SPS Governance Proposal - Riftwatchers Presale Proposal 3

avatar

For the full post with all of the proposals and context around the issues and proposed solutions please click here: https://peakd.com/splinterlands/@splinterlands/riftwatchers-revised-dao-proposals

Proposal 3. DAO to refund anyone the exact amount of SPS and vouchers they spent for Riftwatchers packs. Packs can be refunded up to two weeks after the proposal passes as long as packs remain unopened and no air drops have been occurred or been claimed. Packs refunded this way would be burnt and the purchaser ineligible for airdrops. Splinterlands to loan 30k Vouchers to be returned by the DAO at a later date. Players would have a 2 week window to redeem the refund.

Should proposal 3 pass the DAO will need to refund approximately 25,000 packs. The DAO will transfer 2M SPS to a Splinterlands controlled account along with 25000 vouchers. Splinterlands will refund players and then return any remaining SPS and vouchers to the DAO. Packs that are refunded will be burnt and no rewards or airdrops will be sent to players that receive the refund. If additional funds are needed the DAO would send a subsequent 2M SPS and 25000 vouchers and excess tokens would be returned by Splinterlands after the refunds were processed.

Refunds can be processed for 2 weeks after the proposal passes.



0
0
0.000
23 comments
avatar

That is a strange one, rather not.

untitled.gif

0
0
0.000
avatar

The is it strange the dao borrowing vocuhers to return them prob at a loss
later we should hedge if we can find someone to take thre risk

0
0
0.000
avatar

The sps.dao account actually has around 19K vouchers, accumulated over time from the 2 million SPS that it has staked. Thus the DAO will eventually be able to return the vouchers without having to resort to buying any.

0
0
0.000
avatar

We should hedge against the vouchers in the dao that could go the wrong way i wonder if anyone wants to go short the vouchers and use a smart contract to let someone borrow to sell short with a big account and can but up X as collaterol. We might be exposing are sselves to to much risk on it bc they could easily hit 3 bucks

0
0
0.000
avatar

or is it a fixed money amount loaned to the dao

0
0
0.000
avatar

unless were just holding for a very short time the debt in vouchers if its sold then lent in a stable coin then thats different but how long does the dao plan on being short vouchers and should we try to cap losses at x amount of risk

0
0
0.000
avatar

The sps.dao account actually has around 19K vouchers, accumulated over time from the 2 million SPS that it has staked. Thus the DAO will eventually be able to return the vouchers without having to resort to buying any.

0
0
0.000
avatar

on any borrowed vouchers there still is risk i guess is all im saying i guess how big is the risk not that huge if we have not actually borrowed and prob wont need to as a result of staking from SPS that makes sense as a good hedge to produce them at at least the rate of how many vouchers are needed then and risk is pretty much gone as long as we can do that we still i guess have risk in price on any net borrowing s but could be are way to and be cheaper to payback during voucher lulls either way i guess i get impacted about the same since i have all three sides as a investor so i guess im good either way it goes i was just wondering how this is structured whats the risk involved bc it changes based on the terms.

0
0
0.000
avatar

my concern was the price exposure bc the dao could have sold them or borrowed in usdt or something to not have price fluctuations. Or am i thinking of it incorrectly im thinking if we still owe the voucehrs we could have sold the ones we produce likely at a higher price later instead of using for a loan like i would loan vocuhers i bet next time if there is a loan we should open it up to partificpation by investors to to step in and lend the vouchers or other assets to bc i bet we can easily find ppl to take the loan and risk that the vouchers they get paid back will triple or double as they are not likely to do way down compared to a jump up

0
0
0.000
avatar

Finally nice to put a face to the name at spl fest this is Brian or Bigdaddyyumyms lol. They could return the vouchers say if it was borrowed at .2 and they goto 3 wouldnt we still lose out on a gain even if they are just minted. Hedging these types in the future if they are bigger would be a good risk mmgmt strategy by either getting someone to take the other side or create a loan where members fund with stable coins with a rate we all agree on. I would have funded the whole loan.

0
0
0.000
avatar

not sure if ppl would take the risk but if someone or group wants to short vochers we could get the risk of it flying up when the next promo comes out so we dont pay back double the cost if we refund and hold the loan out in vouchers that potentially leasves 12500 in vocuhers going to 5X or more if we can take the risk away we should

0
0
0.000
avatar

What if members loaned the money in stable coins at a lower rate like 20% which pays 20% flat on a stable coin instead of vouchers ill put in a grand toward that there has to be ppl willing to lend to the dao in like 100 dollar incraments then we just get paid interest daily at 20%

0
0
0.000
avatar

I will add 1/12 ish any other takers on a pretty good loan backed by SPT as it would need to be backed by the dao units

0
0
0.000
avatar

We can do a feeder ill taker that on to distribute and the dao gets one amount

0
0
0.000
avatar

Since three passed want to watch how many packs refunded via the dao and splinterlands account kind of curious ;)
Do we have splinterland addresses to monitor :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Please explain to your CEO that if wants to preach decentralisation and keep his credibility intact, then he should stop deliberately manipulating the votes and results of proposals by selectively voting with multiple accounts on some proposals and not others, to make sure he gets a result he is looking for, or a result that he may be getting canvassed for in private. This is pure manipulation, and the very thing he preaches against constantly. He has spent many years here, preaching against centralised entities manipulating and influencing politics and other real world events, and here we see him doing that very same thing. If he was interested in what his players want or think, he would not need to manipulate the voting and results of proposals. This is bad for everyone, and he is causing major damage to the credibilty of this game and the existense of the DAO itself. This result should be rejected, and it should go to another vote immediately before any action is taken based on this result. This is a kind of fake democracy that is promoted as community consensus. It's not acceptable that this is allowed to go through, and there is no discussion around this. The last thing any DAO wants, is the real threat of this kind of manipulation, and it could have seruous real world consequences if the DAO is audited in future. Everyones interests are at threat here, and there could be serious consequences. Keep the credibility of DAO intact, and reject this result based on this selective manipulation.

image.png

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hello!

It's good to hear from you, though I'm more used to seeing you post from your other accounts. Not withstanding the grudge that you have had for several years against aggroed and many members of the Splinterlands team, I do think you bring up many interesting points that should be discussed - some things which I agree with and some things which I don't fully agree with.

I do agree that there should be subsequent votes before refunds are processed. But I think it should be done for the sake of further clarity and to allow players the opportunity to offer amendments or revisions to Proposal #3.

I disagree with your claim that this was "manipulation," but I do think there should be greater transparency regarding how certain high level people vote.

Keep in mind that the vote would have passed even if spswhale had not voted. In that case it would have passed with 67.93% of the vote.

Is your issue with:

A. The fact that spswhale voted on one proposal but not the others? (The issue of "selective")

B. The fact that spswhale voted near the end of the process?

C. The fact that Aggroed voted at all?

I think it's fine if some accounts vote on some proposals but not the others. I think a lot of accounts did that. In fact, there were more votes for Proposal #3 than for Proposals #1 and #2. Or if you excluded spswhale, there were more votes for Proposals #1 and #2 than for Proposal #3.
I do think it would be ideal if there were additional vote options such as "abstain" or "present."

Timing is tricky. With the Reward Pools by League and TD Reward Pool proposals, there were some complaints that Aggroed and Yabapmatt voting right from the start (before anyone else had the chance to do so) could cause undue influence because their vote weight would give the impression that the vote was going to auto-pass anyway. But as we see here, voting too late in the process risks other types of complaints.
Now that the SPS Proposals are utilizing a public discussion phase, this may mitigate the issue of voting early.

Right now, Splinterlands team members who happen to be asset holders, stakeholders, and/or players are permitted to participate in voting just like any other players. The two founders (Yabapmatt and Aggroed) have reflected upon how they should vote and under what circumstances but AFAIK nothing has been decided on that yet.

It would be one thing if spswhale was a Splinterlands company account (company accounts shouldn't vote) but AFAIK, it is a personal account.

If you think there should be restrictions at certain levels you should clarify at what level:

Founders
C-level
Board members
Leadership
Employees
Contractors
Team members
Partners

I think there is value in the founders being able to vote with their personal stake to stop proposals that could threaten the game or the company. I think such a safeguard would actually be a net positive.

I do wish there were guidelines or a procedure for how and when the founders vote (e.g. whether they should vote at the beginning or end of the process, that they openly declare which accounts they are voting with, etc.)

I myself try to be as transparent about my own voting as I can, and (when possible) to provide explanations and reasons for why I am voting the way I am. (And for the record, I voted against the Reward Pools by League and TD Reward Pool proposals, even though they ended up passing).

0
0
0.000
avatar

For users who are covered in Proposal #2, please review the instructions posted yesterday and remember the deadline to file a support ticket and submit vouchers to get the bonus packs is Wednesday, September 28th, 2022 by 12 PM EST (4 PM UTC).

Due to the wording of Proposal #2, it doesn't technically cover players whose purchases were in the general sale but who also didn't get bonus packs due to the same UI issues that caused the problem in Proposal #2. Nor does it cover a few other edge cases.

#1. One option for these users is to receive a refund as per Proposal #3. As long as the account hasn't opened the bought Riftwatchers packs or claimed any Riftwatchers airdrops, there is a two-week window from when the proposal passed to submit a support ticket requesting a refund via support.splinterlands.com . That deadline is Saturday, October 8th, 2022 by 12 PM EST (4 PM UTC).

#2. After consultation with Yabapmatt, the preliminary alternative is to allow those who purchased boosters on the first day and did not get the bonus boosters they could have because they were impacted by the UI bug, to submit vouchers and get their bonus boosters, which would count for the general sale (and not the presale). This would essentially be an extension of Proposal #2. Part of the reasoning is that since users can get a refund as per Proposal #3, users who missed out on the bonus boosters could technically refund their purchase and then rebuy them (this time with the bonus). Allowing them to just get their bonus boosters saves both the users and the support team time and hassle. In this case, the users who want to get their bonus packs for the general sale have the same deadline as those from the presale. They must submit a support ticket and their vouchers to sl-cs before the deadline of Wednesday, September 28th, 2022 by 12 PM EST (4 PM UTC).

If you strongly feel that this should really be another SPS Proposal Vote, then please voice your opinion. If there is sufficient sentiment, we can try to get an expedited vote. It would essentially be:

Proposal 2A: Anyone that purchased Riftwatchers packs before the UI issue with the voucher field was fixed and who didn't have the chance to get all of their bonus packs from Proposal #2, be allowed to purchase the full amount of bonus packs they are eligible for by submitting the missing vouchers. These bonus packs will be counted for the general sale (and not the presale).

0
0
0.000
avatar

How do you know this may sound dumb but i did not pay attention i just orderd lol

0
0
0.000
avatar

would any of these voting disclosures apply to me when i get the rest of the sps i want which will be about 2-3 million and since i do own shares in the company i dont mind disclosing my accounts to ppl so they can see my votes but i work for SPL just a investor and outside partner that may be doing some projects if i can get them in line for spl but thats a separate thing i guess my question is should this apply to all shareholders and dao unit holders i know there are not that many but im ok with showing my alt accounts and how i voted but i dont have much sps only 200K right now bc i was buying other assets like nodes and land etc plus cards and a big payout was delayed for me so was planning to put in 50K at .04 lol but of course that shit had a fire before they could sell a day before so anohther 2 months prob lol fml hate issues at the worst time.

0
0
0.000