After initially voting in favor, I've decided to change my vote to a No.
Thanks to @azircon for discussing it with me, and to @jarvie for his clear and thoughtful comments below.
My decision to vote No is based on the following:
- It's not fun: A "pay-for-chance" tax is not a compelling or fun game mechanic. Developing buildings on land = fun. Buying potions to get a higher chance of something != fun.
- It's not the right priority: Though I agree getting DEC to peg is crucial, I'd rather the team prioritize building land development mechanics. These sinks will likely be much more than 10k DEC / plot. I'd want to see all efforts going towards that rather than on bandages.
- It doesn't really benefit players: My assumption is that if everyone is a rational actor, then everyone would buy the land potions. If so, that's a lot of burned DEC, which theoretically is great for the economy but ultimately means nobody wins as far as their land is concerned (think of the extreme case: if every plot is rare, no plot is rare). Basically all that happens is DEC gets burned, but players are not really better off in terms of their land holdings. Again, instead of that, let's go faster towards actual land development, where players can make strategic decisions on what to develop in order to advance in the game.
- It's divisive: This proposal is clearly quite divisive, and is upsetting players who have been in the game a long time. I think it's important to reward long-term supporters, rather than piss them off.
- It sets a bad precedent: Although I initially found the land potion reasonable given the similarity to potions for card openings, the fact that this wasn't in the initial plan sets a bad precedent.
These are mostly valid points. I don't want to sway voting one way or another (I'm happy with whatever the community collectively decides), but I do want to address a few things that I think are incorrect:
Implementing this proposal is hardly any work. We are 100% prioritizing the full build-out of land, and whether or not this proposal passes won't change that at all. We would not have proposed it otherwise because we agree that building the actual land gameplay is the top priority.
This is correct. This proposal is not intended to benefit land holders, it is for SPS holders and the goal is to help bring more value to the SPS token. It is up to the SPS stakeholder community to decide if they want it or not.
This one can go both ways. Initial plans are never perfect and it's important to be able to make changes to the initial plan later on. I'm not trying to say that this particular change should be made - again that's up to the SPS holders - but generally I think it's a bad precedent to say that nothing can happen that wasn't in the initial plan.
Thanks for the reply Matt.
Matt, how can SPS holders benefit, as most land holders will sell SPS to buy DEC for the survey? The price of SPS will take a hit just because of this.
"again that's up to the SPS holders"
Cause of this Splinterlands does all to bring this proposal through, they even use the help of hive-engine who should IMO be neutral and not vote in Proposals ?
What do you mean? I haven't done anything to "bring this proposal through" and am happy with any outcome that the SPS stakeholders vote on. More than anything I like that the community is discussing and debating this and will ultimately decide the outcome.
As for the
hive-engineaccount specifically, that's @aggroed's account and it's no different than any other staked SPS holding account as far as governance voting is concerned. I don't know why he decided to stake SPS there, but as far as I know it's not like it's SPS held on behalf of hive engine users or anything like that.OK I wrote "Splinterlands" cause I don't know about the connections, so I even don't knew (before) who's account it is, but IMO hive-engine should not vote in a proposal, so when @aggroed want vote with his stake why he bring them to hive-engine and not to his own account ?
I am fine with the point that he vote, I am also fine with the fact that the four biggest accounts vote with more than 20 million to "for" but maybe under this circumstances increase the border to accept a proposal from 66.67% to 75% so that really a majority of the player should be behind the proposal and not only the whales. How about this suggestion ?
I have no idea, this is a good question for @aggroed
That's a fine suggestion, but it's not for me to decide. You can feel free to submit a proposal for this change for a governance vote.
" That's a fine suggestion, but it's not for me to decide. You can feel free to submit a proposal for this change for a governance vote."
Probably I would do when their wasn't the 100k DEC fee for this.
I hope it is okay if I come back to this topic.
I just saw that as bonus for paying 100k dec for a proposal you even get destroyed your reputation if you have bad luck like you can see here:
https://peakd.com/@mangowambo/convert-busd-dao-holdings-into-dec-dai-lp
I really don't understand why Splinterlands not at least equalize such things, as they definitely has enough hivepower to do it without any problem.
After I see this I will definitely not submit any proposal and I think that many others think like me as I can see that now nearly no new proposals come from players.
Not really attractive to pay 100k DEC for letting your reputation be destroyed.
Many thanks for doing this. I am certain SL team is totally capable of bringing a better solution