Should Splinterlands Move to 18-Month Cycles?
In this video, I respond to a comment on my YouTube channel regarding whether or not Splinterlands should move towards consistent 18-month cycles for their releases. Now that there is some stability on the balance sheet the team can focus on the long term and how to structure the future of the game without worrying about how to pay the bills next month. Since I've been here, we've seen both 18 and 24 month cycles but if we move towards 18 the structure actually lines up nicely - you can have core set, reward set, and mini set all 6 months apart. What do you think?
Join Splinterlands: https://next.splinterlands.com/register?ref=aftersound
Connect with me here:
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/aftersound X - https://x.com/aftersoundmusic YouTube Gaming - https://www.youtube.com/aftersoundgaming
Stream my music here:
Spotify - https://tinyurl.com/y3bxc5rd Apple Music - http://hyperurl.co/aftersoundapplemusic YouTube Music - https://www.youtube.com/aftersoundband
Posted Using INLEO
That essentially means increasing the cards introduced per year. I don't think that is a good idea at current time. Things are running smoothly with the balance sheet. Lets not disrupt. Introducing cards at a quicker rate brings potential for further dipping card prices. The old mantra of less is more is something I am a big fan of. In a hot market, sure; strike when the iron is hot. But lets wait for the Splinterlands market to get hot again first. I believe that having nothing officially for sale for months is beneficial. It creates FOMO and puts currency in the pockets of those trading on secondary markets. Currency that widely dips back into the Splinterlands ecosystem, next set of packs.
Hi! It's great to hear the team has financial stability to focus on long-term structure. A structured timeline like core, reward, and mini sets every 6 months gives the economy much needed predictability. Thanks!