DAO Proposal: Revamp Splinterlands Affiliate Program
b53f5a98d32d540ac54ee94ff09428df7478502b
The Proposal
Remove the current Splinterlands affiliate program and replace it with a new 2 tier affiliate program. All players would receive the following tier 1 benefits:
- 500 credits upon affiliate spellbook purchase (unchanged)
- Bonus rshares at end of season equal to 5% of rshares earned by affiliates (max of 2x players own earned rshares)
Players who have referred at least 25 players who purchased a spellbook (excluding free spellbook promos) or who have received a special invitation from the Splinterlands team or the DAO receive all of the tier 1 benefits plus the following tier 2 benefits:
- 2.5% credit affiliate bonus from the Splinterlands team for primary packs purchased with credits (unchanged)
- 2.5% DEC affiliate bonus from the DAO for packs purchased on sets where the DAO receives a percent of the sales
- 0.75% affiliate commission on all secondary market transactions (buy or sell)
The 0.75% commission will come out of the current 2% market burn fee and will NOT increase fees on the marketplace. For example: if both the buyer and seller were referred by a tier 2 affiliate the market burn fee would be reduced to 0.5%.
UPDATE DURING PREPROPOSAL STAGE: The terms of service will also be updated to prohibit players from abusing the affiliate program, including but not limited to referring themselves to use the program as a cashback system or partnering with others to do so.
This TOS update is not intended to apply retroactively or trap players who have previously self referred their current account.
Video Breakdown
The Current Problem
The current affiliate system in place is a failure and does not provide incentives for bringing new members into the economy.
First off, it only rewards primary purchases made via credits. Only a small percentage of players put money into the system this way though. Packs only tend to be worth it for those buying on a large scale, so most players buy specific cards on the secondary marketplace instead. Plus many of those who do buy packs will do so using a currency other than credits. None of this rewards the person who referred the player making the purchase.
On top of that, many players who do use credits to buy packs will not do so on their original account. They will create a new account, referred by their original account, and claim the affiliate bonus for themselves. This completely removes the rewards from the original referring account.
The affiliate program has basically turned into a cashback program for large spenders and provides very little benefit to those who actually refer new players to the game.
The Solution
The solution to the above problems is two fold. First, we need to create a system that rewards players for all types of referred players.
This is accomplished with the tier 1 rewards, by allowing players to earn extra soulbound cards by referring other players, even those who don't spend heavily. It also gives players more rewards the better their referrals perform, so this motivates players to help their affiliates perform better in game.
Second, we need to reduce incentives for players to buy an additional spellbook just to get themselves listed as their own affiliate.
This is accomplished by removing direct financial benefits (minus the spellbook cut) for tier 1 affiliates. For most players, the in game soulbound benefits will be superior to the credit rewards of the old system, but will be more difficult to exploit, because they will be bound to separate accounts.
Creating an additional affiliate tier that is exclusive only for top affiliates allows for a system that is financially lucrative for those with the ability to bring a large number of players into the game, without being available for exploit as easily as a cashback system for players. It also gives marketing teams a base to help recruit influencers into the Splinterlands ecosystem without requiring large expenditures from a marketing department.
Many games reserve this as a private tier only for those who have received a special invite from the game. This is a centralized approach. The invitation option is included so the team or DAO employees can attempt to recruit outside influencers into the system, but it is also available for anyone who proves themselves by referring 25 players to join Splinterlands.
While this system does reduce the burn fee for secondary transactions of some referred players, there will still always be some DEC burned from every transaction, and this is still greater than if these players had never been referred to the game to begin with. Getting more players to join Splinterlands will burn more DEC overall.
This proposal is sponsored by Splinter Card Seller, a market bot to help you quickly sell your Splinterlands cards on the market at the best possible price. You can get started by visiting their Discord here. Note: The sponsorship of this proposal is not intended to act as an endorsement of the p
I would like to see some numbers before this goes any further.
For starters,
How many people has the old system recruited?
How many of them are still playing?
How many people do we expect to join the affiliate programme?
How many people do we expect those who join the programme will get signed up?
What is the projected overall growth in the game?
What is the cost per month or year of this proposed new scheme?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Thank you for taking the time to put this together and for your calm attitude in the video. It is refreshing to hear a calm individual giving arguments in favor of his ideas, without accusing others of anything in this community. Thank you! :D
Thank you for putting forward this proposal to revise the Splinterlands affiliate program.
I have some reservations regarding the mechanism proposed for funding the 0.75% affiliate commission on secondary market transactions. The suggestion to reduce the existing 2% market burn fee to allocate funds for this commission raises concerns about potentially undermining the long-term value accrual of DEC, as it would decrease the burn rate.
Technically speaking, adding a separate affiliate fee on top of the existing market fees might be more straightforward than adjusting the distribution of the current fee. Did you spook with someone from Team about it?
This approach would not only preserve the existing burn rate, but it would also simplify the implementation process. While it could lead to a slight increase in the overall transaction cost, this method would ensure a sustainable way to fund the commissions without compromising the deflationary mechanics of DEC.
quanto mais taxas menos vende
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @bulldog1205!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal
Updated At: 2024-05-13 23:34 UTC
Not sure about that part about getting a commission when someone you refers sells their assets but other than that I'm on board.
So would you rather see the buy fee doubled to 1.5% and no sell fee?
Keep in mind that someone renting out their assets on the market would be considered a "sell".
I think the .75% buy fee on the buy is enough but if its gotta be 1.5% (I don't think that will pass) it should be all on the buy and none on the sell. I don't see why the referrer should be paid out when someone rents out their asset either. The referrer should be paid when the referral adds value to the ecosystem, not when they extract it.
I think there are some great ideas in here but I will need to be voting no for the current iteration of this proposal.
Firstly, I do not want to see the 2% burn being reduced. This will most likely be abused by people who simply make an alt and self refer, that will be inevitable and reducing the burn from 2% to just 0.5% is potentially taking away hundreds of millions of DEC burn over the next few years.
This is how much we have burned since the DEC proposal
Another issue is the additional technical implementation involved. We all know the team does not have a lot of resources at this stage, so I do not want to be putting another project on their plates. I want to be seeing more work on NPE, lands and ranked instead of this UNLESS we know for sure there are KoLs who will actually use this system.
I am willing to bet we will NOT incentivize many new KoLs anyway with this new structure, until we finish everything else I just mentioned. Therefore, although I think this proposal is a great start to something beneficial, I don't think the current iteration will do the game any favors and it's definitely not the right time.
I suggest we revisit this once the game is ready for new players, and once we can confirm we can get new KoLs with a revamped affiliate system.
I would like to see the .75% for a referral selling their assets be removed from this. That would make it a minimum of 1.25% burned instead of .5%. But beyond that, if this is successful and brings in new players, I would hope the increase in market activity and asset prices would more than make up for the percentage drop.
My thoughts on waiting...
All of us came here when the game was in worse shape that this and we figured it out. There's no reason we suddenly can't handle new players just because improvements are coming. Improvements are always coming. We can't wait for perfection to move.
Splinterlands has this really bad habit of waiting for a thing that never happens instead of just fixing the problems we have. We are always waiting a few weeks or months when X happens and the problems fix themselves. But over and over again that thing we have to wait for never seems to come or it doesn't actually fix anything when it gets here. It is doubtful this NPE/hire a marketer thing will be any different.
Honestly, do you think we're going to be able to hire a marketer who is good enough to turn this around and bring in tens of thousands of players after we add one click rentals and a new battle screen? I would think someone like that would be working with the projects that can actually pay them what they're worth (which is a lot if they can reliably turn multimillion web3 projects around).
Matt has already told us we can't afford to hire a marketer right now. It's unlikely rebellion sales are going to turn around when we're losing players at a faster clip than we're gaining them. In 6 months, their finances will probably be worse than they are now if we don't get new players in before then.
We're web 3. Currently there is no incentive for web 3 influencers to send players to us. That's a problem that doesn't get better because of NPE. Any web 3 marketer is going to come in looking to rally influencers and they will have no tools to do it. This would give them some tools.
I just don't see a reason to wait on this like we wait on everything else. If the team can't do it. Let's try to get the DAO to move on it 🤷♂
Those burn fees are only from the 2% that are burned or do they include the 1 DEC flat fee for listening a sale or a rental? Is there a way to check those if they are separate?
I will DV the proposal as well based on the ground that it is 'unnecessary"
I voted for it but if I had to guess, this doesn't go through with the lowering of the burn fee
Not many people will be earning the 0.75% affiliate commission you have proposed. Reducing this fee could be a good compromise. If the fee is 0.5% we will have upto half of the burn fee used as affiliate commission and the rest burned. Overall I am positive about these ideas. We need a to bring more players and the old systems clearly has not worked as well as we wanted to.
Is this true? I only buy/rent thru credits. If so how does everyone else do this.
I'm a bit tired atm, so I haven't read it all, but I've never really liked affiliate programs.
But do you buy Rebellion packs with credits? Buying on the secondary market or renting with credits does not currently generate any affiliate commission. Only primary pack sales via credits. Right now DEC is at 75% of peg, so you are way overpaying if you are buying Rebellion packs with credits.
I only buy cards not packs - but all my rental transactions are with credits.
Affiliate program definitely needs a revamp.
I still worry this could be abused similar to how to current system is as you describe in the proposal. In this case the DAO and DEC holders lose out. Would be good to add a clause in about abusing the program can get you taken off, similar to the credits clause. Hopefully manageable as there should be few accounts qualifying.
I will vote yes as this is long over due and believe it will take positive steps to attracting attention of influencers. I think they may need even more incentive to make a big difference however.
Are you thinking just a simple ToS update that allows the team to remove anyone from the affiliate program (either tier) if they are manipulating it?
While this might sound good everything about a 2 Tier system scream Illegal in so many ways and because of that I'll have to vote no on this sorry.
Could you elaborate. Lots of games, including web2 games, use this same approach. Typically the second tier is completely hidden though and is only available via invite for people like influencers.
I thought it would be better to make the 2nd tier public and accessible to anyone who shows they deserve it.
After reading this over a few times it might not be 2 tier that I'm thinking. When I heard 2 tier I was liking level 1 5% affiliate commissions and then anyone your affiliates bring on you'd earn 10% commission on for example. That's what I think of when I hear 2 tier affiliate program which is a big no no. But from how I'm reading this it's the same single layer but if you hit the standards you're entitled to higher rewards. In that case it should be fine.
I just wonder why the splinterlands team always said no to commissions on DEC though and if that some how leaves the game open for possible attacks from law enforcement in the future or some type of exploit.
Now this is something I can get behind, always thought the ref. system needed a revamp.
We could also do with a bit more stats and details on your refs to further visualize and incentivize the work!
edit: do hope this system will override the old one BUT keep the ealier referrals so we don't have to start all over
I would love to not need to restart with referrals. I've got a ton, although I know many are inactive. But I'd still rather give them all up and restart with a new, better system if that is what was needed.
I agree the affiliate program should be re-vamped soon, and it would be great to see more incentive to recruit. Thanks for taking the time to put this first draft together! Some cool ideas here, and with some re-working it could be really good.
BUT first and foremost I agree with Cryptoeater on NOT reducing DEC burn for transactions. This is vital.
I also do not agree with referrers getting up to 2x rshares in ranked as a bonus. This basically allows some players to blast past other players in areas like the new SB sets etc, which are supposed to be earned only from playing the game. Ranked bonuses should not be a part of referral bonuses imo.
Also not into the permanent commission from referrals buying/selling. I DO want SPL the company to get a permanent residual from secondary sales of ALL SPL assets (as is the case in many other NFT projects), but that's another topic.
I agree that the affiliate program is very bad but I don't agree with these solutions. I think it's difficult to balance the % on the secondary market stuff. We simply can't had extra fees on top of those 6%. 5% wasn't good and it was increased to 6% which I was very against. But reducing the burn fee is also not good.
I also don't understand the rshares part. What does that give? Glint? SPS? Both? I'm against any of the options. More SPS would mean a smaller pool for everyone else. More Glint would mean that some players with a lot of affiliates could earn Glint very fast, breaking the system. It could also be very easy to exploit by bot farms. Have 1000s of accounts in wild feeding one main account that would get a lot of Glint this way and buy 1 of each title as soon a new one shows up and a lot of chests, energy and anything that is worth it.
Congratulations @bulldog1205! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 33000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Before I refer anyone to this "play to earn game" I would like to hear from anyone who has actually made a fist full of dollars other than the development team. I know of a whole bunch of players that have shilled out a suitcase full of $ confident having made a good investment even claiming that they are still way early in this project. With the giant inflationary beast SPS only ever trending down and card prices and land well lets just say it would be hard to keep your chin up if you forked out 10k.
I'm not trying to stir anyone up I just want to know if anyone has made anything from this game and if it really is worth putting time and money into it. Please respond to this post if you have done well from the game or know anyone who has. Does the game have anyone that can claim to have made a million?
The affiliate program is not the big challenge of Splinterlands at the moment.
The game became too complicated for new joiners to understand and play.
Soulbound cards are also another challenge because it's the disadvantage of new players vs. old players.
So, no changes in the drafting phase?
Only this:
"UPDATE DURING PREPROPOSAL STAGE: The terms of service will also be updated to prohibit players from abusing the affiliate program, including but not limited to referring themselves to use the program as a cashback system or partnering with others to do so.
This TOS update is not intended to apply retroactively or trap players who have previously self referred their current account."
People want there to be more done to block the "cashback" system. I haven't seen any other realistic ideas to help though.
This is a really great proposal - well done @bulldog1205. It's well thought through and clear and makes sense. I definitely will support it. The only question I have is whether this is supposed to be backward-looking or not. For example, if someone has referred 25+ players in the past, do they get tier 2 rewards going forward?
I think it should not be backward-looking, and we should probably just get rid of the old referral stuff completely when implementing this and start with a clean slate. Otherwise all of the bot farms that "referred" their thousands of accounts will get tier 2 and 5+ rshares bonus from all of their bots which I definitely don't want. Let me know what you think about that.
I wish it could be backwards looking, but I completely understand your reasoning on why it shouldn't be and would support that. I'm obviously extremely biased here because of all the referrals my videos have generated, so I'll mostly step aside on this debate and accept whatever the team/community wants there.
Is it ok to simply leave this up for the team to decide, or should I edit the proposal to specifically state this?
You can leave it up to the team to decide. I certainly understand your bias, and in an ideal world I would prefer to have it be backward-looking too, but the unfortunate reality is that I think it would just give people who have exploited the system in the past even more rewards.
Starting with a clean slate would also mean we don't decrease the burned DEC from market fees for any accounts that are already here. Some players expressed concern that we would burn less DEC to reward previous affiliates while no brining in enough new players to offset this. This would lessen those fears I believe.
yes - that too. The goal of this is to get more new players into the ecosystem, and reward current players for doing that. Not to give more rewards to existing players for no reason.
Was this modified at all or did it go straight to proposal unmodified? I watched the video and Bulldog seemed open to changes and like the first rendition was a draft.
The only change made was adding the clause about making it against the terms of service to abuse the affiliate program with things such as self referrals.
There was no strong consensus that emerged for any other changes.
While not in the proposal, Matt also made a comment that the Splinterlands team would likely not make this back facing, so the all these benefits would apply only to newly obtained referrals, so we only reward new actions that bring in new players and it won't just be a "handout" to existing players.
The proposal should be first to eliminate the current affiliate system and then another proposal be crafted to introduce a new system. I would vote to eliminate the current system that is nothing but a drag on Splinterlands. But I am voting against the proposal because I don't like the new system.
What if any stop gaps would be in place to prevent people from referring themselves. Being that many people have alt accounts I'm starting to think people would just buy packs etc with their alt accounts which would funnel rewards into their main account.