Request for Transparency Report

By Blueprint Baron · · 161 views · 10 upvotes · 11 replies
Explination Part 2.jpg Dear TokenLords RPG Support / TokenLord, Thank you for the thorough explanations in the VIP chat (full thread screenshots attached). I understand the position on the private Angel Investor / Supporter agreement and its stricter locked terms. While I appreciate the distinction and the indirect benefits to the project, I remain concerned about how the transaction aligns with the published Whitepaper v0.1, particularly regarding revenue handling, burns, and the player rewards pool. Whitepaper Commitments (Relevant to Land / System Sales): Land purchases are supposed to trigger a 10% burn (with 90% to treasury). More generally, system sales have 15% burned and 15% going to the rewards pool. 10% of EUR revenue from land sales (and similar purchases) contributes to the EUR Distribution Pool for weekly player rewards.

Concern (with calculation):
We do not know the exact details of the transaction. However, for example, if the land was valued at around €31,500:
Using the system sales split referenced in the whitepaper: 15% to the rewards pool = €4,725 that should have gone to weekly player distributions.
Using the land-specific rule: 10% burn = €3,150 burned, plus the EUR pool contribution.

If the deal was processed at €20,000 or handled privately, any reduction or bypass of these amounts would reduce burns (affecting the token price floor) and shortchange the weekly rewards pool that regular players rely on after investing significant amounts.

Requested Actions:
Provide a full transparency report on this transaction, including:
Exact amount received and how it was processed (tokens, direct EUR, etc.)
Amount burned (if any)
Amount contributed to the EUR Distribution Pool (if any)

  1. Retroactively apply the proper burn and rewards-pool contribution based on the €31,500 valuation (or equivalent adjustment to the player pool) to maintain the advertised economy and deactivate the ruby land completely until tokens are unlocked.

  2. Public clarification (whitepaper update or announcement) on how private Angel Investor / Supporter land deals are handled and how they ensure compliance with the core mechanics.

  3. Personal resolution: fair compensation or in-game adjustments for any economic impact.

I support the project’s vision and want the economy to function exactly as described. Clear transparency will help maintain trust for all players. Please provide a detailed response within 7 days.

Thank you,
Blueprint Baron
07/15/2026
Explination Part 1.jpg

Replies

Blueprint Baron ·
Tokenomics.jpg
Blueprint Baron ·

I hope you can understand but according to last weeks payout, I would have gotten 18.4% of the pool and is roughly 860 Euros. Not small change.
IMG_3916.jpeg

Dommong ·

Very good points Blue! I was wondering the same thing.

This game is supposed to be whale proof (as stated multiple times since the game was created). If whales come in as investors they could, in theory, buy up all the land, control the game, and the players do not get a percentage of the money spent.

I do believe TL said he would take care of us/make it right and the weekly pool was small and I have not seen the pump into the pool as we should have if a €30k+ land was purchased.

Looking forward to see how this is handled and if this game is truly whale proof!

Vowels of Exabytes ·

It’s hard to say anything definitively when I know only small bits about the situation; I want to stay open-minded and reserve judgement. However, one can say there are stricter terms an angel investor must abide by and that we’ll be getting better benefits as a result all they like, but this certainly has the appearance of giving such an investor a means to at least skirt if not outright get around the restrictions the rest of us adhere to, delayed advantages or not.

Roker009 ·

Ok so i am really confused here.
Brother INVESTED in game, and was declared as An Angel Investor. Big deal as €20k is not a small amount, but help me understand the difference between Investment and in game purchases please. Coz if i am investing in a project, that means i am helping the devs with the progress, but if i am purchasing In game resources, wont that make me a Whale player ?

As an investor i should only get the share of profits, not in game resources.

Correct me if i am wrong.

Blueprint Baron ·

The land is a huge part of the active player economy. By buying the coins late after the game has been mostly released, it mitigated risk and in web3 should have profit off coins. Allowing them to bypass game mechanics to trade the coins for a Ruby land devalued everyone’s profile who played and paid the “Normal” way from now on.

A-Z Prince of Ordo ·

yeah i think it would be nice to have a bit of clarity as to what the deal's details are.. I still don't understand how a ruby land that helps a player in game wont effect the economy. it 100 percent effects the economy and everybody else's tlrpg payouts. also gives the angel investor a huge mining rate bump for all materials but his investment isn't put into the economy? i get the idea behind an angel investor and i have zero issues with a player buying land and reaping the benifits......but only IF SAID PURCHASE IS INJECTED INTO THE ECONOMY and not put under lock and key leaving us all blind with zero details. Will all other Large investments come with a deal and be tucked behind the curtain as well?

Roker009 ·

Good argument.
But as I mentioned above, investors and in game purchases should be considered separate.
Investors cant use same funds to buy in game purchases, and can only help grow the projects.
Lets see what happens.

Blueprint Baron ·

Just wanna make a note here. It is appreciated per the announcement that an undetermined amount of coins will be burned and 2-4k added to weekly pool. This will help correct the economy although it moved the goal post in that players who were a part of the pool 2 weeks ago already should have received this. Also, this does nothing to assure us that deals in the future will not be handled like this and economy be impacted severely again.

Blueprint Baron ·

PS the new LITE coin that has never been mentioned before further devalues the land previously purchased and not knowing how much of this will be introduced adds to the uncertainty of future and integrity. Unfortunately the economy has be made worse for early investors and no response has been given here in this ticket by developer or staff members to help and tomorrow will be two weeks.

TokenLord ·

We have already answered these questions in Discord, repeatedly and in extensive detail. Claiming that no response has been given is simply not accurate.

We also stated multiple times that once the full arrangement was finalized, the complete details regarding the weekly pool contribution would be posted in the announcements. That process has been communicated transparently from the beginning.

Players are receiving substantially more than required under the current tokenomics. The calculated amount was approximately €3,200, yet we chose to contribute €4,000 worth of TLRPG LITE. That is an additional benefit, not a reduction in value. In the same conditions Wyssen has agreed - same ones players get.

The claim that early investors were treated unfairly also ignores the opportunities that were available to everyone. Players had the chance to purchase land at approximately €0.10 per token, and there was also a promotion that awarded an additional €1 worth of land for every €1 spent. In other words, other players had access to deals that were equally favorable, and in some cases better.

Wyssen’s request concerned Ruby Land. The additional tokens are a temporary solution until the Web3 release. Players received more than they were entitled to under the existing rules, so presenting this as though players were shortchanged is misleading.

You are free to disagree with the decision, but it is not acceptable to repeatedly claim that staff and developers have ignored the issue when every question raised in Discord has already been answered. Disagreement does not mean there was no communication, and repeating that claim does not make it true.