Illuvium DAO Governance Newsletter - April 2024

April 2024 Governance Newsletter

April 2024 Governance Newsletter

By: Scoriox, Jaganite, JP, Nijafe, Paz

Newsletter Overview.

We've got all the highlights you need to stay updated.

Illuvium Main Council Review

Members: Viper, Scrubadubdad, Animositas, Blickter, Kieran

The Illuvium Main Council (IMC) discussed all the feedback regarding Illuvium Zero’s upcoming proposals, launch timing, and fuel production mechanics. Furthermore, the IMC discussed the proposals on landholder revenue distribution and compensation.

The IMC also discussed the Open Beta timelines, however they expect more clarity in the coming weeks.

Illuvium Community Council Review

Members: Scoriox, Jaganite, JP, Nijafe, Paz

The Illuvium Community Council (ICC) discussed the weekly events, PB4 access, landholders' sentiment, airdrop vesting and the training gym proposal. Additionally, the ICC discussed the landholder revenue distribution and compensation proposal in case of a delay in launching Illuvium Zero. On top of this, there was a heavy discussion in the feedback and governance channels this month. The ICC distilled this and passed sentiment on to the IMC further revising and clarifying proposals with the community's help.

Voted Proposals Recap

There was no proposal voted in April 2024.

Major Governance Discussions

Airdrop Vesting

Author: Jaganite

The aim of this idea is to smooth out the potential sell pressure from a token airdrop as well as a potential decrease in DAU after the airdrop by introducing an airdrop vesting mechanic. The idea suggests that players should receive 50% of the allocated airdrop immediately, while the other 50% vests over 6 months. Players who continue playing can unlock their vesting tokens up to 3 months earlier.

The community explored some ideas such as bonus airdrop points for token stakers, distributing revenue to vesting airdrop tokens, shorter airdrop seasons, and implementing a penalty system for early claims. However, some members of the community wondered whether there would be any sell pressure from the airdrop at all and if the airdrop reward should be in Fuel instead of tokens.

IZ P2E Delay Compensation

Author: Jaganite

The aim of this idea is to compensate the landholders if there is a delay on Illuvium Zero (IZ) by allocating more revenue distribution to landholders during the delay, providing speed-ups, token airdrops, element airdrops or maybe even a production boost. IIP-39 has previously stated that IZ will be launched prior to Illuvium Overworld (OW).

The community discussed that any bonus speed-ups and resource airdrops would need to scale with the duration of the delay and plot Tiers.

However, some members of the community prefer to simply have IZ launch with or earlier than the Open Beta (OB), rather than receiving compensation. Their arguments include the need to test IZ with the fuel exchange, having revenue distribution be based on gameplay, and other concerns about landholders missing out on playing IZ and producing blueprints.

Player-driven Quest System

Author: Filow

The aim of this idea is to enhance players' interaction and engagement with the Illuvium Overworld (OW) by introducing a quest system where players can create and accept quests. The player-driven quest system would allow sponsors to participate in the OW without playing, while players can earn and level up their Illuvials without spending on travel costs and shards.

The community explored the quests objectives, rewards system, quest participant selection system, quest log, and integration with Illuvium Zero.

However, concerns were raised about whether the quest system would be more attractive than buying items from the Illuvidex and if it would require overly extensive development effort.

Make Illuvium Zero the only source of Fuel

Author: MegaRatty

The aim of this idea is to increase the value of Illuvium Zero (IZ) land by making all fuel production exclusively sourced from IZ and increasing the landowners’ revenue share from 5% to 20%. Currently, the DAO is set to produce 95% of the fuel supply, while in the temporary absence of IZ land, the DAO can produce 100% of the fuel supply.

The community explored alternatives to this idea, such as increasing the landowners’ revenue share by 5% for every additional 20,000 land plots, and ensuring that the DAO still maintains a portion of the fuel production. Furthermore, the community discussed whether the increase in landowners’ revenue share is too significant and whether the exclusive production of fuel from IZ land can match an increase in fuel demand to maintain the fuel price upper rail. There was also concern about the risk of landowners cooperating to stop selling fuel, which could negatively disrupt the game economy and game experience.

Call into Question: Proposed Time and Sequence of Launch

Author: YellowPartyhat

The aim of this feedback is to get a response from the Team regarding landholders’ concerns and sentiments toward the current condition of Illuvium Zero (IZ) and its potential delay. The feedback primarily asks the Team to launch IZ simultaneously with the Illuvium Overworld (OW) and Arena. Landholders feel deprioritized in favor of Free-to-Play (F2P) players and marketing objectives. They also expressed frustration over the lack of communication and transparency and reminded the team of their significant financial investment in Illuvium Land.

Launching OW and Arena without IZ would contradict IIP-39, which requires IZ to launch before the other games. Additionally, the Landholders believe IZ should undergo proper testing before the launch. They also question the effectiveness of prioritizing F2P players over the existing landholders.

The Team has responded that the delay in launching IZ is only a possibility and the target is to launch IZ together with the other games. They explain that the F2P feature could drive mainstream adoption, potentially attracting further interest in new Land buyers. The team assured Landholders they will receive their revenue distribution if IZ is delayed. Furthermore, the Team believes that launching without IZ and not delaying the other games would be the right decision if it comes down to it.

Illuvial Training Gyms

Author: HappyBallz

The aim of this idea is to increase the utility of Illuvium Zero (IZ) by introducing a gym building where Illuvials can be leveled up passively. The gym would require elements and fuels to be used.

The community discussed some technical aspects such as the number of Illuvials that can be trained at the gym, access for Free-to-Play (F2P) plots, training efficiency of higher plot tiers, and costs of training. Furthermore, the community discussed that the gym should not disincentivize players from playing the Overworld.

Governance Change Proposal - Durable IIP

Author: Johnny | Illuvium

The aim of this idea is to enhance confidence in the DAO’s long term direction by introducing Durable IIP. Durable IIP would require a unanimous vote to be passed and would necessitate two subsequent consecutive council epochs to vote for any change.

The community agrees that this idea would bring more stability to governance; there are aspects that need to be durable such as revenue distribution to landholders. However, the community expressed concerns regarding the ease of passing a Durable IIP compared to the difficulty of changing it. They suggested some changes to the requirements for passing a Durable IIP, such as implementing a referendum vote of token stakers.

Anti-cheat Policy Discussion Part 1 - What is Cheating?

Author: Johnny | Illuvium

The aim of this idea is to discuss the definition of cheating in the Illuvium gaming ecosystem. The idea provides examples of what could be considered cheating, such as playing on unofficial clients, using bots, hacking, and bug abuse. It also suggests what would be allowed, such as kiting, using overlays, and utilizing accessibility devices.

The community held discussions on several examples, including using known bugs in tournaments, comparing the use of bots with official automated features, using scripts or macros, multi-accounting, account sharing and rank boosting Additionally, they had an in-depth discussion regarding bots: some argued that bots could bring more revenue to the DAO, while others contended that bots are detrimental to the economy and the overall gaming experience.