Proposal to cancel low participation tournaments
ce4487a98d434bf3b41469f830de9c7dfc0caea5
Current situation:
A lot of tournaments are hosted which have either low appeal or a very small number of people who qualify to enter. Typically, these tournaments will guarantee prizes for everyone who enters. While the DEC entry fee offsets the cost a bit, it usually means that players can buy SPS from the DAO at dumping prices. Not every season is the same, but in a 15 day sample size the DAO spent almost 200k SPS on tournament participation prizes where all players were guaranteed SPS prices. Detailed numbers can be found in the appendix.
Proposal:
Create tournaments with a minimum participation requirement, concretely if the participants do not exceed 75% of the prize positions. If fewer players register, the tournament is cancelled, the entry fee DEC refunded and the SPS goes back to the tournament pool.
Example:
A tournament rewarding the top 128 participants (most RF tournaments) would be cancelled if less than 96 players register. In the reference timeframe this would apply to 8 tournaments which paid out almost 40k SPS.
A tournament rewarding the top 64 participants (most GF tournaments) would be cancelled if less than 48 players register. In the reference timeframe this would apply to 9 tournaments which paid out over 150k SPS.
Desired outcome:
Tournaments that lack interest and don’t create active competition are simply not happening. This will prolong the tournament pool runway or allow to have more meaningful tournament rewards in the future.
Risk / potential abuse:
This change devalues cards used for very specific tournaments, like GF alpha or beta. However, since these cards have a strong use case on land, I think this is justifiable. After all, the tournaments are meant as competitions, not APR farms for old cards.
Of course, there is the argument that someone could simply register more accounts to push past the 75% threshold. While this would mean that such actors must pay more DEC and acquire more Collection Power, it also could lead to more SPS being paid out than is paid out now. Considering it is already against the ToS (to my knowledge) to play yourself in tournaments, this would be punishable anyway.
Team / DAO effort:
According to Clayboyn the functionality to force a minimum participation rate is already available, so the additional development effort would be zero. The only effort on DAO side would be for Clayboyn to set the minimum participation rate, which he can do when creating the tournaments, so the effort for him is minimal.
Appendix:
This is the data for all DAO sponsored tournaments for 1.10-15.10.2025, so approximately one season. The SPS given out is the actual given out SPS, so not the total prize pool.
| Name | Participants | Rewarded positions | SPS given out |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scarred Hand Expert Cup GF | 38 | 64 | 16741,5 |
| Intermediate Shield Series | 66 | 128 | 3920 |
| Hearthglen Field Novice Series | 40 | 128 | 1241,9 |
| Fight Pit Expert Series GF | 7 | 64 | 6293,6 |
| Scarred Hand Intermediate Cup GF | 37 | 64 | 5580,4 |
| Fight Pit Expert Series | 58 | 128 | 11027,5 |
| Intermediate Shield Series GF | 20 | 64 | 4111,6 |
| East Point Advanced Series GF | 18 | 64 | 7804,4 |
| Scarred Hand Advanced Cup | 67 | 128 | 7870 |
| Drybone Wild Advanced Invitational GF | 45 | 64 | 46980,4 |
| Scarred Hand Adept Cup GF | 30 | 64 | 2579,6 |
| Imperial Academy Adept Series | 57 | 128 | 1838,8 |
| Gloridax Wild Expert Invitational GF | 31 | 64 | 63186,5 |
| Scarred Hand Intermediate Cup | 57 | 128 | 3676,8 |
| Imperial Academy Adept Series GF | 10 | 64 | 1342,6 |
| East Point Advanced Series | 72 | 128 | 8022 |
| Scarred Hand Adept Cup | 58 | 128 | 1854 |
For tournaments with less than 50% participation 110537,7 SPS was paid out.
For tournaments with less than 75% participation 194071,6 SPS was paid out.
RF tournaments with less than 75% participation cost 39451 SPS.
GF tournaments with less than 75% participation cost 154620,6 SPS.
All numbers were manually acquired, so there is room for error, but overall this should be at least very close to reality.
Disclaimer:
The 100k DEC for this proposal were paid by yabapmatt. Please note, that this is due to him supporting the creation of proposals and is not indicative of any support for this specific proposal.
I support both the community running proposals and this proposal in particular.
I like this effort and proposal. I will be voting in favor.
A rework of tournaments is needed, is there a way that prizes can be based on entries rather than fixed? Eg Top 50% payout x SPS per entrant added to prize pool? Or x packs added to prize pool for every 8 players that enter spread across top 25%
I think it’s not about cancelling tournaments it’s about encouraging more participation but I do agree a minimum number of players should be required if we can not scale prizes based on entrants
My understanding is, that you have to define the minimum participation rate as well as the tournament prize positions in advance. Which means you could host a tournament rewarding only the top4 (so less SPS prize pool, not moving all the prize pool to the top4!) if you expect 16 players registering. However, this would be a lot of effort for clay to keep track how to structure each individual tournament and I think this is rather something to tackle with a more substantial rework.
This proposal is a very low effort way to stop handing out ~200k SPS per season as participation prizes. This is not to take away from the participants or say they abuse the system, it is mostly that I think the DAO can spend the SPS better (this proposal just keeps them in the tournament reward pool for longer runway).
Yes, would definitely be part of the bigger rework (would love to see live Swiss events) and I agree that paying out to 100% of participants is not the way to run tournaments - when players can ignore day two of an event because they know they are getting a decent payout it doesn’t encourage good competition
I think in the premium expert GF events, you should lower the threshhold to 32 from 64, then those key tournaments will not get canceled. Why not let the participation dictate the places paid instead of just canceling the low turnout events altogether?
To be exact, they are not cancelled, they are still created, they just won't happen if not enough players sign up. I didn't want to overload the proposal and keep it focused, but I could see another proposal which defines new base numbers for certain tournaments. Overall, however, I think the tournaments are not great as they are and a major rework would be a better approach to fix tournaments. This proposal is aiming to end pointless spending and by extension reducing SPS inflation and prolonging runway for the DAO.
Well, as your proposal is currently written, I will be voting against it.
I am not a major land holder and I get a lot of value from my older, maxed out Gold Foil cards by playing in the Expert Gold Foil events. There just aren't enough players that own Expert Wild cards to fill 64 seats, but maybe they would fill 32 seats. I should not be penalized by removing a lucrative tournament because there are too many seats in the event. I would support a different proposal that scales back the spots that finish in the money to make sure all tournaments continue to get played.
I understand completely what you mean and I discussed the scaling down you describe in some draft versions, but I really don't like proposals that include too many changes where a voter may be forced to take the good with the bad or vote against something they like because there is something else included they don't, so I removed it again.
My suggestion (to you and others who enjoy these tournaments) would be to wait a bit how things shake out, see which tournaments regularly get cancelled and then introduce a new proposal to modify their parameters. I personally would vote for such tournaments to be modified so they can happen regularly under the 75% participation rule with a modified and reduced prize pool (due to the earlier cutoff). That said, I believe many would rather want to see a complete rework of tournaments (me among them) so I don't know how much traction such a proposal would get.
I support this proposal even though I will see a loss from tournament winnings. I don't expect this to pass but think it would be beneficial for the game if it did. These low participation tourneys are contributing to SPS inflation.
If this proposal passes, it indeed will be beneficial to the game. I own a lot of GF cards. However, I don't support we run tournaments with low participation just because I have purchased some GF cards. Game and SPS inflation is the by product of this behavior which is detrimental to the game. The SPS hyperinflation in dragging us down and we should stop the leak, without that prices will never recover. Neither SPS nor cards or any other assets.
It is high time we think about greater good as opposed to our personal pocket books.
Well said. It looks like it is going to pass. Maybe I should have had more faith in the community to do the right thing
i agree this is better for the Game 100%
the tournaments are top heavy and do not appeal to new players. I also would like to see a tournament rework. That said I enjoy participating in tournaments and would hate to see the prize pool removed all together because we don't have the player base.
There's already a low demand for GF cards. Core CA GFs are being sold for as little as 30 cents. My concern is if you cancel all the GF tournaments people will dump their GFs and the problem will be worse.
You would have to check the tournaments, but most GF CA, GF modern and GF wild are not affected. Examples of affected tournaments are GF Diamond alpha and untamed only.
That said, I am absolutely for driving value to holding cards. Participation rewards for exclusive tournaments is just not the way to do it. Tournaments should be a competition, not an APR farm.
Are you sure about that? Look at the first tournament on your appendix. Scarred Hand is a CA only tournament. There were 38 participants and you want to cancel GFs with less than 48. If you look at the GF tournament schedule and go back a month, you'll find that about half of them would be canceled under these rules
I said most CA. The ones cancelled are typically tournaments with heavy card restrictions or Expert level tournaments with very high CP requirements. Simply tournaments for which a small amount of players even qualify. There are exceptions and fluctuations though.
I'm not saying it is a perfect change, but in the end it is something I wanted to suggest to the DAO, because I think it is better than what we have now. That's what the whole proposal thing is about after all, present the DAO with a choice and then let the stake decide.
I agree with the idea of reducing sps inflation, but this solution is too extreme. I used to be one of those people who played GF tournaments but had to stop when they got rid of daily rentals and it became too expensive. I tried to argue back then to let us keep daily rentals because our low tournament participation today is directly related to that decision. It's not just GF tournaments that will be affected. Some of the most fun tournaments in the game are the ones that mix sets like Untamed with Rebellion. You have to think a little and not play the same teams you normally do. Most, if not all of those tournaments will be cancelled too. I think we are on the verge of making another bad decision like ending leagues.
Thank you very much for posting this proposal before the new legendary summoners are released.
I am again reminded that owning cards in this game is a fools errand.
There are very few GF collectors left, this proposal will reduce their number further.
This is not an anti GF proposal, most GF modern or wild are not affected. It mostly hits exotic configurations like GF Diamond alpha and untamed only. Yes it will drive away some application from these cards, but if the only reason they are valuable is because the owner can have cheap SPS through qualifying for tournaments without any risk of not winning then it is a bad system.
I would think that GF cards which are good cards won't be hit too much, because they are still played in the other GF tournaments and ranked. It will hit cards which are only valued for their CP for exotic qualifiers and I do think we do the game, the DAO and the community a service by no longer supporting the value of such cards at the cost of the tournament reward pool.
From Oct 1st to 15th there were 16 GF tournaments - under this proposal (from the appendix above) 9 would have been cancelled.
Some people also rent to play these tournaments - will they risk doing this if tournaments can be cancelled due to insufficient players?
"Typically, these tournaments will guarantee prizes for everyone who enters. While the DEC entry fee offsets the cost a bit, it usually means that players can buy SPS from the DAO at dumping prices"
Tournaments have DEC fees and SPS / CP entry requirements. If you think they are so bad, I suggest you don't look at brawls.
Congratulations though, the proposal is passing by an overwhelming amount, and again many genuine thanks for posting this before the new summoners were released, you have saved me from wasting more money on cards.
it is anti GF proposal, i won't be supporting this
Indeed. This is my last season collecting GF.
LOL i think you are part of the few that are having automatic wins. I think his message is clear , how is it anti GF am not understanding
"From Oct 1st to 15th there were 16 GF tournaments - under this proposal (from the appendix above) 9 would have been cancelled."
From my comment above.
Automatic wins - I wish!!! Play some GF tournaments and find out :)
For me it takes away an incentive to own and buy gf cards. Not something Id want to see.
Completely agree 5 mishras!
Here is the solution to more cost efficient tournaments and to potentially get more interested.
Base the amount of winnings in a tournament per entry.
Base the amount per entry on Expert Level: Bronze, Silver, Gold, Ect.
Tournament Example
Silver Level: 10 SPS added to pot per entry
100 players sign up and the tournament begins
System puts 10 x 100 SPS in the tournament pool
Winners share in a total of 1000 SPS tokens
Winners payouts should be as flat as possible
Meaning pay as many spots as possible (there should be losers)
SPS numbers can be adjusted to whatever is reasonable. In this model its optional if you want to add more per entry for gold cards (I wouldn't) but if you ask me it isn't needed. The benefit in gold card tournaments is the smaller player field playing for the rewards (less competition not more rewards is the benefit). This will cut back significantly on tournament cost and allow all tournaments to run. PS. we need set specific tournaments. Alpha+Beta together since Beta is a repeat of Alpha. It would likely help with multiple markets plus potentially pull some stagnant users back into the tournament scene. My expertise in tournaments: I ran hundreds of online poker tournaments.
This all sounds reasonable, but would require quite some rework of tournaments. A major advantage of the proposal above is, that it is very low effort.
I know about this "problem". A good idea!
If this proposal fails, I'd love to help work with you to get it refined with the community to a proposal that will pass on under the hood.
I agree something has to happen, but I don't think this is the way.
I'd like to see something that can scale back up if we manage to grow the player base. I think these tournaments are a good way to attract or grow players within the eco system.
It was a big part for me and I am a big fan of tournaments, being a TCG player of over 25 years. I often travel to big in person tournaments for Flesh and Blood
There is discussion in the tournament discord right now about a modification / followup proposal to make the tournaments happen again. There are also average participations for each tournament type based on data provided by DuceCrypto. I agree tournaments are good, I do like competitive tournaments and think the DAO should provide them. Unfortunately a huge amount of them isn't, which is the reason for the proposal.
We are going against cards in a card game and focus on some token, but not on the cards and their use. Will vote against this proposal, as we need proposals who grow the card value in time, not erode it. Also, proposals that don't destroy cards, but give them more use cases.
Aware players are active ones and they move the flywheel more than throwing vinegar at all of our leaks.
Tournaments are for players to rent SPS and stimulate rentals, that said we also created seasonal rentals and 7 day sps rents to a system that was designed with daily rentals and no delegations.
Our System needs to attract outsiders and since we don't advertise much yet I guess the strong point is keeping our current players happy and growing in game even by small amounts a happy player is a good word of mouth player.
Against this proposal, I see no abuse of the system it just seems we as a community like to shrink any leaks like Walmart. We need to be more like Costco and improve the economy with incentives that create a positive cycle, like Fortune draws than drawbacks like shrinking a tournament pool for people who want to take advantage of an arbitrage, shrink the tournament pool and rewards and even less players participate till we reach the point tournaments don't exist this is just one step forward towards that outcome.
True greed is trying to be Vruz with the SPS you Gremlins :D
Just one correction on the above. "Typically, these tournaments will guarantee prizes for everyone who enters." -> From my experience, prizes areNOT guaranteed just for entering. You still have to win at least one match in the tournament (and therefore, actually compete). A couple of times I missed the deadline to enter my line-up, and therefore lost all matches and did NOT win anything as a result, even if number of participants was smaller than number of rewarded positions.
You have to at least submit your teams, if you don't you don't win, but submitting any team and not winning still counts, but it has been a long time since I actually managed to lose every single game, so it might have changed.
In tournaments you have to win or draw 1 game to be eligible for rewards.
If you lose all your games you get nothing.
In brawls if you put matches in you get sps even if you lose all your games.
imagine tourneys with only 7 participants out of 120 minimum. Even the guy creating these tourneys should have noticed. I see very less wild silver tourneys as well i do not understand the reasons behind so much gate keeping. I thought tourneys are supposed to have as maximum participants as possible. I am definitely going to vote yes to this one and thank you @cardeegel for bringing up this one.
Congratulations @cardeegel! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next payout target is 50 HP.
The unit is Hive Power equivalent because post and comment rewards can be split into HP and HBD
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
STOPGlad it failed if you're coming in and taking out the tiny SPS rewards from tournaments for the people who rent SPS or own enough cards and SPS to enter them, and calling it free money that needs to be cut off rework it :)