RE: Revamp Market Fees to Include 2% DAO Royalty

Thank you for taking the time to voice your reasoning on voting no to this. To address your concerns:

1. The current market conditions is actually a really fair point I had not thought about. Perhaps this would be better proposed in a bull market? Not sure... However, I would argue that this proposal has little to no negative effect on the buy pressure of assets. If someone needs a card or if someone believes a card will go up, I honestly doubt that the selling fee of 6% instead of 5% would deter them from buying that card. Furthermore, I also don't believe this change will make anyone sell their cards if they weren't planning to already. Therefore, I believe it has no direct impact supply and demand. In fact, with reduced circulating DEC supply, we may actually see an upward pressure on price, increasing the utility and demand for cards. With that being said, I do agree that adding an additional fee in times of a long downtrend could leave a nasty taste in the mouths of many players. In fact, if this wasn't my proposal I'd probably feel the same! However, it is what you say, short-term pain for long term gain and in recognition of that I would still vote yes on this, since I am a large asset holder having been here from week 1. In fact, the players most affected by this proposal are the sellers who will only cop an increase in market fee without staying long enough in the ecosystem to reap the benefits of a reduced circulating supply of DEC.

2. The great thing about the DAO is that there is no "plan", it's up to us, the community to decide! Every piece of spending will need to be approved by us and although there is no team policy or team spending plan that I know of, but I can personally say I am against any further spending in the short term. I also don't believe the DAO would ever approve a proposal to sell or spend DECs until we are consistently at peg. Many years from now when SPS emissions end, @holoz0r pointed out 2% of market volume is enough to support ranked rewards, which would make it a great way to power our "play to earn" ecosystem sustainably. However, in the short term I am all for simply burning the DECs received by the DAO until SPS emissions end, but I know many supporters such as @davemccoy prefers it going to the DAO. Therefore, I see this as a middle ground, where it goes to the DAO for now but I plan to raise more proposals every couple of months to burn DECs owned by the DAO, which lets the community decide.

3. The issue with circulating DECs is addressed in 2. Furthermore, I would not describe the effect of this proposal as tiny. Even at current market volumes it is over 1 million DECs per day on average going out of circulation which is roughly 400 million DECs per year just from our cards market, not counting rentals, assets or lands. I also expect a huge uptick of volume around the release of lands 1.5. However, I do agree that this will have a larger impact on smaller markets since their fixed costs as a percentage may be higher, and smaller players since they tend to do less P2P deals and this proposal would reduce cashback services. One solace I have is hoping the reduced supply of DEC will benefit everyone, including smaller players and markets with increased earnings from SPS (as people begin to burn SPS for DEC) and more utility to cards bringing more volume to markets.

4. This point I understand well, and I spoke with @yabapmatt in depth about this before writing up this proposal. However, we both agree that funding the DAO makes more sense for now, since distributing to the DAO takes the DECs out of circulation in the short term which boosts the economy as a whole, thus bringing benefit to both the company and the players. If we fund the company directly, the DECs will be used to fund credit sales, which is beneficial to the company since they don't have to buyback as much DECs from the open market, but has no effect on the overall circulating supply of DEC thus no benefit to the economy. @yabapmatt also mentioned that changing the destinations and distributions of market fees is trivial once this passes, so if the company ever needs additional funds in the future they may simply put it through a vote.

Lastly, I don't believe any one of the top 5 third party marketplaces are going anywhere due to this proposal. Furthermore, I don't believe there are any new marketplaces planning to join our ecosystem anytime soon due to the current market conditions, and once we are thriving again, I do not believe this proposal would turn away any market places looking to join us. Therefore, I honestly don't believe this will do any harm to the diversity of third party services, apart from simply reducing their revenue.

For reference, here is a summary of their revenues (prior to cashback and server costs) over the month of April.