RE: SPS Governance Proposal - Contract Steem Monsters Corp for Ongoing Maintenance and Development
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I know my post was long, but did you not read it? To reiterate, as I said, the announcement post does say HBD will be used first and DEC next, but as I also said, the actual Agreement contains no such statement. The Agreement is what is binding, not the post. The tokens to be used by the DAO to pay the Company are not defined in the Agreement. The tokens the Company will use to pay back the DAO through revenue sharing are not defined in the Agreement. The tokens to be accepted for pack sales are not defined in the Agreement, and the Agreement explicitly states that the Company will pay back the DAO in whatever token it chooses, regardless of what tokens it receives from players as payment for packs (or whatever). All of those variable are under complete control of the Company in the Agreement as written, so yes, the scenario you outline is certainly possible, and yes, I agree, the Company would likely use DEC at peg to remit the revenue share around pack sale time. I have no idea what will be used to pay back the DAO outside of pack sale time, nor do I know where the Company will get the DEC from if it chooses to use DEC (burn SPS I suppose, which would be good?) Regardless of what you or I think, none of this is specified in the Agreement, and these issues should be negotiated rather than accepted as is, since the Agreement as written gives the Company complete control over all of it.
Keep in mind that the Company has to remit the revenue share monthly according to the Agreement - every month for 48 months, all revenue the Company earns until it has returned $4.8 million (and 50% of all revenue after that) is given back to the DAO, so this is not just the Company giving the DAO the DEC it receives from us around pack sale time.
"Stop this connection between the DAO and the team" is just complete nonsense. The DAO and the Company are intimately and irreparably connected with or without this Agreement. Without other actions, DEC will continue its rarely at peg cycle with or without this Agreement. Are there any remaining DEC faucets, other than burning SPS? If not, then more DEC sinks is the only thing that will help it get to and maintain peg, with or without this Agreement.
The Agreement is about giving the Company stable and reliable funding, which it obviously thinks it needs, else it wouldn't be offering this deal. I am not particularly troubled by the risk that the DAO will hold fewer DEC tokens at the end of the Agreement than it does now, if it means we still have a game to enjoy in two years, it is hopefully expanding its player count, SPS price has increased and DEC finds a way to stay near peg all the time. If the alternative is the Company goes bankrupt before then, none of this matters and we all lose - the Company, the DAO and all of us players.
Without the Agreement, and absent significant play count growth, I would expect the pace of new set, mini-set and promo card introductions (and/or anything else they can sell to us) to increase because the Company needs more funding. This is not sustainable. The Company has bills it must pay every month (payroll, rents, utilities, etc.), just like all of us, our employers, or our businesses. The Agreement gives the Company a stable and reliable runway to get stuff done without needing to bleed its players dry to keep the lights on for two years. Hopefully that is enough time to turn things around!
To repeat, negotiate and revise Section 3.2 for fairness to the DAO.
But we're voting on a proposal and the proposal is the post. How is that not binding?
Regardless, not recycling the DAO's DEC would help tremendously DEC reaching peg. I don't think we will ever achieve a point where DEC is always at peg. There's a reason for the past 4+ years we've only managed to do it twice and for a very short time.
I also disagree that doing a bad deal for the DAO makes anything better. If the company can't survive without money from the DAO, we're delaying the inevitable. That money will dry up at some point. And that's not the message that Matt and now Dave has been giving us. They have told us that things are better now than they were at several points in the past.
I don't know what to tell you - we're voting on a pre-proposal regarding an Agreement (for which the current vote is overwhelmingly in favor of). Regardless of whether the pre-proposal presenting it accurately describes the Agreement (it does not!), the Agreement is what will be binding on the Company and the DAO, assuming a final proposal passes (and with whatever the Agreement states at that time when it is signed by both Parties), and it matters not at all what the proposal or pre-proposal presentation posts say about the Agreement. Download and read the Agreement - that is what you are really being asked to vote on.
I will grant you that the "deal" may be bad for the DAO, using your apparent good vs bad criteria of whether the DAO has fewer DEC tokens post-deal (in 2 years) than now. Would it still be a "bad deal" if DEC price stabilizes closer to peg in 2 years? ...if the SPS price is higher in 2 years? ...if we expand the player count in 2 years?
I do think things are better now, and getting better all the time, as the team's messaging is striving for. I see a lot of optimism from the players about the future. I think that giving the Company 2 years of stable and reliable funding makes it more likely we see that future and success. Having the guaranteed revenue every month (because bills have to get paid all the time, not just when pack sales are offered), takes a huge burden off the team's plate and let's them focus on getting stuff done to hopefully create that more successful future. It also decreases the incentive to offer more and more stuff at a faster pace to secure revenue as they go (e.g. constantly bleeding the current players dry to stave off collapse.)
If the Agreement doesn't happen, it's not the immediate end of everything - we will probably see the same smaller set-by-set and promo/reward card DAO funding agreements already being used, and those haven't really hurt the DAO. Things will continue, it will just be harder on the team.