Land SPS distributed to those who have surveyed - (A Splinterlands Proposal)
be2deb63cb24dd179769912d93f7413602ff9e62
https://hivehub.dev/tx/be2deb63cb24dd179769912d93f7413602ff9e62
INTRO
This is intended to be a temporary proposal that would last until the Splinterlands team creates a new proposal that implements what they shared in the Land 1.5 Whitepaper. @yabapmatt has indicated the changes indicated in this proposal would take very little work by the Splinterlands team. However it is up to the stake holders to decide if they would like this ~4 month change.
WHAT
This proposal is a simple change that states:
SPS designated for distribution to land holders should be distributed only to those who have surveyed their land.
HOW
IF surveying is live AND IF this proposal passes
THEN each surveyed land plot will receive a proportion of the the SPS pool (designated for land) equal to the proportion of surveyed land.
WHEN
This proposal would last from when surveying starts until a new more advanced proposal takes over.
- This is estimated to be approx. 4months
- Surveying is estimated to begin the end of this month (march)
- A new SPS distribution system is estimated to begin June/July
WHY
- This proposal would align the SPS reward structure with the most up to date land products.
- It should speed up the process
A. Claiming deeds / Getting the land-location you have been waiting for
B. Surveying
C. Purchasing surveying starter packs that the community already voted for
D. Arriving at DEC par value (through quicker purchase of starter packs)
WHY NOT
- Users who do not want to claim a deed (a location in Praetoria) in the next ~4 months or do not believe this proposal would accelerate the claiming process to get them the location they want may not be interested in this proposal.
- Those hoping to get DEC at lower rates and need more time may be against acceleration of getting DEC to par value before they can get what they need. (If they assume this will accelerate and increase the consumption of DEC for starter packs)
There may be more WHY and WHY NOT in the comments.
This makes perfect sense. YES
Why: Why not? :D
lol
In all honesty, I'm torn, acceleration is appealing but so is letting things come to terms at their own pace. It's a 50/50 split for me on which I prefer. They both have benefits and both have drawbacks. I guess we'll see what the consensus is. 🤔
As a disclosure I have a region that I have not yet claimed and i have specific area i'm hoping to get ... and so there is a chance i would be negatively impacted by this proposal. And yet I'm still happy to vote for it for the greater good.
why you are so cool, amazing personality.
why would you vote to give away your SPS reward to Big wallet players?
Did I miss something?
Another reason why.
The community voted to start the SPS drop to land holders in large part because land has been delayed for sooooo long. Now that the process of getting land going is well under way, it doesn't make sense to be rewarding people who are not actively wanting to participate in the latest updates.
This SPS was originally intended to be ONLY for people actively working their land. This proposal is in line with the original intended purpose of this SPS.
Couldn't agree more with this, give the SPS to people participating also encourages claiming land, otherwise, we will be in Land for posterity much more time. Enough is enough.
Agreed.
Agree 100%
"The process of getting land going is well under way"
So still not here?
Give me land, usable land. Then I will consider "participating in updates"
Why force to play it does not make sense even for your brains Freedom I follow you for years ;)
I agree it great to reward those involved.
But How can you vote yes for this forced land tax to get SPS when you have no idea how much itll cost.
Bad Idea till pricing for surveying is defined.
Or did I miss something that stated the cost?
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @jarvie!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal
Updated At: 2023-03-26 18:49 UTC
At first glance this makes a lot of sense. If you want to be rewarded in land 1.5, you need to participate.
i don't think there is a sensible or logical argument for no. i can only think of egoistic motives for saying no!
I can... We have no idea how much the survey tax will cost. Did I miss something that has the pricing?
The proposal could be a reason for people to get incentivised to claim their deeds, thus speeding up the process. Though I'd argue that the 60 days drop-off for the starter packages is also an incentive.
With this said, the lack of non-cards asset locking would be an argument against this proposal, since I would have to move my land to my hot-wallet without any mechanism to lock my surveyed land.
I am trying to understand the pros and cons of this. The text above didn’t make it clear for me.
For clarification:
I am a land owner. I already receive SPS for my land holdings. I have converted my land tokens to land deeds already and will survey all my deeds. How does it impact me if the proposal passes or doesn’t pass?
It should help you get more of the SPS dropped daily. Since there are bound to be some people who don't claim and survey and they would be ineligible.
People who have not surveyed their deeds will cease getting payouts, therefore the pool will only be distributed amongst those who have. The likely outcome with you surveying 1000 plots would be a larger share of the SPS pool until everyone has surveyed.
Well. I guess it's fine then. Maybe the purpose of this proposal is discouraging "not surveying"? Maybe land token flipping? I am cool with this. Likely will pass
I think the actual purpose is to encourage people to continue to participate, considering the original proposal was enacted due to the delays associated with land. More functionality is being added, so people should no longer be rewarded for being passive-- they need to take the next step to continue to earn rewards.
More likely more surveyed land flipping in the short term, as people who don't want to hold common and rare plots sell them off.
It's a well worded way of saying "let's cut off those people who aren't active enough to read this and vote no"
Out of principle we should be against things like this that alter the terms after the fact. Imagine if you bought high dividend stock in a company and didn't attend their annual meeting and they decided at the annual meeting that anyone who wasn't present at the meeting would not be eligible to collect dividends. This is no different. Pure shady and dishonest insider schenanagins.
The proposal will pass
of course it'll pass - "hey let's ask the people who directly benefit from something if they'll vote for it"
I agree with you 100% even for those who are paying attention it is still not that obvious for land
The white paper was shock to some with the amount of DEC which will be required to survey your land , i feel this proposal has merits but for myself i do not have 2m DEC lying about to purchase the build and time crystal starter packs for each land. Which i will need to, to make sure i have for my best plots. A gradual surveying of my land would have happened but i lose out on SPS rewards if i do it that way now if this passes.
see benefits / reasons to vote both ways.
I'm all for people getting off their backsides and surveying their land. Go, touch grass. Don't sit on parcels of undeveloped land. It'll be an eyesore among my towering structures. :)
Hard disagree on this, just feels like a group of insiders voting to allocate themselves some time on the printing press before the other landholders who aren't actively involved don't notice and miss out.
I don't even own land, this doesn't impact me in the slightest, but we need to say no to all "quickly decide to allocate stuff from a general pool to the people who happened to do this one thing that wasn't previously laid out that it needed to be done."
This is pure insider nonsense. But of course it will sadly pass because those landholders who haven't been active and surveying won't be around to vote no.
Out of principle we should be against things like this that alter the terms after the fact. Imagine if you bought high dividend stock in a company and didn't attend their annual meeting and they decided at the annual meeting that anyone who wasn't present at the meeting would not be eligible to collect dividends. This is no different. Pure shady and dishonest insider shenanigans.
do you realize that the sps airdrop does not actually exist. it was only introduced because of a proposal and the waiting time.
You're missing the point entirely, out of moral principle we shouldn't be voting to only benefit those who are present to vote. This is simply a brazen attempt to exclude others who bought in.
This is how you kill an ecosystem and cut off growth by upsetting a lot of people who already bought in but weren't "active enough" by a few insider standards.
If we are cutting out even the people who bought in then why on earth would they ever buy in further or invite others to join?
I think YOU are missing the point. Nobody 'bought in' with the expectation of SPS rewards prior to land being implemented by simply holding tokens. It was never offered as an entitlement to owning tokens. The rewards were voted on as a stop gap measure until land was live. Land will now advance to 1.5 and that proposal needs to be revisited. Rewards will get cut off eventually for those who don't participate either way. Will you complain then if it doesn't happen now?
Ironically the sense of entitlement the dao vote would create was a matter of discussion...
Ok, bear with me with here.
You buy a stock not knowing there'll be a dividend.
They decide at the annual meeting that they'll start issuing a quarterly dividend.
At the next annual meeting they decide that only attendees of the annual meeting will earn dividends going forward.
Would you be ok with this despite that you bought the stock prior to the dividend announcement with the "well I didn't expect a dividend in the first place" mentality? No, you'll be very upset.
I think we're talking two different things. You're talking about physical rights whereas I'm talking about disenfranchising people who are active enough in the community to even own land. This will be a terrible thing to do in my opinion. There's fundamentally no reason for this other than "I've done this and other's haven't so let's cut those other people out"
If you're arguing from first principles then it would never be appropriate to cut off rewards for people that don't participate. Participation is the entire premise of land, not token dividends. Taking away these rewards was always bound to be an issue for some. I have about 150 plots and have doubts I will be able to survey it all in time, yet I understand the spirit of the initial DAO vote as does @Jarvie who stands to lose more than I if this passes. There will never be a convenient time to take rewards away from people, but that is inevitable.
I think not only you have difficulty understanding this proposal but also having difficulty understanding how land is supposed to work. Please invest more time reading the whitepaper which is long and complicated.
On a different note, this proposal will likely pass easily.
i'm not sure why you're going into ad hominem here,fyi i have read the white paper.
knowledge and differing opinions aren't mutually exclusive and moreover none of this is in the whitepaper so it feels like you're just assuming i'm speaking out of ignorance instead of having an informed opinion that you disagree with
A couple of big hitters just voted against. Likely because of greed... so it's now very much on the fence.
Hilarious that you accuse the people voting against this of doing so out of greed
tis true... selfish greed.
We see things differently i guess.
Land was not supposed to be an entitlement but greed caused us to vote land tokens to earn sps a while back (under the guise it was gonna help ... land prices or something silly) and no one wants to give up their free lunch now that land is launching.
yet you're not advocating giving up the free lunch, you're simply stating that you think only whales should get it
Look at the list again... you're on the side of whales that haven't claimed their deeds. I looked at the list and looked at their accounts. More representation of land holders on your side proportionately. The numbers speak.
Look, I agree that land is certainly the domain the whales.
I also agree that doling out SPS to them just because is absurd.
Yet, you're not advocating against this.
You're advocating to only allocate the rewards only to those who are more actively involved and investing far more into their land.
You're arguing to funnel resources and it's hilarious that you pretend it's out of altruism.
I can fix it real quick if that’s what you like @jarvie
you don't seem to understand well. i don't feel like explaining it to you. but your argument i would like to refute, even the one who wrote the proposal still has a whole region that is unclaimed....
There are not even 10 people who vote "no". these are almost all multi accounts of the same people you see there. do you notice anything else? 🤣
my entire point is that people who aren't active with their land are also not going to be active in voting, pointing out in agreement with what I already stated was the inherent problem with this as a refutation of my stance is puzzling
so you feel that people who are not active with their land should continue getting paid when the only reason that they were getting paidf in the first place was because of land delays? Land delays are no longer. land is moving forward. Either participate or miss out.
He may be an alt for one of those whale accounts... ever think of that? hahahaha
yes, there is no other way to explain why someone who likes to discuss and advocate for the rights of the poor whales does not have an account onn discord ;)
Terrible, selfish idea
Truly appalled at the greed.
100%, the real issue with voting power being directly attributed to staked sps is that a handful of whales can determine all results and thus will propose and vote to enact whale friendly policies
would love to see a change where staked sps is scaled logarithmically or just capped. For example, someone with 100 staked SPS doesn't have 100x more voting power than someone with 1 staked SPS but more like 10x or 20x.
but of course it's a waste of DEC to propose this because nothing will pass without whale approval and no whale will vote to neuter their voting power
it's a waste of Dec cause people then just split up their accounts into 100 smaller ones etc. Whales have more to lose, gain from decisions made. I haven't seen any 'loose cannons' yet just people with different ideas
There's a pretty clear track record of proposals one-sidedly cannibalizing future growth in order to payout whales. While I agree that there are some who'd find workarounds, I think it's still better to force them to make workarounds rather than just give up.
This ecosystem is dying. They printed far too many cards expecting massive growth and that growth has flatlined. The entry level cost to get into the game at this point is prohibitively high and the rewards are not big enough to justify doing so. This is why growth is not happening. And now we have more absurd proposals each day just to allocate more and more to whales until the game is dead.
This is to give LESS to the whales that sit there and don't participate or don't do things motivated to help the game. You are legit on the side of the lazy greedy whales from our perspective.
But maybe the compromise is to turn off all SPS to land until the whitepaper mining system gets approved. I'd vote for that.
Speaking of greed... those who do NOT vote for this proposal may qualify as greedy in our opinions.
The SPS airdrop for land was meant to be an intermediary step (as a side note that proposal in my opinion should have never happened but people voted on it because "hey free money" and i have come to terms with it) but the concept of getting money for no action simply holding something most people bought a long time ago seems greedy.
It seems that SPS should go to those who actually participate in Land not simply hold it. SPS goes to those who play. Those who risk by putting into the liquidity pools or those who risk staking for 4weeks (which btw is not that big of a risk)
Well for many months people got money just for holding land because real land usage didn't exist and there was no way to participate. My only regret was not doing this proposal like 1-2 months ago when deeds came out. But when surveying comes out people can and should participate in interacting with land.
There is a case for saying that: Wanting more SPS and NOT participating is the real GREED!
But i'm interested in hearing from @davemccoy ... he doesn't strike me as being this greedy maybe he just doesn't understand the "money for nothing" greed I see when people vote against the proposal.
I originally voted for it thinking it was pushing people to "claim" their land. That I don't mind doing, I do think people should be encouraged to cooperate and claim their land.
But when I was told that I misread it, and it wasn't for "claiming" but instead for "surveying" the land, then I changed my vote.
I like the concept of encouraging people to claim their plots. That only takes time and effort, but not any money. Thus if people are paying attention then the minimum they can do is spend some time and money to claim their plots.
But I don't like the concept of forcing people to survey their plots (which forces them to spend money before they may be ready to). Thus if someone is saving up to get some of the packages, and it might take them 30 to 60 days, then I don't think they should be forced to choose between saving up their money for the special packages and LOSING their SPS or not getting the packages and getting their SPS.
I think we have been very patient (as customers of the game), so I don't see why we would all the sudden want to see players be forced to make an early decision on the surveying.
So the TLDR version is:
I'm FOR stopping distribution to those that can't spend their time and energy to claim their land, but I'm AGAINST stopping distribution to those that aren't ready to spend money to survey their plots til the 60 days they have for the special packages are over.
I'm not being greedy and voting to keep my SPS distribution to just sit there and collect SPS, as I'm very happy to vote for removal of all SPS rewards until the land is live if that was a proposal too. (in addition of course to the fact that I would vote for this if it was simply claiming the land plots). So in my case its not greed at all, I just feel bad for those people that don't have the money liquid to survey their land because they want to get the special packages.
NOTE: I have what I need to survey my land so this won't affect me either way, but I do know of quite a few people that are scrambling right now to get the money they need to buy either 1, 2, or 3 of the packages.
NOTE 2: I also think if we force people to decide before they can adequately come up with the funds, then they will just not purchase the early packages and we will LOSE their spending of DEC in the process. Its not a huge deal, but it will be a missed opportunity to have more participation.
The one for claiming land should have been done like 3 months ago... everyone was too greedy to get it done back. We're like 3 months behind the times.
You know better than to call it "forcing" them i'm disappointed with the manipulative rhetoric. Like the game is forcing me to play 24 games a day... I have played none this week because i chose to do other things do people feel forced to play? Maybe some do... but i don't think you would use that rhetorical wording for getting that SPS distribution so why use it with this?
People can decide to be involved in any stage of the land system they want... the majority of us are saying to get SPS we believe they should be involved in the most up to date version of land. They're TWO versions behind... not even one. They're 2 versions behind and I can't think of anything but greed that makes them just want to keep getting their free lunch without having to do anything at all. Well in land 1.5 it's gonna be a huge wakeup call at least this is a baby step towards that wake up call and stop the entitlement mindset.
If this fails and you want to stop distribution to ALL for land that's great. Land holders got way way too much for doing nothing besides spending $8-10 in a pre-sale they have been way too rewarded already. So yeah I'd vote for you on that... but that would not get funded very easily and this proposal will very likely get funded so hopefully we don't have to worry about it.
Again people can wait to survey it's totally fine... but now there would be more incentive. Otherwise there is NO incentive to survey until june/july. Land is coming out ... it's done the stupid free SPS to holders should be over.
I was not trying to be salty, nor did I intend to offend you @jarvie . You tagged me for my opinion and I replied out of courtesy to you.
I did vote for the proposal when I thought it was simply for claiming the plots (which I supported).
I only gave you my explanation as to why I didn't like the proposal as written. There is no intent on my part to use manipulative rhetoric, as I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I only stated my thinking since I was asked.
I also would point out that I didn't make this comment as its own post comment, instead I just replied to you. If this passes I won't be harmed, so I don't have any objections whatsoever to people voting how they feel.
I realize that written words are sometimes misinterpreted, so hopefully you mis-read mine. I don't want to disappoint you (or anyone else) on this issue. I don't want to manipulate anyone on my part towards the outcome, and I hope you understand we just disagree on one very minor point.
I actually wanted this to pass as of about 4 hrs or so ago. Not until someone told me that I read it wrong did I even consider voting no. And I'm not asking you to change the wording or do it as I would like, I'm simply voting for what I think is right based on the reasons I've given above.
I have much respect to you for caring about the community, this proposal shows you do too. I am not doubting your intentions, and believe we wouldn't even have a game if you weren't involved from the beginning.
I'm happy to discuss further at any time and honestly I hope I've cleared up my position on it because I definitely don't want you to be disappointed in me for trying to hurt you or your proposal in any way.
It's all good i chose to discuss with you because i respect you and also because i thought it was so out of character to vote for what i guess some of us consider to be the greedy choice. (but I guess to kinda steelman what i think is your position is that you're looking out for the economics of people that will be impacted by not getting a few more months of easy sps or that they'll feel anxious about not spending money for starter packs when they do their free surveying)
I guess i brought you in because Sometimes discussing with people that we have no connection with or background with leads to so many problems and i was wanting to discuss with somone.
After looking through the list of voters it does seem like it's mostly some dog and cat accounts that are downvoting it haha... kinda funny.
Also when i did the proposal i really didn't know if it would pass it certainly wasn't a sure thing... i guess i should be impressed by the community that it's doing as good as it is.
I completely understand the points you guys are making and I definitely think the "giving out SPS for just holding land" is not productive.
Also if I knew the timeframe of implementation gave people at least 1/2 the time the game DEVs are giving, then I'd vote yes on this. In other words, I think people should have at least 30 days from the time they "CAN" survey their land to raise the funds to do so. That would be half of the 60 days those packages were available.
I think the proposal will pass as is, so of course there is no need to change anything for me. Also I get that people feel that its wrong to just collect SPS and have no intention of ever playing the game. I not only get it, but I agree 100% that's wrong.
The only thing I think you have wrong is where you said this:
I don't want people to get their "easy SPS", so this particular point is wrong.
But I do feel there are many players that have to make choices between assets in-game and also in real life, so I do believe that anxiety is real and I can sympathize with them.
Glad we are good and I don't mind at all if this passes if that's what the community wants. I have many friends on both sides of this argument.
ps... I didn't vote my bigger accounts against this because I like the spirit of the proposal (getting people off their asses and paying attention to earn money), even though I wish it was for claiming the land instead of surveying it.
I guess I don't understand why the distinction is important. This is a bandaid that must get ripped off at some point. For some reason the argument is that people who are paying up to 30k DEC per plot must continue to subsidize the SPS rewards for the people simply claiming or holding tokens (and make no mistake, it creates a subsidy for the laggards). That doesn't seem right. Rewards after surveying is a natural extension of investing in land to the highest level to maintain rewards. There will never be a comfortable time to stop paying rewards to people, but we need to advance the ball.
I think there are people that are not sure what they are going to do yet, do they buy 1, 2, or 3 starter packages? If so, how are they going to pay for it?
The game devs are giving them 60 days to make that decision and not requiring them to do so on day 1. They are doing that for a reason. I think the main reason is many people don't make "snap decisions". Since those type of people have been patient and waited for 2 years, I feel its only fair that we give them some time to adjust once it is "live" (for surveying). The reason I feel so is because it will require expense from their pocket and I want them to make a good decision and not feel rushed.
So the difference is simple. Claiming the land is an act that doesn't cost money, so anyone can do it and it only requires effort and time. But surveying the land will cost money, and since people will be spending money then I want them to feel they confident in their selections.
The difference is very minor in time - in my eyes 30 days is plenty of time for anyone to get comfortable with the outlay (or not).
I see the point of view that they've all been given SPS for many months now, so its time to cut it off. But I would say why can't we give people 30 days from when land goes live to enact this? That seems like a fair compromise.
If this passes as is, then its cool. I'm just letting you know what would make me change my mind and vote for it. And the funny thing is that if the land goes live on Monday (which Matt said is possible), then this proposal will eat up 2 weeks anyways PLUS the devs will have to code the change. So what I'm asking for isn't even a big deal if you think about it. Its maybe 10 days or so if the devs can code it real quick. So to me I don't see why just stipulating that it will go into effect no less 30 days from when land surveying is live is a big deal. I think 10 days to get much more buyin from those that might not be ready to decide is a very small amount time.
Again though I'm not mad or trying to put a stick in the spokes, I'm just telling you all what I hear from others and how I feel about the concept. I'm happy to make people do things to get their SPS, I don't like the passive income being distributed this way either.
Hope this answers my thoughts, but always happy to explain more if you want me to @joshman :)
That seems like a fair compromise to me. I think that's one that could easily be inserted into this existing proposal.
yes that's my point. That way everyone has at least 30 days to "survey their land". I say at least because the DEVs might not be able to code it before then.
I would definitely push for it hard if that was the case, I'm 100% in agreement that people shouldn't just be getting passive SPS to just sit there and not participate.
I don't get this... are people that greedy they can't leave a single solitary day without claiming their dang SPS? Not even if it helps the entire game, not even if the original intent of SPS for Land was to reward active participants? It's just so dang selfish it hurts me to think about. Just so stinking sad.
FOMO is real. Many people would rather make a bad decision rather than miss out on something they feel they are entitled to.
Its human nature, so don't let it get to you @jarvie :)
Good people can disagree on priorities.
You know what is sad? Bots and waiting years haha
This proposal is doing my head in. i need more time, gunna vote no.
Change it to that and i'll vote yes
Send all land SPS to DAO - Will vote yes for that also
Yes that's my point too @michealb ... I've reflected it to both @jarvie and @joshman .
I agree here if we can't do the above.
Make that proposal from the council right now. Let's see how it goes. I'll vote for it as well. Because this proposal may not pass.
you can edit your proposal and it would work. I think it would pass too. I will vote for it and @michealb said he would too.
If you don't want to edit it though, I will definitely bring it up the the council. But its not necessary imo, since you can easily edit yours to include the start date of this being at least 30 days from the day the surveying is live.
I do think it will pass if you did that.
Pretty sure that is highly frowned upon to edit a proposal that hundreds of people have already voted yes on. (You can edit quickly maybe even first day but not on the 4th day just because things aren't going as well anymore)
Also i personally wonder if it would even pass still... we have had months to prepare for starter packs I think the talk about 30 days after is just a bluff and downvoters really just don't want to miss a single day of a free lunch. So I'm not willing to make that bet with my own 100k dec but if the council does i'll vote on it...
I see just so much greed from the downvoters because I have looked and i see they have a bunch of un-deeded land in great proportion and my pessimism says they come in here and say they want 30 extra days and BS us but in our heart we believe they're just grandstanding and really it's just greed and not wanting to miss any days at all even if it helps the entire game progress. They'd rather the whole ship go down than them not get first class room with a view.
Jarvie, this is a preprosal, not the official proposal. The purpose of a pre-proposal is to get a rough the idea out. Its just my opinion, but I think editing a preproposal is fair. SPL has edited their own preproposals too in the past.
Remember that that the only vote that matters is the proposal itself which is unalterable.
But adding in a provision of how it will be implemented doesn't impact the gist of your proposal at all.
Of course this is my opinion, you and others may certainly disagree.
He answered in the live qa on the day of 1.5 saying that my proposal would be very easy. I assume turning it all off is even easier. But could be good to ask.
ok... I edited my reply after thinking about your point regarding editing. See @joshman's reply, I think he sums up exactly how I've seen it done. Spl even edited their own proposal in the past when they had community feedback.
We should not be allowed to edit proposals once they've been submitted. You could dramatically alter something at the 11th hour that way to force in anything you want.
Terrible precedent to set. I'm frankly shocked that's even possible.
This is just a pre-proposal, not the actual proposal. The part where the language can't be altered is when its officially a proposal.
I think everyone agrees the actual proposal should be set in stone. I see no issue editing a pre-proposal as long as those edits are transparent and obvious. I think it's actually a good opportunity for the community to help tailor the preproposal in advance of the real proposal to avoid people wasting DEC for minor changes. If people are voting actual proposal based upon what they read in the pre-proposal, well that is pretty dumb anyways.
yes exactly my point... @jarvie he states this better than I did.
I don't think some people realize they are two different things.
Still though, if there is discussion and voting happening then any modifications should be made in a new draft.
We agree on that this shouldn't happen. Look at that. hahaha
I agree Jarvie, its clear that the people who have voted no to this proposal are not prepared to survey and get their land working immediately :)
The wonderful thing about blockchain is that everything is transparent and motive and be inferred. :)
i'm prepared to survey the land just cant afford all the starter stuff yet and need some time to do this. It seems to me to be good for the game for all of us to buy all the starter stuff. Maybe i got my head up my ass and am thinking totally wrong about this. i hate being rushed when making big financial decisions and feel really rushed since the white paper and this proposal came out. i might just not fully understand it all. fk knows
I think the intent of Jarvie's proposal is to accelerate the surveying progress by rewarding those who are willing to jump right in. While I've only got a tract (making it easier to do this preparation) - I'm still short, so I imagine that large region holders would not be keen to see their SPS rewards tumble proportionally to their ownership of land. I understand that.
A region was a seriously large commitment at the original release of land, and the white paper probably solidifies the fact that it is an enormous commitment to get it to produce at the optimal rate.
My view is that the risk for holding unsurveyed land is less than surveying it (like holding an unopened pack) - and people who take the risk (by surveying) should be rewarded more handsomely than those who do not, by way of getting a larger cut of that SPS rewards allocated to land.
agree! now give me a month to get enough funds to do this. stop the SPS flow, in fact take back all the SPS land has given me to date if that's the argument. X amount of SPS per day since ? plus vouchers = ? A lot less then what i'm thinking this will cost.
so my math says anyway :)
100% True, but for those who got land on Day 1, the SPS and Voucher returns have probably exceeded the cost of the land. :)
I am still about only 90% ready for my tract, at this point which is what is in the white paper, let alone the phases to come.
ALL THE REASONS
Since you've indicated you're on the fence and want to understand a bit more why to vote... i shall appeal to you.
DEC-B was announced jan 17
Starter packs were announced feb 9
White paper that re-emphasizes the need for those things has been out a bit now.
If this doesn't pass I'm not doing another proposal it'll be up to the sps council dudes like @davemccoy and their proposals aren't passing too often either. I don't know if they even have much of an appetite for this proposal... they have to be actually interested in the subject. We don't know the reason for @genepoolchlrn8r downvote... we only know that you and dave would vote in favor upon a change.
You literally have until april 9th to get dec-b
Will your getting ready time be after april 9th and you're willing to pay 20% more? (even more than that when you consider the pretty good discount for using vouchers to get dec-b)
And here's a final point on timing: Do we really think that they'll have have surveying out this tuesday? They have alluded to potentially taking another week to make sure everything is good to go. I have actually heard many people indicate they wouldn't be bummed if they take another week to make sure it's all good to go. Also this proposal will take another week and then even though it's easy it will have to wait for a tuesday to get implimented ... so it may not get done in one day and it will miss a tuesday and get implimented the following week.
You may not be fully ready but you'll be partly ready and you'll be able to survey a good chunk.
Also final reason is that this isn't gonna pass the proposal this just takes it to the stage of official voting. Maybe it still fails... maybe you still downvote it next round.
Maybe we see surveying comes out on this tuesday and people react a bit differently ... maybe they indicate to us how long surveying starter packs are gonna be available and maybe it's a short period anyway and that solves part of our problem and maybe we don't need this proposal quite as much. We give splinterlands team a bit of time to help solve part of the problem which is that there is NO reason to survey until june/july except for curiosity. And thus we're delaying major participating in land until june/july and delaying the impacts starter packs can have on the economy until then.
You made a point that I hadn't considered, if someone is going to buy any of the land packages then they will most likely use DEC-B. DEC-B will be finished on April 9th.
So anyone that is serious about considering the packages would make that decision by April 9th as well.
This proposal will take us to within a week of that date and it will take the DEVs some time to enact it.
So therefore, I will be switching my vote to YES and voting all my accounts.
Thanks for making the point and for making this proposal @jarvie
All good points. Getting this proposal to official voting stage for sure is the right thing. Starting to feel better about all of this.
thanks, I appreciate your time getting back to me 😀
what i always find amazing. that some people often use the word ``me'' in their arguments. but people don't want to realize that it's a selfish action. it doesn't matter if it's logical, right or wrong, because it's all about me.... :(
it is about me. cant talk for you nor should i try to. if i say we should all give SPS back etc that is talking for everyone which is B.S as it makes assumptions
if using me is considered selfish to you (which is about you)
I (me) am ok with that.
hope this makes sense, not sure i fully understood you correctly
i think you actually know that it would be right to distribute the sps only to measured land. but because YOU don't have the complete money for it right now. the wrong system should continue to run anyway. so if you have made the complete money for it liquid in 1 month, we are allowed to introduce the actually right system. imagine someone else needs 2 more years to have the money together. should we then continue to run the wrong system for 2 years? i thought with a lot of sps you also have a lot of responsibility to make the right decision. but apparently for some, a lot of sps is only good for pushing through their own interests. of course you have the right to do that! but honestly, i don't know what to make of it as a human being.
Your idea of using someone needing 2 years is not relative.
My interests don't aline with yours, or what you believe to be correct. happy to disagree.
gotta run. thanks for the convo
i must also acknowledge that we are in 2 different situations. for me, it is completely financially irrelevant whether the proposal goes through or not. because the amounts are so small that it is not even worth calculating. and so i can go completely free according to what i think is right.
but can it be good for a game/community if single persons act only according to their own interests, if they have more voting power than 100 000 other people in the community together?
id like to think that as many people as possible buying up all the starter packages with outside $ is good for the game. I'm thinking there are other people out there in the same boat as me, need a little more time to think, evaluate, find resources. Maybe i'm 100% wrong and just plain selfish . don't know sometimes haha :)
they should finish the land development first and we will happily survey it is as simple as that
Coming in the next few weeks to the survey stage. :)
It's a yes from me. I don't see a drawback. It encourages people to survey their lands right away instead of waiting and also get the dec/dec-b they need. Anything that helps us burn through some DEC faster I am for.
Congratulations @jarvie! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 11000 replies.
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
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
My objection to the proposal has been overcome by @jarvie's point about DEC-B only being available through April 9th.
Almost everyone that is paying attention will make a decision about the starter packages by the April 9th deadline to purchase the DEC-B since it will give them a 20% discount.
Therefore, I have switched my votes to YES for this proposal and glad to support it!!!
I still don't understand Surveying.
If any plot can be surveyed, there might be some issues.
If a tract has a keep already, there is no reason for someone to survey their plot at the current region/tract.
I don't know if there are any guardrails in place?
Plot land can only be surveyed if part of a complete tract exists.
Castle/Keep are pre-determined to be on a specific location, you don't want to let anyone survey the land on an ongoing tract that is still partially claimed. Does anyone have any more insight into this?
Those who are voting yes are just looking at their increased sps air drops the reall game about land is in developing it and that we will see when it is actually finished, processes are coming in bits and pieces which makes it difficult to predict what your land is going to be even strategy is difficult to make about land at the moment because no one knows the actual outcome of it if people are not surveying their land that should not stop the development of land but i feel like the team is forcing people to move each step with them. I think if land was a finished product by now there was no need for this proposal. finish development first and we will survey knowing our expected outcomes basing on what will be there. At the moment land is a pure speculation thing i think
I still don't understand Surveying.
If any plot can be surveyed, there might be some issues.
If a tract has a keep already, there is no reason for someone to survey their plot at the current region/tract.
I don't know if there are any guardrails in place?
Plot land can only be surveyed if part of a complete tract exists.
Castle/Keep are pre-determined to be on a specific location, you don't want to let anyone survey the land on an ongoing tract that is still partially claimed. Does anyone have any more insight into this?
This makes a lot of sense! Helps align "productive" actions in the ecosystem with rewards - something Splinterlands should be all about.
Add it to GLX lps to stabilize them a bit with rewards since pretty much all sps holders are getting glx lets add that amount to the lp pools sps/glx and any others as a lp reward to add liquidity making it more attractive to do so.
If you have ever played any other landlord crypto game it requires regular ongoing attention. If there is no attention/upkeep your properties start loosing value and producing less. So I am voting yes on this.
I did vote for this, but I could definitely understand why someone who wanted to hold off on surveying their land would vote against it.
My position. People are waiting for specific areas on the map are now forced to claim and survey to continue rewards (from what I am understanding) or wait and potentially miss out on rewards. If we had had access to all tracts and parts of the map to pick our locations and we'd all be ready to go for this proposal. The flip side is maybe this will speed up unlocking the Wild Northeast where I want to claim but it's a no guarantee time frame. I feel like people like myself will potentially get punished for having to wait (even if it's sped up, there is no guarantee my position will be open when the rewards pass on to surveyed status) while others who have already secured their locations benenfit from being able to progress and get rewarded and call greed on those of us for being hesistent to a proposal that would see them unjustly ripped away from rewards? Maybe I'm reading the proposal wrong but that's how I see it. And maybe I wont be affected and misunderstand the proposal. But some of us do want to wait for our location and are ready to survey but will potentially stripped of rewards citing we are not active enough for not claiming yet while more than half the map remains unclaimed? Come on that's a cop out statement and while it will absorb assumed dead weight rewards, those of us who have been waiting patiently for our area to become available will now be acceptable collateral absorbing our rewards too because our desired location isn't available yet? That is where I take issue.
Such a dead community
Im reading the splinterlands post that linked this proposal, but what happens to plots that were not claimed until idk what date?