RE: SPS Governance Proposal - Contract Flowdesk for SPS Market Making Services
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I was willing to do 1 MM as a compromise, but I prefer 0. So I will vote against because I think its a waste of money and we get no value.
Paying an automated MM to create fake trades is all this will do in reality. While I understand it creates the impression in people's minds that we have activity, its really just something that "feels good". Its a waste of money and we don't need it.
These are irrelevant markets and this "pay to play" model is extremely distasteful. I'm sure there are people that actually think this provides value by marketing the game, but I'm also sure there are many that know that's simply not true and these "market makers" are just churning trades to make sure the exchange gets some revenue.
We have decentralized exchanges that can exchange our assets into any crypto, so the purpose of paying payola to keep these 2nd tier markets filled with fake volume is a pure destruction of money. We should protect our money better in my opinion, and be real about what value this provides or we will run out of money fast.
All good points. I think we have to consider if it's worth it to have a way for people to get SPS exposure from FIAT in one step. RoyalEagle was pointing out that it typically takes him I think 4 steps and multiple trades to go from FIAT to SPS.
CDC gives us a FIAT straight to SPS option. The question becomes - is that worth it? Ie most people here now are crypto savy enough to navigate the multiple exchanges needed to buy SPS. But if we plan to onboard new players they will need an easy in. Would CDC be that in? I don't know. But even new players will have to buy SPS if they want to earn via gameplay and invest in their accounts long term (as opposed to just renting SPS).
I don't like the model either, but that is how it works at the moment (until we generate organic volume). Exchange listings may me vital as the next run kicks in... or they may not be. That's an important decision we have to make.
I would be willing to bet that almost no SPS is bought on exchanges. The people that know about SPS and buy it, use the decentralized exchanges hive-engine and pancakeswap.
My first point is we've had these exchanges and they did absolutely nothing. People point to volume on these exchanges, but its not real demand. Its good old fashioned wash trades where the MM buys and sells to himself or his aligned accts.
If we were talking about Binance or Coinbase then I would understand, but lets not kid ourselves we get NO new players or money into the game via these 3 exchanges. In fact we've already tried this. And everyone knows the saying about the definition of "insanity".
We don't have the money to just throw around for the perception of having an "exchange listing" that won't bring any value. Like I said I was willing to accept 1 exchange for a compromise to those people that FEEL it will one day change and be helpful. But that didn't work, the people for the exchanges wanted to go for 2 exchanges and pay more money that will be wasted.
The one thing I haven't heard in any of these conversations is anyone explain how these exchanges have in the past helped us bring people/money into the game. The reason is because in our hearts we know it isn't true as our token sits at $0.0135 and at an all time low and the number of new players we get is close to 0.
I would ask everyone to think for themselves, would this $60k be better spent on something else? Something that would actually bring people into the game or bring money into the system?
I know its nice to spend someone else's money, but if this were your personal fund (to everyone), would you really spend it on this or would you find something for $60k that would actually provide value that is real and noticeable?
I'm not mad at anyone for voting for this, I just think its time for us to make hard decisions and cutting wasteful spending that has proven its lack of value is a good place to start.
I hear you loud and clear, and I'm not sure which way I'm voting yet. I'm just looking at it form the perspective that all of what you detail happened in a deep bear, and that we literally spent 0 effort even trying to bring in new players. My question is... when a bull kicks in and we are actively working to onboard new players... will having these listings be worth it? It's a matter of positioning and looking ahead instead of looking at past mistakes. Past mistakes go deeper than saying these listings did nothing in the past - there are a lot of other reasons we have not been bringing in new players.
As I said I'm undecided right now, and appreciate your POV as always!
If we want to have something "just in case" we hit a bull, then I think we should spend as little money as possible to have that available option. That's why I was willing to accept 1 exchange as a compromise.
But going for 2 exchanges is ignoring the point that these have been a waste of money and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Its a vote that says for ONLY $18k MORE dollars (in addition to the $42k for one) we can have two tier 2 exchanges (instead of 1) providing NO VALUE until such time they MIGHT be useful when everything else is in line.
If the proposal is changed to 1 exchange and we put some fiscal discipline into our thought process then I wouldn't vote against it in deference to your point of view (and the others that think the same way). But if it stays as 2 exchanges, then I think we are not really serious in protecting the capital in the DAO and to me that's a big mistake.
I didn't vote wolf's proposal to save the DAO money because I don't think we should be risking $50k at this time on something speculative. I surely would rather have his attempt to grow his game (and thus ours) rather than repeat the same wasteful spending to 2nd tier exchanges that require payola for us to be listed.
And I also appreciate the dialogue Jimmy, I'm not mad at you or anyone who votes for it. My negativity for this is:
My perspective is that the days of exposure on centralization acting as marketing are over now that there are so so many tokens. Before it seemed as though being one of 10 coins out of 500 moving a day might draw some new interest, but now there are thousands of coins on these big exchanges, thus the exposure gained may be much lower now.
I think supporting more pairings on HiveEngine + Onboarding videos on how to make the process easy might be a better way to go. I have no idea either, and also am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to think I have the correct answer. Just sitting in my chair trying to predict behavior.
Agreed. We should be spending money to get more players, not fake trades. The player base is priority right now.
Once we have too many players and they are asking for exchange services then we revisit this proposal.