No thanks. Don't want earnings (in many cases the partial clawing back of huge losses) being reduced from future sales so more money can go to the Dao, one that because of the team's insistence on allowing bot armies to accumulate the most assets has been allowed to fall into the hands of big fish who have all the voting power on how to use those funds, and the bit about the Dao will fund the Splinterlands company too, no thanks, they have been raking in millions of dollars in sales regularly over the past few years, why should I pay an extra percentage from my asset sales to them, when there is a reasonable case to be made that their better-late-than-never-but-still-not-enough anti bot efforts (or lack of) have really negatively affected the game's economy and therefore my and many others' bottom line in the game, now you want an extra percent to come from me to go into a piggy bank for the team to use should they need it? Erm no thanks.
And can everyone please stop with this naive idea that any measure in any proposal has any chance of getting DEC back to peg? It's either backed dollar to dollar or it isn't, and it isn't, so therefore all such measures achieve is the odd bump to the DEC price before the free market continues determining it anyway. Every other proposal I hear "get DEC back to peg", well I've been in the game about 15 or 16 months and throughout all these proposals, it's literally never been at peg in that time except the minute that it fell through it. It was above peg when I started playing and has been well below it at all sorts of values between $0.0005 and $0.0009 ever since, but I've never seen it settle at $0.001, so can we as a community stop just assuming "Oh this random one off proposal will magically make it stabilise at that price when there is no dollar backing it."
Sorry to be the party pooper. No problem with incentivising marketplaces to do better things, just not out of my pocket thanks. Ban multi account bots from all of the game though and ask me again and I might be flexible, as there won't be fun/value nerfing changes ever needed again; indeed many such changes would be able to be undone (2 day min rental, soulbound rewards, capture rate wouldn't have to exist etc); so I'd have greater belief in the future of these assets.
Hi, thanks for taking the time to write out your opinion and although I agree with multiple sentiments you have provided. However, just because something won't solve an issue, a step in the right direction is still better than nothing at all. Of course, it then becomes a cost benefit analysis which I respect your opinion of believing it's not worth it in this case.
Personally, I do agree this single proposal won't magically make DECs stay at the peg forever. However, this proposal will get us closer to that reality and provide a continual and consistent source of funds for the DAO, which we all control, not the team.
Furthermore, we all pay 1%, including the market places, both internal and third party. Both the team and other third party market places will actually earn 20% less revenue on sales and players will receive ~1% less in sales revenue due to this change. However, @yabapmatt has advised in his comment on this proposal that it is a step they are willing to take for less DECs in circulation.
Lastly, this proposal has nothing to do with bots or multi-accounting. This proposal is predominantly about reducing the circulating supply of DECs, getting it closer to the peg and thus closer to us burning SPS.
But they are never going to achieve it unless they back DEC dollar to dollar with cash. I don't really know how to put this politely, but it is just delusional. It has been at peg for about 1 minute in the past year. Even if they get it back there it will just wobble right off it again. So they can enable burning of SPS for DEC for all of a few minutes or maybe days until the price changes again, then what? Another proposal, then charge us 7%? Meanwhile players like me just think "ok so you want me to fund this silliness that isn't going to work, in yet another proposal that ultimately reduces the financial value of the assets I accumulated in this game?" Hard no for me. Sorry for the forthright and blunt tone, but I just feel (like many others who already left the game) like every month for about a year, another proposal appears that nerfs value from ordinary players like me and I'm absolutely sick of it. I wouldn't mind as much if I believed in the economic competence of the team, but they have never given me any reason to do so. Great game designers? 10/10! Love it! Economists? Nope!