RE: Revamp Market Fees to Include 2% DAO Royalty
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I like 2% going to the DAO, and encouraging 3rd party development of both the buy and sell side seems like a smart thing to do as it should create more liquidity with payment for both sides of the trades. Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems good. I will vote for it. Nice idea @cryptoeater!
0
0
0.000
Thanks Dave :)
Dave, this can potentially kill multiple 3rd party applications. The applications gives us options as a consumer. You of all people know how important competition is in a free market system. Please reconsider your opinion. I have listed my thoughts in a post:
https://peakd.com/hive-13323/@azircon/another-day-another-indecent-proposal
Edit:
As the proposal is edited I feel I needed a new edit too :)
https://peakd.com/hive-13323/@azircon/getting-dec-to-peg-again
I will dig deeper. My thoughts were this would create more competition, not less. I'll speak with the 3 major providers and get their thoughts and input. Of course I want competition and I also want a vibrant and healthy 3rd party market, so yes I will.
Please talk to smaller players like MM, cardauctions, splex & layer2lab who are in discounted card sell business.
Also please talk to peripheral services and tools like https://splinterguide.com/ https://www.splintercards.com/ https://bo0mburst.github.io/splinterguilds/
All these services and the small players, many within your own guild will be hurt big time.
Peakmonsters/Jarvie can take a small revenue hit, not only because he is a big provider, but also he get hive DHF funding $600/day! I am not saying he doesn't deserve it. Peak is an excellent tool, and I use it. I am writing this note on Peakd. I am only saying he doesn't care about the small revenue loss, while the others will get decimated.
https://peakd.com/me/proposals
I will definitely do that. I think all the 3rd party services are great. and want them to weigh in. Also not only on this proposal, but how we can deepen and improve our ecosystem.
That's a totally different project and focused on building open source products for Hive, not Splinterlands.
PeakMonsters is not open source and not funded by that proposal at all. As everyone on Hive already knows you can easily see how funds from that proposal get used and how many developers are working on those open source projects. And follow their work on GitLab (https://gitlab.com/peakd/).
Yes. But you are still developing PeakD right? You are same human?
Totally humans, with the same limited amount of working hours/day to split across all different projects 😄
And we use funds from the proposal only for hours worked on the open source stuffs. Otherwise this number would be zero:
Yes. So my point is your living expenses are cared for. Even if from a different source on the mother chain. You deserve it. Well done!
Your competitors can’t say that. They are dependent on this card market revenue stream. Do you understand?
I get your point. You look at this proposal and evaluate how it will impact existing projects. I look at this proposal and I evaluate how it will attract new projects or define future development for 3rd party tools.
Many of those marketplaces have been around for years and the developers know the ecosystem very very well. I'm pretty sure they will adapt to the new model. It's not something that should be effective starting tomorrow. Elapsed can be defined in terms of weeks/months.
What about a "discounted card listing business" for projects that want to go there?
It's upto the businesses to propose it.
You are correct, this would create more competition to develop better tools for listing cards instead of only incentivizing making better marketplaces for buying.
Thank you for taking the time to contribute to discussion, though it would be appreciated if you could post it under the original proposal next time.
Firstly, I do sympathize with the third-party marketplaces that may take a hit from this proposal. It is not my intention to "kill multiple 3rd party applications", but rather improve the Splinterlands economy and shift market development incentives. In fact, I do not believe your claim actually has any basis or merit but rather an exaggerated rhetoric designed to scare people into making a misinformed decision. Would any user-friendly and competitive market frontend really shut down as a result of this? I honestly don't think so... but if anyone does it's simply a sign that they may not have the time or tools to develop anything competitive anyway.
Furthermore, I believe it is extremely important for there to be a fee for both the listing and buying marketplace. Otherwise, there is no financial incentive to create and improve on a user-friendly listing frontend.
Lastly, a royalty to the DAO is long overdue. Nearly every major NFT project on Ethereum has a "creator fee" for their team, which is charged on top of the third party market fee. This is an absolute must for the sustainable development of any NFT/GameFi project. I am also flexible with the DAO portion getting burned instead, or shared with the Splinterlands company for further development.
Personally, I believe DECs funding the DAO is important because it gives the community the flexibility to vote to burn, to use or simply give to the company (if needed). However, that is most likely many years away and in the short term, these DECs held by the DAO is effectively out of circulation as they cannot be sold, as I doubt the community would ever vote for it to be sold or used for anything against the best interests of the ecosystem.
First of all. I have left a note on the original proposal post. You can check the top comment by Dave and you will see it.
Second, I like to write it in my own blog so that I and only I control the narrative. As this is my personal view which I am 100% entitled to.
Third, I have no interest in what you think about misdirection. I have no vested interest in your proposal. I do have a vested interest in the game. I will let people do what they care, but surely I will influence them.
Cheers
Hey AZ, I read your article and I'm paying attention.
I have been trying to get the three main 3rd party providers to find a compromise they can all support and endorse. I believe they are close to a compromise between the 3 of them, but they now need to work with cryptoeater and see if they can meet his objectives as well.
Of course in addition to what these 4 guys come up with, will be how the community views the solution. (and also the SPL team might want to weigh in as well)
This is a very complex issue that will affect many in the community. There are pros and cons from everyone's perspective. And those are not always aligned.
I do have faith in the process though. I feel the fact that we need 66.67% to pass in the proposal stage means it will either meet the needs of the community or it will not pass.
I appreciate your efforts to fight for what you think is important, it shows you care. And that's in the end how we make this whole process work!!!