund is all well and good for those who bought fuel... It doen't really help those with fuel in IZ. 89:1 is still a terrible conversion rate and feels bad. 🤮

[upbeat lantern]

I wouldn't say that.
Refund is more or less just nice for the exiters.
If i buy fuel with my refund i still End up on a roughly 70:1 conversion rate

[timber yarrow]

U a smart man spoon.
Curious how this is all gonna play out.

[upbeat lantern]

We shall see soon

[stable sentinel]

funny that IMC seems very against the refund but still approves it. And apparently forgot that there would most likely be no need for a refund if there was no EP-1...

[winged granite]

don't forget to add you lose 69% of that value when you convert it to illuvials 🤣

[timber yarrow]

Submitted my refund request

Jag says Zero transferred fuel is eligible for refund which is what I thought was the case

[upbeat lantern]

maybe...
surely after the conversion

[covert marsh]

https://tenor.com/view/homer-simpson-hide-in-shrubs-hiding-in-bushes-disappear-into-hedges-embarrassed-gif-24183287

[wary quarry]

how?

[timber yarrow]

Send a support ticket and choose fuel refund

[wary quarry]

so its covert…happy to smile and play the game

[potent lance]

At what price do they refund fuel that has never been bought but was within IZ? What am I missing here?

[timber yarrow]

I would assume at .25 of upper rail

[potent lance]

Would be nice if someone could confirm that

[subtle pike]

I feel like there is no way we get that.
Prob miscommunication somewhere.

not like we could have sold for that rate

[covert marsh]

we were given the total amount of fuel from zero, then multiplied by 25% from top rail price to get the amount of eth to be refunded to landowners.
this amount is included in the 70eth in IIP-74

[timber yarrow]

Likely not all fuel will be claimed thru refund so prob a good choice for dao

[covert marsh]

we havent talked about the 30-days deadline tho, it's not in IIP-74

yea some people prob wont request for a refund

[potent lance]

But the article says that fuel must have been bought to be eligible for a refund

I don't think we get eth for fuel that has been sitting in zero. That's not even a refund because it has never been bought. It would be free eth from the DAO

[timber yarrow]

I wouldn't call it free

Sounds like we have the choice... accept conversion @ 89:1 or take the 'refund'

[covert marsh]

The article hasnt mentioned the refund of transfered fuel from iz

but its in the IIP.
btw whats with the slow mode lol

[subtle pike]

but jag said free eth

[wary quarry]

are you selecting feedback and typing out the request? did the team supply any instruction to hopefully the ticket not entering into a black vortex?

[timber yarrow]

I've already received a reply from team

[wary quarry]

Thanks, I submitted my request with my fingers crossed.

[upbeat lantern]

Preventiv measures i guess

[still elk]

Man this is going to tip in their favour all day....i have 1m fuel i bought at low at high 😳 ever since i started playing ▶️ i spent i bought....never actually went under 300k on crypton witch i bought hella expensive. How would they just refund whatever....or give me super low value just because the market went down for a bit.....how is that fair bro? I'll not ask for a refund until i see exactly what is going on...but this is weird how do you determine what i spent or not, what to refund 🤔

[subtle pike]

I do assume they can see how much you bought at what prices, question is if refund takes the highest or lowest bought.

[still elk]

That's what i fear , the direction this looks like is going....lowest spin it around so we get as low as possible....if you got illuvial cool if not tough luck....honestly i am fine i did lots off runs and opened runs just to see what is in them because fuel was so low i definitely did a huge amount off runs 2h to 2m ech...but i don't feel i should be punish for playing liking and keep investing in the game. I hope we will be fair with the refund....i definitely don't think the conversion is fair by far going for the lowest price is a rip off....

[subtle pike]

This is prob just a hard calculation for the ones who did keep spending, but those to be fair got bunch of assets cheap, so idk hard thing to figure out that rate maybe, hard to argue what fair would be, as council seem to see those as people exploiting a system, even though it is Labs/Council mistake it existed and ended that way.
I e.g. just bought wanting to play once streaming would have viewers/ecosystem would have mroe suers again, so my math will be easy.

[iron harbor]

I would hope they use the FIFO method and not one lump average or lowest/highest. Guess we will know in the next blog.

[wary quarry]

JAG think we got a few details to work out or team communication to be had @timber yarrow

[upbeat lantern]

Refund blog is coming, i guess you can See in there Detailed what Kind of fuel ist refunded AT what Rate.

But ya, since the proposal was rather focused on blaming the "Bad actors" instead of having Details how it should be executed i can't blame anyone being confused 😄

[wary quarry]

me either. ep-1 manual implementation has about 0.0001% odds for favorable outcomes and they do not even want to recognize the challenges today. Johnny said manual reconciliation is really bad idea.

[still elk]

I got 12k from 1m fuel amazing 👏 and my perfect iluvial are nerf..... sweet update

[iron harbor]

The perfect Illuvial thing bothers me more than the fuel. I spent more than I want to admit buying mine and I feel like an idiot for doing so.

[timber yarrow]

Feel for the same trap
Bought illuvials the other day and now they are doodoo

[iron harbor]

I thought it was a pretty safe bet that them having a full hex and us all talking about full hexes being perfect stat Illuvials, without a word from the team contrary to that, was a good enough indication that they were 100 score Perfect Illuvials.
But apparently that wasn't a reasonable assumption. I need to get off Discord for a bit I think...

[timber yarrow]

https://tenor.com/view/meditation-relaxing-meditate-patrick-patrick-the-starfish-gif-14505292794266737822

Me too I think 😝

[covert marsh]

it is definitely wont be refunded at $0.01.

[plain stream]

heyya why did i get my fuel automatically swapped? why cant i ask for a refund instead?

I thought that was the agreement.

also how do i use my fuel in my plot now?

[timber yarrow]

You have to request a refund via illuvium support

And you can’t use plot to account anymore

[plain stream]

thanks for the answer.
Im afriad my fuel has already been converted so what am i supposed to be refunded for now? Also i get i cant use plot to account fuel (although the option in game is still there and i just did send some to test, which never arrived) but then how can i sell fuel?

[upbeat lantern]

Blog should be coming soon with everything about refund.
Should update your gameclient, the fuel send feature shouldn't be there, but instead you should have a fuel burn feature.

[timber yarrow]

Yah everyone had fuel moved from zero to account and converted. Don’t use it. Request a refund if that’s what u want to do.

And there’s no more selling fuel

[covert marsh]

ill propose a FIFO method

and a 60-days deadline instead of 30 days

[winged granite]

Hope that doesn't imply us all waiting 60 days for the refund

[covert marsh]

https://tenor.com/view/far-cry6-laugh-gif-23737499

[covert marsh]

Update.
The council has discussed the blog and has come to an understanding.
The council is waiting for the final calculation from perry.
End of message.

[shell abyss]

Jaga the goat

[limber geode]

is there a way to see how much fuel i purchased and at wich price ?

[plain stream]

But I already had my fuel automatically converted sir

[upbeat lantern]

the conversion rate is set.
The blog he is talking about is the refund-blog.
At least i assume that 🙂

[plain stream]

I just don't understand what are people going to get refunded if their fuel already got converted

[upbeat lantern]

the money they spent on that fuel.
At least that fuel which was priced lower than the actual price we have now.
I guess the blog will clarify everything arround refunds.

[plain stream]

Ok I think I got it, thanks

[iron harbor]

"At least that fuel which was priced lower than the actual price we have now."
I have a bad feeling some people have missed reading that part. 😬

[still elk]

And the refund it's happening next year or?

I want to play some runns but obviously can't 🙄

[edgy sun]

same here... don't want to use any of the Fuel before the refund gets completed.
On the positive side, I am starting to have a good collection of the T0 now 😁

[still elk]

I already have t0 quite some

[still elk]

There is absolutely nothing fair about this.......on top off not getting what we paid for we need to wait for our own money....this is basically , at least we get it back '. Let's hope we don't take to long please i want to do some runs....have not done 1 since the update on new fuel. I already put my fuel request 1 week ago or so.

[wary quarry]

@upbeat lantern do you have an interpretation of the blog post pertaining to the 89:1 migration? https://illuvium.io/news/fuel-refunds-in-illuvium-what-you-need-to-know

[upbeat lantern]

what do you mean exactly with "interpretation"?
i did read it, yes.

[wary quarry]

So, do you read this as 1:1 fuel units transferred are to be paid out at the refund rate if requested? Or do you interpret the 89:1 conversion took place, and we will get the refund applied to that derived unit of fuel supply if requested? @covert marsh @onyx forge

[covert marsh]

u get refunded on the amount before the conversion