This hurts rental markets, devaluing CL decks further
This is a handout to a third party which goes against business principles. Big Govt does handouts
This undermines a prior DAO vote on pack burning.
These are facts. None looks good on paper.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
100%
I don't get this decision..
Absolutely correct.
in addition I really think if splinterlands want get new player.
The new soulbounded reward cards with the possibility to use not only this reward card but also one of the 32 gladius cards speak IMO not for the idea to generate new player.
What is the fun experience to get beaten cause your opponent has cards you cannot use cause you can neither buy nor rent them ?
Hey AZ... On two of the three we definitely disagree.
None of these NFTY players use the rental markets at the current time. Plus anyone using the rental market would be foolish to give up 50% of their earnings and all their earned packs to rent a particular card by renting a whole deck. On top of that, these decks are limited to mostly Bronze, which is not where most human players play.
They aren't "giving" the cards to NFTy. They are delegating the cards to NFTy. The amount of earnings that NFTy will get from these decks will be miniscule compared to the dev work they have put in to build their platform. I think they take 5% of the 50% of the SPS earned, or 2.5% of the total earnings in Bronze. That is a very effective ad spend to target new players, and if it doesn't work, then SPL will burn the cards.
This I understand and agree is the case.
Also the rental markets have already been hurt by the loss of the low level bot farms. As a large renter myself, I'm aware the bots rent the majority of the low level cards. This is actually pro-rental market in that it is attempting to target new players to the game. New human players will rent cards as they a) learn the game and b) build their own decks.
While it will be awhile before the humans replace the hoard of lost bots, this program is pro-human player and is a step in the right direction in my opinion
I understand the NFTY players do not use the rental market. However, in a free market scenario, as a 3rd party, NFTY could have used the rental market as an entity. Yes, that would have add cost to their bottom line. However, that would have proped rental market higher. I understand the human player aspects.
Yes, they are delegating cards. For free. It is still a handout. Without it, they would have done it via point 1.
I believe their model is as a "connector" of two parties. They have been around for awhile and had some small success with getting players that own the decks to delegate to players looking to play the decks.
For instance, @leveluplifeph is one that has been a big delegator with 50 decks he's built and attracted new players.
Their constraints were based on the amount of decks that people delegated, not on finding new players to play those decks. But as a middleman, they would never have used the rental market to get the cards and make the decks themselves. Its just not their model.
That's why SPL decided to do this, @aggroed felt it was worth a shot to see if they could leverage this model in hundreds (if not thousands) of new players.
If it works, then it will be a new outlet for all card owners to "earn" on in the future. If it doesn't work, then they burn the cards as intended. I believe the impact on the rental market is insignificant though either way, because these cards will be used by players that wouldn't exist otherwise.
Yes, it is an executive decision. I am fine with it. As I don't have any responsibility :)
If this is a success, chances are we can all benefit somewhat (long shot in my opinion)
If this is a failure, the executives own it.
I completely agree with all these points AZ!!!