RE: Splinterlands: Post-Mortem Analysis of Riftwatchers Presale Proposals

You are viewing a single comment's thread:


It's good to hear from you, though I'm more used to seeing you post from your other accounts. Not withstanding the grudge that you have had for several years against @aggroed and many members of the Splinterlands team, I do think you bring up many interesting points that should be discussed - some things which I agree with and some things which I don't fully agree with.

I do agree that there should be subsequent votes before refunds are processed. But I think it should be done for the sake of further clarity and to allow players the opportunity to offer amendments or revisions to Proposal #3.

I disagree with your claim that this was "manipulation," but I do think there should be greater transparency regarding how certain high level people vote.

Keep in mind that the vote would have passed even if spswhale had not voted. In that case it would have passed with 67.93% of the vote.

Is your issue with:

A. The fact that spswhale voted on one proposal but not the others? (The issue of "selective")

B. The fact that spswhale voted near the end of the process?

C. The fact that Aggroed voted at all?

  • I think it's fine if some accounts vote on some proposals but not the others. I think a lot of accounts did that. In fact, there were more votes for Proposal #3 than for Proposals #1 and #2. Or if you excluded spswhale, there were more votes for Proposals #1 and #2 than for Proposal #3.

I do think it would be ideal if there were additional vote options such as "abstain" or "present."

  • Timing is tricky. With the Reward Pools by League and TD Reward Pool proposals, there were some complaints that Aggroed and Yabapmatt voting right from the start (before anyone else had the chance to do so) could cause undue influence because their vote weight would give the impression that the vote was going to auto-pass anyway. But as we see here, voting too late in the process risks other types of complaints.

Now that the SPS Proposals are utilizing a public discussion phase, this may mitigate the issue of voting early.

  • Right now, Splinterlands team members who happen to be asset holders, stakeholders, and/or players are permitted to participate in voting just like any other players. The two founders (Yabapmatt and Aggroed) have reflected upon how they should vote and under what circumstances but AFAIK nothing has been decided on that yet.

It would be one thing if spswhale was a Splinterlands company account (company accounts shouldn't vote) but AFAIK, it is a personal account.

If you think there should be restrictions at certain levels you should clarify at what level:

  • Founders
  • C-level
  • Board members
  • Leadership
  • Employees
  • Contractors
  • Team members
  • Partners

I think there is value in the founders being able to vote with their personal stake to stop proposals that could threaten the game or the company. I think such a safeguard would actually be a net positive.

I do wish there were guidelines or a procedure for how and when the founders vote (e.g. whether they should vote at the beginning or end of the process, that they openly declare which accounts they are voting with, etc.)

I myself try to be as transparent about my own voting as I can, and (when possible) to provide explanations and reasons for why I am voting the way I am. (And for the record, I voted against the Reward Pools by League and TD Reward Pool proposals, even though they ended up passing).