880ec0c5833a2918d82fd73d029df6b076046f19
This is a new iteration of this previous proposal. Since it failed by a narrow margin, I have decided to try again and update a couple of the most contentious parts:
- Removed the listing UI fee component
- 2% now goes to burn instead of DAO
However, I have decided to leave the fee at 6%, which was the third most contentious issue. I believe this is a fair tradeoff for users and markets without impacting the status quo too much, while removing a large portion of circulating DECs permanently.
The Proposal
The main changes are listed below:
- Set market fee to a fixed 6% for all markets such as cards, rentals, assets, lands, and potentially SPS delegation markets in the future,
- A 2% portion of market fees will get burned and
- Remaining 4% will go to the market used to purchase the asset.
Major Impacts
- Increase of fees from 5% to 6% for sellers,
- Potentially less cashbacks for buyers depending on how third party markets handle this change,
- Decrease in third party market revenue from 5% to 4%,
- Decrease of circulating DECs,
- Fixed fee means bots can no longer list at 1% fee, all market users must list at 6%
Benefits
- 2% of all market transactions will be burned
- Decrease of circulating DEC supply will help the overall token prices of the Splinterlands ecosystem and help bring DEC back to peg, thus moving us closer to the "flywheel effect"
- Less DEC in circulation --> closer to peg --> closer to flywheel effect --> closer to burning SPS for DEC (ultimate goal) --> higher SPS value --> more utility and volume for assets --> more earnings for players and markets
- Listing fee under the standard rate (6%) is no longer accepted. For example, bot sellers will no longer be able to list at 1% fees
Potential Drawbacks
- A general decrease of funding going to market interfaces (including funds to the Splinterlands company)
- Sellers will see normal rates go from 5 to 6%
- Reduction of kickback to those who buy on sites that promise immediate revenue share on their purchases
Implementation
Upon discussion with @yabapmatt, he does not anticipate that implementing this proposal will require a large development effort. The specific rates could be changed by a proposal in the future with very little coding effort after the initial change.
My Personal Thoughts
I believe oversupply is currently the biggest issue plaguing Splinterlands. This can be corrected with an increased player base (more demand) or an overall reduction in supply. This proposal focuses on reducing the supply of circulating DECs, thus getting us closer to the "flywheel effect".
Based on the last 6 months of volume and average price of DEC found on the Peakmonsters’ Dashboard, this proposal could take out of circulation roughly 413.7 million DECs per year, representing just under 8% of the current DEC supply, which is over 1 million DECs per day. This is not even accounting for the lands, assets and rentals market, which I personally expect to pick up substantially once lands 1.5 is released. (Data accurate as of roughly 3rd of May).
Although this proposal alone may not bring Splinterlands to the moon, it is a long overdue modernization to the Splinterlands market structure which will assist in the long-term sustainability of the game’s economy. Marketplaces and card sellers may lose revenue in the short term, but stronger tokenomics supports token value which is ultimately the driving force for asset demand, utility and volume in the long run.
100% beneficiary of this post is @dec.burn
A new initiative where all rewards will be powered down and used to buy back DECs on the open market to burn. To learn more about how you can contribute, please read this introduction post.
EDIT: it seems I have forgotten to add a beneficiary, thanks to @zaku for pointing that out. All post rewards will be manually sent as HBD and liquid hive to @dec.burn upon payout.
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @cryptoeater!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal
Updated At: 2023-05-27 13:29 UTC
I will vote YES
Is this really necessary?
What about actions like:
Hi there, thanks for providing your view. Below are the drawbacks to your suggestions:
Sorry, but I think I should contradict.
For you it is "negligible" ?
Have you done the calculation ?
Alone with leaderboard-prices in one format and I counted only the three highest leagues Champion, Dimand and Gold their are 3,28 million DEC, means when also calculating the lower league and consider that this pool exist for both (modern and wild) format we reach propably 7 millione dec and this means by a season of 14 days 500k DEC a day, so if 500k DEC a day is negligible why you do a proposal to burn 500k DEC / day ?
To be honest I don't want do now the calculation for tournaments, also cause this is a question of exchange-rate between DEC and SPS, but I guess leaderboard price + tournamnet entries will have approximately the same effect than your proposal.
That's a fair point, I had not done the calculation myself.
However, replacing DEC with SPS for season rewards has issues of its own. For example, where would this new season reward come from? We can't just mint SPS out of thin air and wherever it comes from, we will get a new set of unhappy people with reduced rewards.
Hello, thank you for your answer.
When I read this here:
https://docs.splinterlands.com/splintershards-sps/providing-liquidity-sps
and count together the 4 liquidy pools than they get a reward of 5.25 Million SPS but 7.5 million SPS are allocated, so IMO 2.25 million SPS are "free" - even if this 2.25 million SPS is every month and the 7.22 million DEC is every season we would just need arround 500k SPS (to the actual SPS/DEC-rate) to replace all leaderboard-prices with SPS or I have a mistake in this calculation ?
About the "must-have-promo-card" I understand your issue, but I think not that it is correct.
Look f.e. the Mylor (Dice-Summoner Earth) - he is definitely such a must-have-promo-card.
I think you will agree that in some rulesets he is the best summoner in the game but in other rulesets other summoner are just stronger, same with Yodin Zaku or other summoners.
So it would also be with my suggestion (and I would expect that the team will think to create a card who you need in some rulesets but don't destroy the ranked gameplay) or would would even think to use this summoner with 10-Mana-costs in a 12 Mana-battle ?
I just wanted to quickly sent you a "thank you" for all your efforts. This proposal is a small but important element of the future SPL economy. I know it was highly controversial, as it cuts into the earnings of 3rd party markets and adds a small amount on top of the fees players have to pay when buying on the market. But in the end, it will benefit everyone, I believe. I hope you can cleanse yourself of the anger, that was directed towards you because of this. When this is live, as I think it will be approved, you will have changed the status quo and nobody will ever look back again.
Thanks, I really do appreciate your words of support and I also believe this will turn out hugely beneficial for all, even those who are currently fighting against it!
Voted for in the the last proposal, will not vote for this as now I'm straight up losing 1% instead of giving 2% to myself as a part of DAO. Would vote for it if the free would stay at 5%.
Me too. Man what's with another proposal to take another 1% of my assets from me ffs. Nerf silver rewards, nerf gold rewarsds, nerf energy, nerf reward cards to they are soulbound, now nerf my sales too? I'm about $3k down as it is but if I sell I still have to pay more fees? Leave it at 5%! And the justification of getting DEC to peg is just asinine and I'm so sick of hearing it cited for all manner of changes that ultimately lead to ordinary players getting less value. It's pretty much impossible to get it to peg without it being backed by the dollar. It's price is determined by market forces and will continue to be so, this will be one thing that pushes DEC higher, sure, but its just taking it out of our pockets and it won't stay at any specific price anyway because random numbers of people are as usual going to continue buying and selling random amounts of it at random times every day, week month etc.
Thanks for the response. To clarify, burning DECs is akin to increased ownership.
For example, if you have 1% of DECs, and then 50% is burned, you will now have 2%.
However, I can understand if you only own SPS, moving it to the DAO could be considered to be more beneficial especially in the short term as DECs are out of circulation (thus increasing the need to burn SPS), but also within the DAO so by staking SPS you have some level of control over it. However, once a DAO votes to spend it, the DECs are either back in circulation or burned. If it's back in circulation, the need to burn SPS is again gone and if the DECs are burned, it's effectively the same as this proposal.
The proposal to increase the card market fee in the game Splinterlands can have negative consequences for players, especially those involved in card rental transactions. Increasing the market fee means that the renters will have to bear this additional cost, which can negatively impact their profits and financial viability.
There are several negative effects associated with excessive taxation in any context, and this also applies to online games. Here are some arguments that show how increasing the market fee can negatively impact players:
Reduced profits for renters: Players who rent out their cards to others often rely on the income from these rentals. By increasing the market fee, a larger portion of those profits will be directed towards fees, reducing the amount of resources available to players offering cards for rent. This can discourage players from continuing to rent out their cards and harm the in-game economy.
Barriers to access: Increasing the market fee can also create barriers to access for players. If the fees become too high, more casual players or those with fewer financial resources may struggle to participate in the card market. This can result in exclusion of certain player groups and limit diversity and participation in the game.
Discouragement of trading and commerce: The increased market fee may discourage players from trading and engaging in commerce with each other. Higher fees reduce potential profits and make transactions less appealing. As a result, players may feel less motivated to participate in the card market, undermining the vitality and dynamics of the game.
Card devaluation: If the market fee is increased, players may experience an overall devaluation of existing cards. As a larger portion of resources is directed towards fees, players may be less inclined to invest in rare or valuable cards as the return on investment may be compromised. This can negatively affect the value and attractiveness of cards in the market.
(html comment removed: )
It is important to consider these negative effects before implementing an increase in the card market fee in the game Splinterlands. Striking a balance between generating revenue for the platform and maintaining a fair and attractive environment for players is necessary.
If the interest rate is maintained at 5%, the arguments above fall apart, and the favorable vote becomes the better option. Currently, I vote against it.
Thanks for taking the time to put together this detailed feedback.
Below are some counterpoints:
As the owner of multiple decks I have rented out on market, this is quite negligible. The fee increase from 5% to 6% decreases rental revenue by 1.05%, (94% instead of 95% of earnings). On the contrary, with roughly 1mil DECs getting burned per day (using historic data), the price of DECs is likely to increase by much more than 1.05%, so renters should actually see an increase in revenue, not decrease.
This does not affect new player entry as it does not affect the price they buy at, only the amount sellers receive. However, I admit it does affect cashback services, but I would assume most "new players" do not know about these services at the very beginning anyway.
Interestingly, one theory as to why ETH NFTs went up so much during the 2021 bull run is because most projects charged between 5-10% creator fee, plus a 2.5% Opensea fee totaling 7.5% to 12.5% total fee plus gas fees which were often $100+. Therefore, to make a profit people would list their NFTs higher by at least the total fee, plus whatever profit they wanted. Due to this, the price continued to climb which created a momentum and FOMO effect. I'm not saying that this will happen in Splinterlands nor am I saying that high fees was the sole catalyst for the NFT boom, but there are many sides to consider and I honestly believe higher fees will not have the intended consequences you mentioned. However, I will admit that there has been a trend of lowering fees, not increasing them recently on ETH, but that is most likely because most projects are bleeding and they want to incentivize more trading. On the contrary, this proposal should logically increase trading activity as DEC prices increase due to the reduced circulation.
Similar arguments to before, the owner will receive roughly 1.05% less in card sales. However, DECs should increase by much more than 1.05% due to this proposal. Once DEC is at peg, SPS will likely increase as a result of this proposal due to the need of burning SPS for DEC utility, thus increasing the rewards for all players.
Please keep in mind this is the 2nd time I've proposed this, and truthfully the 3rd major iteration of this proposal. I have spent tens of hours already replying in Discord servers, private messages and my previous post so you can feel assured all of the above you have mentioned has already been considered.
However, I do welcome more discussion as inevitably there will be something no one has thought of yet!
1% is negligible to the user, but it is not negligible to the burn that it deserves the fee increase? 1% is 1%, it is the same for everyone and it is NOT a negligible amount. Less DEC is not strictly equal to DEC more valuable, the value of DEC comes from demand, which is just not there at the moment.
It affects new players as they try to switch cards, sell some they barely use anymore to buy new ones. As soon as you buy a card, even though the seller is the one who payed 6%, your asset is ALWAYS worth less 6% than what you payed, since you WILL have to pay those 6% as well to sell it. Every asset always worth less 5% than the market price.
You can't compare the most popular NFT blockchain/platform (BY MILES) during the hype of a BULL market to this, and even then Yodins/Kitties/Lammas were selling for 1000$+ in Splinterlands at the time with a fraction of the hype ETH NFTs had. The high fees are the reason there are NOT much more people involved in ETH NFTs (especially gas fees), it's precisely the opposite. ETH NFTs are dominated by whales and are NOT for the "common joe". Splinterlands is a game, we want everyone to participate, the more the merrier.
DEC alone will not increase the price of cards by much more than 1.05% out of nowhere, at least not until hype comes back to the game.. Doesn't matter how much you "force burn" it.
I know I'm being quite annoying and I am sorry for it, but I've yet to see a single explanation on why the fee increase would ever be good besides burning more DEC. All I see is "DEC burn good, DEC value up", which is far from the truth otherwise a token like SHIB would be exploding in value since they burned almost half the supply. WE are the ones paying for that burn, so we are the ones losing whatever it gains.
If you can convince me otherwise I'd gladly accept defeat, but I just don't see it, nor from you, nor from anyone who is supporting this. Everyone just mentions burning is good, but no one mentions why essentially burning 1% of OUR assets and having worse fees is good.
Hey @cryptoeater, I like that you took so much time and listened to everyone's issues over this whole process (including mine).
I like that the 3rd party providers are on the same footing now.
Good job, I'm very happy to vote for this!
Is this really necessary?
What about actions like:
I have replied to this below
yes, I saw but as I wrote their leaderboard-prices are more than 7.2 million DEC / Season, so when season is 14 days more than 500k DEC, if this is negligible than I don't know why you insist for your proposal who want burn approximately the same amount.
Is this really necessary?
What about actions like:
Hi there, thanks for providing your view. Below are the drawbacks to your suggestions:
Alone the leaderboard-prices in one format are 3,622 million DEC, means 7,244 millione dec for both formats and this means by a season of 14 days more than 500k DEC a day, so if 500k DEC a day is negligible why you do a proposal to burn 500k DEC / day ?
I'm curious how does this affect the Splinterlands 5% fee that the company currently gets or that's not touched? If it's not touched then these 3rd party systems would now have an 11% total fee instead of a 10% fee?
I think you misunderstand the current system. There is a 5% fee right now (unless set specifically lower by the the person/bot listing something). If the sale happens on the Splinterlands market, the set fee goes to Splinterlands. If the sale happens on a 3rd party market, Splinterlands is getting 0% and the fee goes to the market where the sale took place.
This proposal does not change that, it just proposes to set the fee to a fixed 6% from which 2% are burned.
So Splinterlands get only 4% instead of (at the moment) 5% and I think they fund tournaments with the fees, so we can expect that they will reduce tournament-prices by 20% or I am wrong ?
Hard no on anything that increases fees. If anything, we need less fees.
Same, honestly I don't understand why he keeps insisting on mixing a higher fee with the burn/dao in the same proposal. This proposal would pass easily with 95%+ votes if it didn't increase the fee for no real good reason. If you are cutting the value of every single asset in the game (besides tokens) by 1%, everyone loses 1% of their account value... All for the sake of what? Getting DEC to peg? Unless the game dies that will inevitably happen, people need to stop trying to force the PEG on a bear market, it doesn't matter as much now anyway.
I even believe that was the main issue with previous proposal, not the DAO getting the DEC, just the fee increase. I'd actually prefer the DAO to get the fee so we can fund it through other means instead of just burning it to "artificially" try to increase token value.
I'd rather keep the 5% fee as it is but instead vote to change it up where the company only gets 4% now instead of 5% and 1% goes back into the game some how. Via a buy SPS and burn it or buy SPS and give it back to stakes. Something... With the drastic increase in trading volume and land coming that will have even more fees it seems like a reasonable request. I think the major disconnect here is not talking one on one with the core team aka company that collects that 5% fee right now.
I think you have misunderstood how the fees work, please refer to @flauwy's comment in your other post.
I see that you also play tournaments, you are aware that Splinterlands will get only 4% fee (instead of 5% now) in the future and as they told that the tournament-prices are set with the fees we can expect that tournament-prices will be reduced in the future.
Splinterlands has an allocation of SPS in the whitepaper dedicated to tournaments roughly worth $35k per month at the current SPS price (after accounting for the 1% per month reduction in inflation). Looking at past tournaments, it seems they gave under $40k over the past 30 days, which makes sense give SPS was a lot higher 30 days ago. Therefore, looking at the tournament payouts it does not seem like market fees subsidize the tournament prizes much, or even at all.
I respect your right to discuss this proposal with the community but I would appreciate you not spreading misinformation.
Sorry but I would ask you to stop telling that I spread misinformation. I don't know if it was some change, but when you read here (I think it is official announcement of splinterlands isn't it?):
than you see that it was at least in this way before, maybe now they changed it.
But if you asked me to don't spread misinformation I would like to ask you to do the same and don't speak about leaderboard-prices from a negligible amount of DEC, as they are more than 7.2 million DEC every season (even not calculating when player share a place and the higher amount is payed out to all players) - this is really not negligible if I see the aim of your proposal.
You are right, prior to SPS it was mostly funded by market fees, but I don't believe it has been for a couple years.
I admit I was wrong to say the season rewards were negligible, I had not done the calculations. Although it is a fair chunk, it is not scalable as the game grows, it's a flat 7.2million per season. This proposal is not the same thing.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, this will need to be replaced by something and where would this new amount come from?
As I mentioned in an earlier comment from the free SPS who aren't used for the liquidy pools.
In this document stand 7.5 million SPS but only 5.25 million SPS seems to be allocated:
https://docs.splinterlands.com/splintershards-sps/providing-liquidity-sps
Roughly 500k SPS (from the free 2.25 million SPS) would be enough to replace all leaderboard-prices with an equal amount of SPS on base of the actual rate from roughly 30 DEC = 1 SPS.
Honestly, this is very good research, I didn't even know we had unallocated LP rewards. However, I don't believe reducing DEC supply by minting more SPS is the way to go. The point of burning DEC is to get to burning SPS faster. If we increase SPS emissions to reach burning DECs faster, that mildly defeats the purpose. If you believe in this cause I suggest writing up your own proposal.
Back to discussing about this proposal, I believe the backbone of this game is the play to earn component, and that is mostly derived from SPS value since reward cards are now soulbound. One way to sustain SPS value is by reducing the oversupply of DECs, which will eventually result in the burning of SPS. This proposal will mainly hurt sellers and renters in the short term by a 1.05% reduced revenue, but in the long term I strongly believe it will help every aspect of the ecosystem immensely.
I am not sure if this works, but hey let's give it a try. It can be stopped if it goes into the wrong direction. CRYPTOEATER is taking his reputation on stake, we will see how it goes out. I will make a Yes vote, for now.
3 months later we see the success:
Good point.
I think more to the point is this:
We cannot control price, but we can say this proposal alone has reduced the DEC supply by over 1% in a few short months. That is massive in my books...
Also a good point.
@udow @cryp71x Today, we see DECs at peg, SPS getting burned and over 100 million DECs burned due to this proposal
How many people are actully going to burn SPS for DEC?
5% is already too much tax for a simple digital transaction. Why do you have to make a proposal which increases the tax even more? 2% Burn and 3% to the market!
You should check Opensea, where most popular NFTs including Runis have a 5% fee which is charged on top of the 2.5% platform fee. Most people are paying 7.5% plus gas fees which is often a flat $10-12, which sometimes go to over $50 during periods of higher network activity. Despite these fees, Opensea has pulled billions in volume over its lifetime.
In terms of simply staying at 5% fee and giving 2% to burn, marketplaces will lose 40% of revenue which I don't believe is fair. With a 4/2 approach, everyone loses a little bit for the greater good of the ecosystem. This is all detailed in the proposal.
Yes, but no one is buying 1 cent NFTS on OpenSea, you are comparing two completely different worlds, and OpenSea is just a third-party to sell them. OpenSea is more comparable to Amazon charging a fee for people to sell their products on their platform. It comes with publicity, visibility. Third party markets in splinterlands don't offer extra visibility to the game, they exist because the game exists, they are used because the game gave them visibility. People won't find and use peakmonsters without knowing Splinterlands exists beforehand, while people will find and use OpenSea before certain NFT projects are listed there.
OpeanSea pulls billions of volume because it is the GO TO for any NFT investor/enthusiastic.
what does the even better proposal look like that is coming if it is rejected now? 😊
It seems that the post creator isn't interested in the comments, in every case I cannot see that he replied or voted any comments he received.
I have spent tens of hours already on the previous iteration of this proposal and honestly, it has had a real mental toll since I received a lot of personal attacks along with the discussion.
As I have said what I needed to say already on my previous post, I decided to take a step back for this pre-proposal period.
However, I have just replied to all comments that haven't already received a reply.
ok, I am not interested in personal attacks, but in a discussion as I really think that the aim of this proposal can be reached in another way.
I pointed out that leaderboard-prices are more than 7.22 million DEC per season, so if leaderboard-prices would be paied out in SPS instead of DEC in the future and also tournament entries would be taken in DEC than this both measures would do IMO the same like your proposal and it would even force the player who want take part in tournaments to buy DEC or burn SPS for DEC to pay the entrance fees.
Thank you :)
As for SPS, where would this additional SPS amount come from? Wherever it does, we will get a new set of upset players
As I mentioned in an earlier comment from the free SPS who aren't used for the liquidy pools.
In this document stand 7.5 million SPS but only 5.25 million SPS seems to be allocated:
https://docs.splinterlands.com/splintershards-sps/providing-liquidity-sps
Roughly 500k SPS (from the free 2.25 million SPS) would be enough to replace all leaderboard-prices with an equal amount of SPS on base of the actual rate from roughly 30 DEC = 1 SPS.
Although I understand the purpose of the proposal and appreciate you putting your neck out for the community, for me it’s a hard NO on anything that increases market fees for card sellers from 5% to 6%. Without that increase, it would definitely have been a YES.
I'm not interested still in an increase to my selling fees, so I'll vote it down. But i suspect this will pass given its a re-do. I think this would have been way more useful over a year ago when bots were much more prevalent. The main advantage to this is the 1% going away, not sure that is as much an issue anymore with soul bound reward cards and bot roi being nerfed so dramatically...
yes vote from me
Definitely Yes
3 month later:
No thanks. I don't see how the "flywheel effect" is possible without making several assumptions. The most glaring is that decreased supply equals higher price. Markets don't always shake out like that, so lets not ignore those other forces. This feels more like increasing a tax by 20% with the hope that DEC price reacts accordingly. Doesn't feel like a slam dunk to me.
Further, couldn't the same goals be achieved with a 3% take/2% burn split but on a slightly longer timeline? Or some other combination that adds up to a fixed 5%? Personally, I'd be more open to the whole idea if it included the benefit of having no forward facing change to the average seller.
First of all, I want you to know that I get your point and I actually appreciate your effort in trying to push your idea forward even if I completely disagree with it JUST because of the fee increase.
This should be two separate talks, first a proposal to burn (or send to DAO) 1% of the fee and another one to increase the fee to burn an extra 1%. You are just making your life harder by mixing the two and you'll never get the true feeling of the community (and even create a bad sentiment) since there are mixed concepts within the same proposal. I'm pretty sure almost 100% of the community would gladly vote YES (myself included) to burn/DAO 1% and most of them would vote NO to increase fee by 1%. Only third party markets would even think of voting no to burn 1% since they would be the only ones who'd lose (the others already pay 5% anyway) and even then I don't really think they would vote against the community, they'd just take the loss as they already are with the current proposal.
Burning or sending to DAO makes very little difference since they'd still be "out of circulation" for the foreseeable future, this proposal is mostly just getting more traction because it is a redo, not because it is burning. There is also the fact that burning DEC just for the sake of decreasing supply won't do much for its value if demand does not increase. While demand is low, DEC price will be low, it is just that simple. We are in a bear market with lots of uncertainty, DEC price is bound to be below "PEG" since it's not really pegged to any real currency. Burning everywhere we can just to attempt to pump price and kickstart the flywheel is just a bad practice since it won't ever reflect demand and it is just what "shitcoins" like SafeMoon and alike do to pretend they are more valuable than they actually are. The flywheel WILL come when either land burns through a bunch of DEC or the game is becoming popular again, in either case it's when DEMAND for DEC increases, as it should be. It shouldn't be at the cost of the CURRENT playerbase that keep investing (or hold) during a bear market.
You claim it's more fair for everyone to lose a little, hence the 1% increase. I'd argue that is just false. Just because one side is getting hurt, doesn't mean the other side also has to get hurt just to make it "fair". That is anything BUT fair, you are hurting the whole playerbase with 1% just to be "fair" to a handful of accounts (third party markets) that have already profitted thousands from this game. Hurting thousands of players for every third party market is NOT fair. A 4/1 approach would mantain the fee at a total of 5%, not hammer down on third party markets more than your current approach ALREADY does AND above all NOT harm EVERYONE that holds assets in the game.
It saddens me this actually has a very good chance to go forward when in reality a lot of people disagree partially with the proposal just simply because you are mixing two different propositions into one and putting it out a second time while barely changing it. It is just now you are getting most other whales to support it which in reality is all you need since your votes have a tremendous weight on the outcome (which is fair since you invested more).
Your main idea is very good and I doubt anyone disagrees with it (to use a "small" % of the fee for community itself, either by burning or sending to DAO), but increasing the fee is a terrible idea, rewards are already becoming so low in this game with soulbound cards, no DEC rewards that can be invested back into cards/rents without having to go through exchanges, assets (cards and packs) depreciating, etc, why would you want to cut an extra 1%? The less fees we have on transactions, the more activity the game will have and the more alive the market will be. People won't have to fear buying and selling cards left and right because they lose a % every time they do it.
I mean 1% more is ok and burn is always good.
But besides market mechanics, i would love to see an active rental market again. There could be same Mechanic.
Not bots are bad,
More like 2% of rental fees go to burn, maybe 3%, who cares about the trade-off bots are cool/ not the enemy again?
The rental market was for me the core part of the game, buy cards, rent out, lvl up and so on. I have multiple copies of each card from lower level up to max.
Would also support the flywheel effects and assets owners.