Another Day; Another Indecent Proposal
Another Day; Another Indecent Proposal
Honestly, I must say, governance is a lot of work. With the DAO Proposal system in place at Splinterlands, there are proposals published, feels like every other week. Since I am personally quite passionate about this game, I take this proposal system quite seriously. As a large stakeholder, I find it is not only my responsibility to vote, but it is also my responsibility to make others aware of the details and hidden agenda of many of these proposals. Trust me, they all have an agenda (they better!), and often hidden agenda, which is not easily visible to a casual player/stakeholder. There is nothing wrong with that, as this is politics. Therefore, it is my duty to make people aware of the hidden agendas as I see them personally. Then it is upto YOU to cast your vote and make an informed decision.
The proposal in question is currently in pre-proposal phase. This is Revamp Market Fees to Include 2% DAO Royalty. From the title it reads good. Even on the body it is rather well written with pros, and cons clearly marked as per author's opinion. However, here are my issues with it, if this proposal is implimented:
Less incentives for development of new tools by the third parties because everyone will try to build the same card management interface. Not an efficient use of development time.
Increased costs for the cards buyers. Previously cards sellers were paying the market fee which they can easily include into the total price, and buyers could have gotten a discount by using certain marketplaces. Both parties were happy.
Increasing DAO fund at the expense of the players.
Yes, the money will be going to the DAO, and you might ask, as a big supporter of DAO why I will have a problem with it? Trouble is, DAO is well funded now, and will be for the next forseable future. This proposal also takes a small chunk of revenue from Splinterlands company and regular players. Heaven knows, the company needs every single ounce of revenue we can muster!
As a consumer, I like competition, and I dislike monopoly. This proposal can potentially kill all 3rd party competition and take away all our options. Not only that, many small players rely on these 3rd party tools for the small benefits they provide. In my view, this hurts those small players in a big way.
Again, I discourage unnecessary proposals. This one is certainly not needed. This doesn't improve game play, doesn't do anything for the players. I request to you all, please consider voting NO to this Indecent Proposal.
I rarely engage in posts but I totally agree that this proposal just takes from the team and the smaller players, the ways dao is funded are pretty good rn we don't need the company losing money, especially at this time!
Thank you for your comment. It is a good idea to engage. That way you get to know people and people will know you.
Yea I semi-rarely engage with content.. Its good to let people know that they arnt talking to the wall, or the same people every time tho !
I think that such proposal is quite good. Getting some money from players but at least ensuring liquidity and engagement from players.
It's a good form to "self-fund" and then be responsible of how players are paying fees.
Not really. This is done actually to destroy competition.
DAO is well funded, there is no shortage of funds.
Why you say that? I mean, if anyone taking part is involved into the funding of the DAO, wouldn't make all the people more responsible and balance more (and eventually reward deserving users)?
You are missing the point. This has nothing to do with the DAO. If this passes, it make third party sites, which provides a lot of value to the ecosystem, rather unprofitable.
fairness for players
care to explain more?
I am a player. I am unclear how is this fair to me?
The DAO has to somehow get that 30million SPS for exchange listings back, may as well be from fractional market fees on DEC :P </controversial opinion>
LOL now you say that! 30M SPS :)
That was a disaster to pass.
My somewhat cynical tactic is to vote no to every proposal while DEC is under peg to ensure that a further 100k DEC is burned on modifications to the proposal.
It isn't constructive, but it might just work.
I will join you!
AGREE
But I'll express my true opinions on chain in the pre-proposal, but vote no when it makes its way to formal governance. Allows for deeper scrutiny that way.
nothing wrong with that
Great, we've now established a voting cartel representing 0.8% of the total staked sps
We can move ... tiny mountains. And they call us "whales". Pah
LOL. I hate the word 'whale' :)
me too
At the moment it feels a bit like splnds is acting like a cat trapped in the corner. Surely I agree with making a gaming systeem sustainable so it doesnt burn itself. Since I am a small player (but looong term player) hoovering around in gold league always I dont always have the ability to find how all of these things play out for the whale players. But what I do know is that there needs to be a balance in making a game attractive to players (because hey...if ya cant make a buck than maybe something else will) and also keeping it alive to not be drained at all times.
But with the profit of crypto going down for a while now and that they had to fire a lot of people, it feels like some aspects of the development are stagnating which is also not a winner. So if fattening the DAO would work on getting more devs on board and more stuff out then yeahhh..please do so.
Is the DAO so phat right now for the long term is the question?
DAO is well funded, that is NOT a problem.
Problem is the game is stagnant, and desperately need new players, as you correctly pointed out.
I will thumbs down it as soon as I get home bud!!
👇
!BEER
Cheers!
I kinda picked up PC gaming again, and just started spacing out and playing games.. I havnt played splinterlands in a long time.
Thanks for the update/notice.. Do you find these same kind of Indecent Proposals in the DAO of the base chain?
At hive, they are far and few. The ones that are funded, have been for a while and they all have either a working product or cause. I say it is more matured.
noice
The advertising manager needs to be hung on the nearest pole - a bunch of videos on YouTube advertising the top games on the blockchain and there is no Splinterlands anywhere / not a single one of my friends has heard of this game! If this Splinterlands advertising and promotion fagot dies tomorrow, we won't notice it!
I like to keep the conversation respectful.
Also why are you self-voting your comment? I will remove the rewards
You can do as you like - my rhetoric probably deserves it - as well as the politics of the Game !!!
I'm starting to feel a bit uneasy about paying this much for game politics and internal memos. As you say, every two weeks, and I've noticed the drama lately. I don't discount the fact this stuff is important to you folks. This trend can potentially make the brand less appealing to outsiders and tarnish its reputation. Just some food for thought. I'm also well aware of that fact you're not in control of how much support comes in. Downvoting simply because of high rewards in this scenario can also create the illusion of people disagreeing with the message within, which could potentially contribute to swaying minds in the opposite direction.
A lot of moving parts here. In general, gamers gravitate more towards fun, friendly environments. Something to consider as well while you folks travel through this uncharted territory.
Have a nice day.
Agree 100%.
You know this well that I can’t control the drama.
I know. And you did point out in a way that people need to be responsible with their influence. People need to be alert. Someone could come along with the most ridiculous proposal in the history of ridiculousness, trolling the entire community into a reaction they might regret.
It's kind of cool in a way. There's "Professional Gamers." And now there are gamers who need to be professional.
this makes sense. i agree with you.
Totally NO to this proposal, lately it feels very strange this amount of proposals very close together, in my opinion an important point would be how to improve the game (Make it more fun) how to bring new players, everything now is about the economy, I would allocate resources to make people want to play the game, often something fun, it becomes very profitable, because there would be no problem to invest. I love the game, the cards, their designs, but I think a little more of this is needed.
I will post my thoughts on this later. Good post Azir.
Yes, too much focus on the economy and not much on gameplay
😬😍😍😍
Why not have people compete to build better marketplaces for selling AND listing? If you really love the free market and the game, you should like this proposal, it incentivizes competition in more areas, leading to better and better tools at lower and lower cost.
3rd parties can start incentivizing listing with their site by offering cashback for sellers, leading to lower costs for sellers, leading to them being able to list for cheaper prices, helping buyers. Net 0 effect on buyers.
this is the only reasonable point and I agree it should be 1% or less to the DAO.
You should take off your conspiracy theory hat and look at this from a more thoughtful and considered point of view.
Let me first tell you a fact; I am bald. So it not easy to take off my hat in the sun, you see?! :)
You request a thoughtful point of view. I put a lot of thought before I write anything. Regarding conspiracy, I hate them, just ask around and do a bit of research on me, and you will know my general view on conspiracy theories. Best to ask @r0nd0n :) Sorry Ron for the tag.
Ok, with all that taken care of. Let me make something plain. When I wrote this post this morning I didn't think PKM has anything to do with it, but throughout the day, Jarvie and even Asgarth (who rarely talks!) sat on that proposal post in support. You know it is rather odd. So I ask myself, who benefits the most if this passes? Why are PKM folks so vocal about it? And I got my answer. This essentially threatens their competition.
Now I request you, please take your blinders off, and think about it. Get back to me after you think, okay?
I am your friend here, you just don't know it yet.
Well, I am already almost blind, so I don't use blinders, but instead glasses! 😁
I have no interest in guessing who defends what position or why they do it. I am interested in the betterment of the game and ecosystem. I see this proposal as a move in that direction by incentivizing more development in more areas.
You surmise that this threatens PM's competition, but have you considered that it would actually encourage others to compete with PM's listing interface?
I believe more competition is better for everyone. If a 3rd party marketplace is only used by people because it offers cashback, but is in every other way inferior to another 3rd party site, why should they be allowed to earn market fees for little or no work?
Shouldn't they be incentivized to improve and build more and better tools?
two of PKM's competitions publicly said that they do not support the proposal. That is good enough for me.
this is the free market, here the customer decides and the customer has obviously decided that cashback is more important than additional features. so if you think you have to manipulate the market. then please as the market has decided. namely that cashback is more important than additional features. so the proposal should push peakmonster to offer cashback and not the other way around! how can you want to force the more popular market to adopt the model of the worse market. this makes absolutely no sense!
if anything, you would have to take the criterion that is most important to customers, and that is obviously cashback, and push the markets to do it. if you think you have to push the markets to do anything at all. but the proposal even aims to destroy/weaken the most important criterion of customers instead of strengthening it
for me, it's clear that this proposal must come from the competition.
We are with you!
This is a voice for the voiceless.
Respect 🫡
plain and simple, I am in agreement with you to vote no for this proposal for one singular reason - it takes profits away from the Splinterlands company. Right now, I think we need to prioritize company profits over DAO profits, end of story.