bc0d3b83a40af54d80c36c1fad3c33a7d31f4056
EDITS
For first time readers, I suggest starting from "The Proposal" section then moving back up to the edits.
Edit 1
An example how of the current market works:
- Player lists card on Splinterlands worth 100 DEC
- A second player buys on Peakmonsters
- 5 DEC is given to Peakmonsters, the seller receives 95 DEC
An example of this proposal in action:
- Player lists card on Splinterlands worth 100 DEC
- A second player buys on Peakmonsters
- 3.5 DEC is given to Peakmonsters (the buying market), 0.5 DEC is given to Splinterlands (the listing market), 2 DEC is given to the DAO, the seller receives 94 DEC
- Please note that the seller may remove from the market at any time without a fee, market fees are only charged at the time of sale.
Therefore, the market places as a whole receive 1 DEC less, the seller receives 1 DEC less and the DAO receives 2 DEC more. This example can be converted to a percentage at a 1:1 rate.
Edit 2
Added #5 under "What this means"
Added #6 under benefits
Edit 3
After thorough discussions and careful consideration of all stakeholders involved, including market users (buyers and sellers), marketplace owners, large SPS stakeholders and the game's founders both @yabapmatt and @aggroed, I have decided to amend this proposal. This change does not explicitly express the views of any single party, but rather a compromise I have personally created based on taking into account everyone's feedback. They may express their own personal views if they wish to in the comments below.
The new distribution of fees will be: 0.5% to the listing market, 3.5% to the buying market and 2% to the DAO.
The example above in Edit 1 has been edited to reflect this.
I would like to first preface this change by saying my gut still believes in the original split of 2% to the listing market, 2% to the buying market and 2% to the DAO, and it seems the majority of the community agrees as the proposal is currently sitting at a 73.10% approval after 5 days of voting.
However, I do sympathize with the two parties the previous distribution will impact the most: marketplace owners who do not have a listing UI and buyers who utilize cashback services. This update is dedicated to them to ensure minimal impacts to their services while still serving the initial goal of this proposal that the majority voted for:
- DAO gets a portion of trading volume to ensure we "put value back into the game through trading",
- Lower current circulating supply of DEC by distributing DECs to the DAO, which can be burned, held or used (likely in many years) at the community's discretion,
- Creating an incentive for developers to focus on listing frontends too,
- And lastly bots can no longer pay lower fees (1%)
Edit 4
Added some FAQs at the bottom of the proposal
Edit 5
Added a "side note" at the bottom
The Proposal
This proposal has four changes to the way the market protocol works, all 4 items will work in parallel to enhance the economy and incentives of the Splinterlands market.
- Set market fee to a fixed 6% (Cards, Rentals, Assets, Lands, etc.)
- 2% of market fee goes to DAO
- 0.5% goes to the market a user listed on and 3.5% goes to the market a user bought on
- When no market (or invalid market) UI is used for one of those operations, the amount will go to the Splinterlands company
What This Means
- Increase of 1% fee to sellers
- Increase in DAO funding/less DECs in circulation
- Decrease in funds rewarded to markets that only facilitate sales
- New opportunities for earnings by marketplaces
- Bots can no longer list at 1% fee, same fee for every user
Benefits
- All market UIs will have incentive to develop tools to help both sides of all the different markets (renting, assets, lands and card sales)
- The DAO will receive 2% of all market transactions
- The DAO receiving increased funds can help reduce circulating supply of DEC and give the community more capabilities in the future via increased DAO funds
- 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"
- 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
- Less DEC in circulation --> closer to peg --> closer to flywheel effect --> closer to burning SPS for DEC (ultimate goal) --> higher SPS value --> more earnings for everyone!
Potential Drawbacks
- Market interfaces may see a decreased focus on building selling tools (in comparison to listing tools)
- A general decrease going to market interfaces (includeing 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".
Furthermore, this proposal incentivizes third-party marketplaces to develop useful tools for both listing and buying.
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 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 before accounting for the lands, assets and rentals market, which I personally expect to pick up substantially once lands 1.5 is released.
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.
FAQs
Question: Why increase the fee from 5% to 6%? Why not just send 1% to the DAO and leave it at 5%?
Answer: This proposal was created to be "fair" to both marketplaces and players as they are both important pieces of this complicated ecosystem. By simply giving away 1% of the volume to the DAO, marketplaces are losing 20% revenue while players reap the benefits of reduced circulation. That would not be fair for our markets as they provide a pivotal service for our ecosystem. By increasing the fee, both players and markets share the burden equally and doubles the DAO's funding compared to the 1% distribution.
To put it bluntly, all parties lose a little bit to ensure there are less DECs in circulation in the short term and the DAO is well funded in the long term, thus helping all long term participants of our ecosystem.
Lastly, fees of anywhere between 5 to 10% are commonplace for NFTs on platforms such as Opensea. For example, the Runi collection has a 5% creator fee + 2.5% Opensea fee.
Question: Sending DECs to the DAO does not reduce circulating supply, only burning it does
Answer: Not technically a question, but also technically the truth. However, we have to consider that the DAO is not your average Joe holder.
Funds in the DAO cannot be accessed by any single person and must be approved by 66%+ of the community before it can be used. So we simply ask ourselves, would 66%+ of the community agree to spend or sell DECs while we are below peg? I highly doubt it.
The only use of DECs I can imagine passing in the short term is if we burn it, which leads us to the next FAQ.
Question: Why not simply burn the DECs to begin with?
Answer: By distributing it to the DAO, we give the community flexibility. Below are a few examples of how we can use the DECs in the future:
- Once DECs are steadily pegged at $0.001 (and personally, I believe it will be), we could have a proposal where players can buy back the DECs from the DAO using SPS so the DAO holds more SPS (personally don't like this proposal)
- If the Splinterlands company ever needs funding from the DAO, they may propose to take DECs which can be used for credit sale distributions, instead of requesting SPS which they must market sell for fiat/stablecoins. As a side note, my vision is that all cards/packs/items/spells/Dinos will come from lands and/or give revenue to the DAO, with Splinterlands the company being fully funded by the DAO.
- @holoz0r had a great suggestion in the comments below where we can use the DECs from market fees to fund ranked rewards, he even did the maths to show it's very plausible,
- Or we could just simply burn it!
Proposal Fee Sponsored By: Aqualis DAO
Aqualis is a DeFi protocol set to launch on BSC that aims to revolutionize capital efficiency. By utilizing a unique "asset multi-utilization algorithm", Aqualis can provide stablecoin rewards from trading fees, lending, flashloans and more with a single deposit, thus unlocking the lowest fees in DeFi while maintaining high organic rewards for depositors.
Aqualis will continue to support the Splinterlands community directly through expanding the Aqualis guild (currently recruiting), hosting tournaments, and building a portfolio of protocol owned Splinterlands assets as the protocol grows. Aqualis also plans to support the entire GameFi industry by focusing on DeFi tools specifically catered towards GameFi users.
If you would like to learn more about Aqualis, apply for the guild or simply stay up to date for giveaways, please join the Discord!
Side note: what are your opinions on proposals with a sponsor?
Thinking about this a lot over the last few days, I am choosing to vote No.
Here's my reasoning:
This proposal mixes two things in one - redistributing transaction fees between listing and buying marketplace and sending funds to the DAO.
I am ok with the first part (adjusting listing/buying fees) but would distribute things differently than what's proposed here, putting more emphasis on ensuring Splinterlands gets a cut of every transaction. As some have said there is also the issue of giving PKM an unfair advantage, although I do think other marketplaces could catch up given new conditions (perhaps there should be some lead time notice before implementing this if we were to do it). For the record I only use PKM personally and love it, however I think one of the competitive advantages Splinterlands has is its diverse 3rd party ecosystem so we should be careful about doing anything that could harm that.
I have more problems with the latter because of lack of clarity on what the funds will be used for. I think we should separate these two issues and reconsider/rethink proposals with singular goals rather than mixing up several goals into one proposal.
Thank you for taking the time to voice your reasoning on voting no to this. To address your concerns:
The current market conditions is actually a really fair point I had not thought about. Perhaps this would be better proposed in a bull market? Not sure... However, I would argue that this proposal has little to no negative effect on the buy pressure of assets. If someone needs a card or if someone believes a card will go up, I honestly doubt that the selling fee of 6% instead of 5% would deter them from buying that card. Furthermore, I also don't believe this change will make anyone sell their cards if they weren't planning to already. Therefore, I believe it has no direct impact supply and demand. In fact, with reduced circulating DEC supply, we may actually see an upward pressure on price, increasing the utility and demand for cards. With that being said, I do agree that adding an additional fee in times of a long downtrend could leave a nasty taste in the mouths of many players. In fact, if this wasn't my proposal I'd probably feel the same! However, it is what you say, short-term pain for long term gain and in recognition of that I would still vote yes on this, since I am a large asset holder having been here from week 1. In fact, the players most affected by this proposal are the sellers who will only cop an increase in market fee without staying long enough in the ecosystem to reap the benefits of a reduced circulating supply of DEC.
Therefore, I see this as a middle ground, where it goes to the DAO for now but I plan to raise more proposals every couple of months to burn DECs owned by the DAO, which lets the community decide.The great thing about the DAO is that there is no "plan", it's up to us, the community to decide! Every piece of spending will need to be approved by us and although there is no team policy or team spending plan that I know of, but I can personally say I am against any further spending in the short term. I also don't believe the DAO would ever approve a proposal to sell or spend DECs until we are consistently at peg. Many years from now when SPS emissions end, @holoz0r pointed out 2% of market volume is enough to support ranked rewards, which would make it a great way to power our "play to earn" ecosystem sustainably. However, in the short term I am all for simply burning the DECs received by the DAO until SPS emissions end, but I know many supporters such as @davemccoy prefers it going to the DAO.
The issue with circulating DECs is addressed in 2. Furthermore, I would not describe the effect of this proposal as tiny. Even at current market volumes it is over 1 million DECs per day on average going out of circulation which is roughly 400 million DECs per year just from our cards market, not counting rentals, assets or lands. I also expect a huge uptick of volume around the release of lands 1.5. However, I do agree that this will have a larger impact on smaller markets since their fixed costs as a percentage may be higher, and smaller players since they tend to do less P2P deals and this proposal would reduce cashback services. One solace I have is hoping the reduced supply of DEC will benefit everyone, including smaller players and markets with increased earnings from SPS (as people begin to burn SPS for DEC) and more utility to cards bringing more volume to markets.
However, we both agree that funding the DAO makes more sense for now, since distributing to the DAO takes the DECs out of circulation in the short term which boosts the economy as a wholeThis point I understand well, and I spoke with @yabapmatt in depth about this before writing up this proposal. , thus bringing benefit to both the company and the players. If we fund the company directly, the DECs will be used to fund credit sales, which is beneficial to the company since they don't have to buyback as much DECs from the open market, but has no effect on the overall circulating supply of DEC thus no benefit to the economy. @yabapmatt also mentioned that changing the destinations and distributions of market fees is trivial once this passes, so if the company ever needs additional funds in the future they may simply put it through a vote.
Lastly, I don't believe any one of the top 5 third party marketplaces are going anywhere due to this proposal. Furthermore, I don't believe there are any new marketplaces planning to join our ecosystem anytime soon due to the current market conditions, and once we are thriving again, I do not believe this proposal would turn away any market places looking to join us. Therefore, I honestly don't believe this will do any harm to the diversity of third party services, apart from simply reducing their revenue.
For reference, here is a summary of their revenues (prior to cashback and server costs) over the month of April.
Thanks for the very thorough answer @cryptoeater. I've received several messages since writing my post above and am considering it all. For the time being I still am leaning towards a "No", however I'll think about it some more over the coming days.
Thanks for your consideration, and please message me privately if you want to regarding any further concerns around this proposal.
Hey @cryptoeater what a great reply. I love how you engage people.
Regarding the point you tagged me on, I would like to address my thoughts in more detail.
The DAO is the community. The community can decide what to do with funds it owns. It can use funds to create value, such as you mentioned by enabling ranked play rewards after the SPS drops stop.
There are many other ways to create value as well, such as the DAO can invest and support our ecosystem via LPs. The DAO can also contract 3rd party Devs to do projects that SPL doesn't have time/manpower/funds to do.
On top of creating value directly with the funds, the DAO can also decide to BURN any or all of their assets at any time. This is also a creation of value to the token holders as it would reduce the supply.
The reason I am so adamant in the DAO getting the funds directly is because whether we use the funds or we destroy the funds its really a separate decision for the DAO.
In my opinion, the DAO and the community are interchangeable words. So whenever there's a choice to give funds to the DAO, its really a choice to give funds to the community. And what the community (DAO) does with those funds will be best for the community. Why? Because the community will decide the fate of those funds, and you can't get a better system than the community controlling its own destiny.
I like 2% going to the DAO, and encouraging 3rd party development of both the buy and sell side seems like a smart thing to do as it should create more liquidity with payment for both sides of the trades. Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems good. I will vote for it. Nice idea @cryptoeater!
Dave, this can potentially kill multiple 3rd party applications. The applications gives us options as a consumer. You of all people know how important competition is in a free market system. Please reconsider your opinion. I have listed my thoughts in a post:
https://peakd.com/hive-13323/@azircon/another-day-another-indecent-proposal
Edit:
As the proposal is edited I feel I needed a new edit too :)
https://peakd.com/hive-13323/@azircon/getting-dec-to-peg-again
I will dig deeper. My thoughts were this would create more competition, not less. I'll speak with the 3 major providers and get their thoughts and input. Of course I want competition and I also want a vibrant and healthy 3rd party market, so yes I will.
Please talk to smaller players like MM, cardauctions, splex & layer2lab who are in discounted card sell business.
Also please talk to peripheral services and tools like https://splinterguide.com/ https://www.splintercards.com/ https://bo0mburst.github.io/splinterguilds/
All these services and the small players, many within your own guild will be hurt big time.
Peakmonsters/Jarvie can take a small revenue hit, not only because he is a big provider, but also he get hive DHF funding $600/day! I am not saying he doesn't deserve it. Peak is an excellent tool, and I use it. I am writing this note on Peakd. I am only saying he doesn't care about the small revenue loss, while the others will get decimated.
https://peakd.com/me/proposals
That's a totally different project and focused on building open source products for Hive, not Splinterlands.
PeakMonsters is not open source and not funded by that proposal at all. As everyone on Hive already knows you can easily see how funds from that proposal get used and how many developers are working on those open source projects. And follow their work on GitLab (https://gitlab.com/peakd/).
Yes. But you are still developing PeakD right? You are same human?
Totally humans, with the same limited amount of working hours/day to split across all different projects 😄
And we use funds from the proposal only for hours worked on the open source stuffs. Otherwise this number would be zero:
What about a "discounted card listing business" for projects that want to go there?
It's upto the businesses to propose it.
I will definitely do that. I think all the 3rd party services are great. and want them to weigh in. Also not only on this proposal, but how we can deepen and improve our ecosystem.
You are correct, this would create more competition to develop better tools for listing cards instead of only incentivizing making better marketplaces for buying.
Thank you for taking the time to contribute to discussion, though it would be appreciated if you could post it under the original proposal next time.
Firstly, I do sympathize with the third-party marketplaces that may take a hit from this proposal. It is not my intention to "kill multiple 3rd party applications", but rather improve the Splinterlands economy and shift market development incentives. In fact, I do not believe your claim actually has any basis or merit but rather an exaggerated rhetoric designed to scare people into making a misinformed decision. Would any user-friendly and competitive market frontend really shut down as a result of this? I honestly don't think so... but if anyone does it's simply a sign that they may not have the time or tools to develop anything competitive anyway.
Furthermore, I believe it is extremely important for there to be a fee for both the listing and buying marketplace. Otherwise, there is no financial incentive to create and improve on a user-friendly listing frontend.
Lastly, a royalty to the DAO is long overdue. Nearly every major NFT project on Ethereum has a "creator fee" for their team, which is charged on top of the third party market fee. This is an absolute must for the sustainable development of any NFT/GameFi project. I am also flexible with the DAO portion getting burned instead, or shared with the Splinterlands company for further development.
Personally, I believe DECs funding the DAO is important because it gives the community the flexibility to vote to burn, to use or simply give to the company (if needed). However, that is most likely many years away and in the short term, these DECs held by the DAO is effectively out of circulation as they cannot be sold, as I doubt the community would ever vote for it to be sold or used for anything against the best interests of the ecosystem.
First of all. I have left a note on the original proposal post. You can check the top comment by Dave and you will see it.
Second, I like to write it in my own blog so that I and only I control the narrative. As this is my personal view which I am 100% entitled to.
Third, I have no interest in what you think about misdirection. I have no vested interest in your proposal. I do have a vested interest in the game. I will let people do what they care, but surely I will influence them.
Cheers
Hey AZ, I read your article and I'm paying attention.
I have been trying to get the three main 3rd party providers to find a compromise they can all support and endorse. I believe they are close to a compromise between the 3 of them, but they now need to work with cryptoeater and see if they can meet his objectives as well.
Of course in addition to what these 4 guys come up with, will be how the community views the solution. (and also the SPL team might want to weigh in as well)
This is a very complex issue that will affect many in the community. There are pros and cons from everyone's perspective. And those are not always aligned.
I do have faith in the process though. I feel the fact that we need 66.67% to pass in the proposal stage means it will either meet the needs of the community or it will not pass.
I appreciate your efforts to fight for what you think is important, it shows you care. And that's in the end how we make this whole process work!!!
Thanks Dave :)
FWIW, I think this would be a good change to the system. I think it makes sense to split the fee between both the listing and buying side of the market and as I have said many times I think that taking DEC out of circulation is one of the most important things we can do, so sending 2% of market transactions to the DAO is a great way to both get DEC effectively out of circulation on a regular basis and generate a new regular income stream for the DAO.
From the Splinterlands company standpoint, anything that can help to achieve the goal of stable-valued DEC is far, far more valuable than the very small potential loss of revenue from the 1% decrease in market fees we would get (which might be offset by some of the fees going to the listing market anyway).
Anything that brings DEC back to PEG and continues to drive demand for it will be a positive vote from myself. Glad to see that the peakmonsters team are for this as per their remarks.
Thanks. And this isn't our proposal but we have wanted to see something happen as we've been asking for it for years. I think for those who may have issue with @cryptoeater proposal I would love to see what they'd propose for a compromise in % distribution ... remember we can use decimal places.
APPROVED
Even if the numbers could be slightly different it is essentially what we have been asking for for years. Aka that both sides of the work for listings be rewarded. Yes it does cut down on the earnings for sales of which we're presently the biggest recipient ... but that's alright because the adjustment is worth it as it brings a long awaited fairness into the market tools dynamic and gives incentive to all sorts of websites to build a full suite of tools for players.
Nuances
If we had our choice our team would have chosen to see it at 2.5%(sell-ui)/1.5%(list-ui) With perhaps 1% going to Splinterlands to help pay for the API servers instead of the non-ui fee. BUT... even still we will happily support this proposal as is. The beauty is that after these technical changes take place making a small adjustment to the numbers will be very easy.
The reality is that the choose your own fee was a unique and worthwhile idea in theory that we supported but in action we have seen that low fees were predominantly used by BOTS so we think it's fine to have a set fee and will mostly impact bot farms and i think most people are gonna be fine with that. We have had sub 5% listing abilities on our site for years and not that many people used it so I think it's gonna be fine to have a set listing fee.
We could argue that maybe 1% of all sales should go to Splinterlands API for their work on servers that support the marketplace instead of taking bot listing cut which seems like more of a thing that should go to DAO. BUT... certainly not something that would change our mind on this vote. We'd be interested to know which of the two things Splinterlands would prefer more. There is a good amount of non-ui action that goes to Splinterlands already so they're more aware of it's benefits.
RECAP
We hope this passes. We did let @cryptoeater know we would support it as he worked on it after we heard that he reached out to Splinterlands and they said they'd be willing to make the change if it passed. Even if it leads to a smaller cut on sales it will give us and others to build a well rounded suite of tools for both sides of the equation.
I think my own personal opinion is changing a bit on this proposal though i'll continue to support it as i think we can make a proposal to make some compromises after this proposal has finished (successfully or not)
Been watching the discussion and some of the issues people have with it and Based on feedback, I have always thought 2% for listing is too high even if i think that other market places will adapt i still think there should be more emphasis on sales than listings but should the proportion be 3.5/.5 or 3/1??
So my idea for a compromise is
3.5% selling ui
.5% listing ui
1.5% dao
No UI used =>linterlands servers
Total 5.5%
Anyway i'm still listening and thinking about it.
Again: simply this won’t pass. This is so outlandish that it doesn’t merit much discussion. But all the downsides you listed yourself is enough to DV it
Sounds good. Three worthy recipients, each getting the same benefit from each sale.
I'd be interested to hear what the Peakmonsters guys think. @jarvie @asgarth ?
I totally support the idea of splitting the market fees. Numbers can be tuned a little bit if needed, but overall I believe this is good for the ecosystem as a whole.
I've seen other suggesting to stick to 5% (with 1% to the DAO) and that's a viable solution from my point of view as it does not impact the sellers.
Only issue I see in the short term is the very large amount of existing cards on the markets (sales, rentals and assets). Everything that is already listed when this change is implemented will result in a lower fee (2% compared to ~5%) for 3rd party marketplace.
This is a direct result of point 4, as right now there is no marketplace associated with a market listing.
That said I like this proposal and even thought there are drawbacks for us in the short term it will be a win for the ecosystem in the long run 👍
I mean if it were my proposal i think i would have done
2.5% Sale UI
1.5% List UI
1% splinterlands for market API servers
1% dao
And if no UI was used then goes to DAO
BUT... I"m happily voting YES on this. Previously actually thought a 3/1 split would have been better but asgarth convinced me otherwise and I respect his opinion.
I honestly don't know if it's gonna be beneficial to our bottom line in the long run but it seems fair to reward both sides of the work AND I just hope the DAO does something useful with that DEC it will end up being like perhaps $700+ a day even on low days between all 3 markets (rent, asset, cards) I still believe that reducing DEC supply will have a positive impact on the economy including SPS.
Anyway those are some of my thoughts... but honestly interested in hearing what others have to say and will try to share some of our insights where requested.
UPDATE: Been watching the discussion and some of the issues people have with it and Based on feedback and my own personal belief that 2% is too high for listing ui I'd personally prefer to see 3.5/0.5/1.5 as the rates.
But will continue to support this proposal and hope even if it passes that maybe we can compromise on something for all parties.
It will be beneficial to your bottomline in the long run, because this can potentially kill your competition :)
I am sorry to state it like this, but this is a fact. Also you do receive Hive DHF funding, while your competitors don't. So losing a bit of revenue shouldn't be much an issue from your point of view.
I use PKM, and I also use your competitors. As a consumer, I do not like monopoly. I like competition. That is the only way the consumer benefits. This proposal potentially kills competitors of Peakmonsters. This is NOT a good thing from a player/consumer point of view.
K let's find a compromise what is the split that you think would be good because it is very much not ok that listing is not rewarded. So let's think it through what is the split? I am fine with not having 2% go tot the dao that seems like too much. Also I think splinterlands API servers deserve to be compensated.
3/1/1/1
2.5/1.5/1/.5
Let's find a compromise because because do you think it's fair that half the equation of work doesn't get compensated for building tools?
No, Jarvie. This is simply not needed at all.
Let me ask you a different question. Do you think DAO is under funded? I think not. Another SPS mini-pack late next year (2024) will be enough the fund the DAO.
Yes I wouldn't have chosen 2% for DAO it is too much for dao... I can understand effort to reduce supply of DEC and personally i lean towards DAO over burn.
But i think listing tools need to be rewarded (and yes we expect that means lots more sites will compete against us for something they've never had an incentive to create and that's fine)
Also I think splinterlands API servers for markets are basically a charity and need to be rewarded.
So let's tweak the numbers and come up with a compromise.
I like to hear from your competition directly.
Instead, what I propose: 3rd party tool/market providers make their own case. Not you.
Although you are a 3rd party, but I think your funding situation is better because of hive DHF funding, which is providing your dev capital for years.
If there is any voice we should be listening to on this, it's this guy. Although he owns Peakmonsters, he has the best interests of the community at heart.
Haha thanks. To be fair I'm still nervous about the specific numbers he has proposed. But excited about the idea of being able to align incentives towards all sorts of tools and possibly burn/dao some of the fees as someone who just really wants the economy to get better because i personally own way too much stuff. haha
So i'm not giving 100% stamp of approval on this proposal... but I certainly would like to see it pass because a slight tweak later to the numbers will be just about the easiest thing splinterlands can work on i suspect.
I completely agree, mate.
I personally know Asgarth and Jarvie and they are among the most fair and honest people I have ever met who really care about the ecosystem and the community.
I would also encourage those who make inferences about their activities, risking damage to their reputation, to do their own research before writing such nonsense and provide data, otherwise please stop throwing garbage that can influence users.
Happy to pay the extra 1% in market fees. Looking forward to comments from Splinterlands and 3rd party markets
i hate to say it because i really like peakmonster and the team and this feels like i would be stabbing them in the back right now. but the proposal is to give peakmonster a market advantage and eliminate the competition and i don't think that should happen because the other platforms haven't hurt splinterlands or the players. they have only specialized in something else and that is cashback instead of many features and if customers prefer this then it is their right to choose this because this is a free market. now just to destroy their business idea / basis is not fair, neither to the markets nor to the customers!
They are perfectly capable of creating LISTING tools with just a little bit of work. They are smart people give them some credit. But let's think of a compromise in terms of the distribution to align incentives appropriately.
Are you a market, is your business being destroyed?
We had this conversation before - prefer when people talk from their own situation (me, i) 😊
So how will this change directly effect you?
currently monstermarket is the most used market. and obviously not because of the additional features but because of the cashback. how much cashback do you think the cashback markets will be able to pay after the change? obviously their business model will be destroyed. you can ask e.g. reazuliqbal the operator of monstermarket or read what he wrote today in discord, or just see if he voted against it if you don't believe me.
he said something different than i did and also worded it much nicer. but he was obviously not enthusiastic ;)
seeing that most players prefer the cashback model to the add-on features. how can you go there and damage the cashback model and promote the add-on model? there's something wrong here i don't need to explain, is there?
and personally it hits me insofar that they want to take away my choice between peakmonster and cashback. and of course 1% more fees ;)
thankyou.
My only worry was about Peakmonsters but if they are on board then no worries from me :) Great idea and proposal
the markets get the fees because they build the platform and offer us service for it. the proposal wants to cut buyers, sellers and the markets money and still increase the fee. so that the dao that does not do for it and anyway has nothing to do with dec takes dec? sounds like mafia methods!
I respect third party marketplaces and what they bring to our ecosystem, I use them every day! This proposal doesn't aim to punish them, it aims to better align incentives.
Currently, there are marketplaces that offer cashback as a service who are taking market share from platforms that actually provide development value to our ecosystem. Part of this proposal is taking away some of that power to make sure market share actually scales with utility.
As for the DEC going to the DAO, I like to think of it as our community fund. We will be needing it once SPS emissions end but before then, the community has the power to do anything we want with it, including simply burning it all! I personally believe providing a consistent and long term income stream for the DAO while taking DECs out of the current circulating supply is incredibly important and this should single-handedly outweigh the all the downsides I listed above.
deleted previous response as authored from wrong account
when the sps emissions end, what exactly does it get us if the dao then has dec? if we really want dec at that time, splinterlands could just print dec again this is not a limited token.....
I would rather see Splinterlands receive some fixed percentage on every transaction, rather than just to have them as backup.
However, if an automated botted market bot is bypassing the available market services because they aren’t providing value for those transactions, doesn’t that mean those services aren’t providing as much utility as perhaps they should be? It will just encourage false attribution to cash back markets.
A big part of this proposal is taking DECs out of circulation by giving it to the DAO, DECs received by the company is simply recirculated on the market from credit purchases and rentals. Of course, the company receives the funds which is great, but when funds are in the DAO the community reserves the flexibility to give it to the company if required, burn it, or use it for something else.
I'm not too sure of your second paragraph, but the goal of this proposal is to align incentives to provide better listing and buying services, in other words taking power away from cash back markets and giving more to markets that provide solid utility to the ecosystem.
I think the definition of solid utility is subjective. maybe you can explain further you meaning of solid utility
You are right, basically anything that saves my time I would treat it as having "solid utility".
Since I wrote this comment, I have also started to understand the utility of cashbacks, many smaller players rely on this and although cashbacks were not initially meant to be part of the market structure, they have since been embraced by many. Therefore, I do not wish to "kill it", I simply hope to bring a little more incentive to build the selling side of a market too.
However, the main purpose of this proposal is still to fund the DAO + reduce the circulating supply of DECs.
As an owner of monstercards.store I would like to share my opinion.
I'm afraid that such changes will hit small markets the most.
DAO, Peakmonster, and Splinterlands are founded from other sources. For the rest markets, this 5% fee is all we get, yet we share most of this fee with our customers.
From the point of view of a small new market, it is really hard to compete with existing big players. Running the environment (without big traffic for now) costs me about $60 per month, not to mention my work. So the proposition to cut my only revenue from running the market by 30% and donating DAO instead is unacceptable to me.
I believe you are underestimating how much you'd lose. Because you'd be unable to keep the cashback so high when you only receive 3.5%, it would mean there was less incentive to use your application and you'd also lose costumers, not just the fee.
This proposition hurts (or even outright kills) small markets while also hurting everyone that sells cards by 1% which IMO seems uncalled for. 1% for the DAO would already achieve a similar result without hurting every single user that sells for no reason. We can't just keep making the process of selling cards more expensive/annoying all the time just to reach PEG. If there aren't enough means to burn DEC it should be considered a product issue/priority, not something the users/third parties pay for.
The same way the proposition states that it is not fair for the third party markets to pay the whole fee, I also don't feel it's fair for the users to donate an extra 1%? To be honest that whole answer is not satisfying enough for me since the end result is mainly "we want 2% for the DAO, not 1%" and the markets were thrown in the answer just as dust to not seem as bad. They are still losing the same amount, what matters in the end is how much they get from the fee, I don't feel like they care that much to "share the pain" with the users and both give 1% each to the DAO since their end result is still only getting 3.5% anyway, independently on the users paying an extra 1% or not.
Just to not sound as bad, I believe this proposal comes with a good intention, I'm just someone that uses the market a lot and I don't see any reason why I should vote yes in a proposal that will make me not only lose an extra 1% on direct fees, but also a few more % in cashbacks.
Hi there, I appreciate you taking the time to write this comment and I sympathize with your situation. This proposal was originally 2% to the listing frontend, 2% to the buying frontend and 2% to the DAO and was passing at a 73% rate. However, taking feedback from existing markets into consideration, I have since updated the proposal to its current iteration.
In terms of competing, this change will affect all markets, so if you have a new product/service your marketplace can provide that others do not, a change in market conditions is the perfect chance to start gaining a higher market share.
Lastly, laws and regulation in the real world change all the time. The goal is usually to improve the status quo for all, but any change may have negative impacts to specific citizens and/or businesses. To be successful, we need to adapt to these changes to position ourselves favorably. We cannot simply avoid change that impacts anyone negatively, as that will simply make us stagnate as an ecosystem.
The main question for me is why DAO needs its share of the market fee?
DAO is already founded by SPS, a market listing fee. Why DAO needs 2% or 1% and not 0.1% for example?
There are other ways that we can tend to DEC peg prices than increasing fees for users and cutting 3rd party market revenue.
You are right that those changes affect all markets, but not all markets are in the same spot. Peakmonster for example gets funds from DHF, you are also a part of a much more ecosystem so you have more possibilities to outstand some hard times. Some markets are listed on Splinterlands, and some others are not. My market is made entirely by me in my free time, so I have a really low upkeep cost - but for now, I still donate my private money to this project 😆
I am not against changes. Actually, I found that pretty odd that only "the buy market" gets fee when I dived into Splinterlands' under-the-hood world. But I think such changes should be introduced gradually.
I just do not like the idea of cutting off the market's revenue by 30% increasing the market fee for users at the same time.
But hang on... If more DEC goes to the DAO fund, that means its fate is to be exchanged for money, which, instead of removing it from circulation, would just decrease its value...
I voted against this because, as an average user, it is just increasing my fees.
death & taxes
I'm still trying to understand why we have to pay 1 DEC to list a 0.01 DEC card for rental, It would take 10 days to recover the rental fee and that's if it rents out.
Also if the cards do rent and are played there is a cooldown before they can be rented again.
The 1 DEC charge to list a card for sale is ok as it is listed in $ so a card placed at 1 cent still sells for several DEC.
This proposal looks like another cost to ownership.
Why would a new player invest in this game with these charges, the two defining characteristics of NFT games are; play and earn.
Where ownership of NFT's brings positive benefits to the owner.
Personally, I plough my rental profits back into my collection, either for more rental cards or a better deck, this has become considerably more difficult with the rental fee changes.
This just makes it more difficult for me to achieve my goals.
It also means a new player who wants to rent the cheaper cards to play can't, because most people aren't stupid enough to rent out their cards at a loss.
The 1 DEC listing fee was implemented by the Splinterlands company (I had nothing to do with it!) to prevent mass listings of 0.1 DEC rentals and constant rental price updates which caused their server costs to be too high.
Your take regarding the current proposal is correct, it is an additional cost to ownership that is realized when you sell. However, this cost isn't going to any person or company, it is going to the community (the DAO), which is controlled by you and everyone who stakes SPS.
In addition to funding the DAO, the main benefit of this in my opinion is that these DECs will no longer be circulating. What I mean by this is that I personally do not believe any proposal to spend/sell the DEC will pass until we are at peg, besides simply burning it.
With less DECs in circulation, there is less supply thus we get closer to reaching peg, which is ultimately the goal of this proposal.
Hello cryptoeater,
thank you for responding.
Firstly I didn't realise this proposal came from a Splinterlands Community Member, so I apologise for my oversight.
I do have some concerns regarding trying to reach 'DEC Peg', a lot of proposals seem to either directly state this goal as an objective or appear to be designed to achieve this goal.
The previous SPS Governance proposal that I mentioned also involved 'DEC Peg' as charging for listing sales and rentals takes more DEC out of circulation. Thus increasing the value of DEC against the US Dollar.
I think the Community needs to ask how much we need to manipulate the game economy to reach DEC parity, whether it is necessary to reach DEC Parity and, what will be the overall cost to the game to reach this objective.
If we overreach DEC Parity will we be fine-tuning ad infinitum to maintain DEC parity?
If the cost of listing level 1, 2 and 3 Commons and level 1 and 2 Rares on the market is prohibitive these cards will not be available to new players. This will stifle the take up of the game by new players as people can't even get the cards to play and 'earn' if the rewards are reduced to 0 for playing Starter cards each game.
A potential solution to rentals is reducing the fee from 1 DEC per listing to either 0.01 or 0.1 DEC. Or 'level of card' * either of these proposed new values, making the fees more scalable with the potential rental value.
However, this would take less DEC out of circulation.
If we look at the reasoning that Splinterlands wanted to reduce costs and that introducing these changes to Rental Fees addressed this. Then what will be the impact on the revenue earned and services supplied by PeakMonsters or MonsterMarket from this proposal? I presume their costs will remain the same. Will their revenue be reduced? Will they decide to take the hit or 'shut up shop' if the running costs are too high? What will happen to the smaller service providers? They have all lost revenue already from rentals because the lower level Commons and Rares are not being rented out as much.
I would like to thank you cryptoeater for raising this proposal, and for the personal effort you have made to improve the game.
Doesn't Splinterlands currently take 5% of the fee and it all goes to the company at the moment?
If so wouldn't that 5% need to remain for the most part? and why not apply 1% to buying back and burning SPS or DEC or both? This way it starts to put value back into the game through trading?
Good way to phrase it, "split the fee between both the listing and buying side of the market". However, what happens now is that when a market sale happens, the market that it got bought on takes the full 5%, Splinterlands, the DAO and the listing marketplace gets nothing. I will edit the proposal and include an example now for clarification
I also like the idea of some part of the fee going to DAO, but I'm opposed to increasing the fee from 5% to 6%. I believe it should be done from the existing fees. As @yabapmatt mentioned, splinter lands would be taking a 1% loss, and they are comfortable with it.
I propose keeping it at 5% and Break should be 2% SL, 2% Market, and 1% DAO.
Reasons why advocating for 5% (Lower fee than others):
Great idea and this is what brings value to the system!! Kudos to @cryptoeater and the Community!!
Thank you for taking the time to write up your opinion @khan.dayyanz!
The philosophy of this 6% fee is that everyone loses a little for the greater good. Markets take a 1% hit, sellers take a 1% hit and buybacks are slightly reduced. If it remained at a 5% fee, only marketplaces and buyers will be affected but not sellers.
We have also consulted with @jarvie who advised Peakmonsters would not support a 5% under this proposal. Since they are a major provider of tools to the ecosystem, I would personally like to make sure they approve of anything I propose.
Edit: Jarvie has said he would support 5% as well in the past, but has recently updated that sentiment
I said that we might as well stay at how it has always been if sellers are unwilling to budge for the greater good as the markets are willing. Even 5.5% would be fine. And just fyi staying at how things have always been isn't terrible to us. But taking more DEC out of circulation is the point. Staying at 5% doesn't really do much of that so might as well not have a proposal at all.
@jarvie , while yes, loading the DAO with DEC puts the DEC to rest, it does not take it out of circulation.
Shouldn't the proposal be to burn the DEC instead of giving it to the DAO, if removing the DEC from circulation is the goal?
What can the DAO do with the DEC that keeps it out of circulation and won't flood the market with DEC when the DAO wishes to use it?
Thank you and I appreciate your comments. In the end everyone have different ideas and opinions. I'm fine the direction if the community votes for it and this get's live. My vote would stay negative, as these changes look small but they always have a long-term impact on how markets and user behave. Hoping that all goes well. Thanks again.
I got mixed feeling about this tbh.. but it is interesting
Feel free to ask any questions you may have regarding this proposal, but most should be answered in the proposal itself
For me I think the fee structure should remain as is because according to my thinking I don't understand why the third party marketplaces are better than the game market place. That in itself does not sit very well with me. ok they allowed third party sites to take the fees why not make those sites pay a % of the fees they collect to splinterlands? Now you want to make it look like as if it is fair to charge an extra 1% fee to the final consumer when that final consumer is the one paying that fee in the first place. My thinking is if a third party site want to work with splinterlands they are the ones to be charged by splinterlands not the player.
Hi, thanks for taking the time to share your opinion. Under this new proposal, what you are describing is exactly what will happen. Traditionally, third party marketplaces paid nothing and got 100% of the earnings. This proposal makes every third party market place (and player) pay an additional 1% fee to the DAO to support the overall economy of the game and company. In the future if the company ever needs additional revenue, they may simply request a grant through the DAO via a proposal.
This proposal splits the 2% royalty to the DAO 50/50 between marketplaces and players to make it "fair", since players and third party markets work hand in hand to deliver a successful game.
thanks
Correct, I have about $500 worth of PKM, but sadly no, that does not make me a top holder :(
can you see this somewhere? i haven't found any sps top holder that has more pkm, most of them don't even have 5 dollars. and i wonder since the focus in the proposal is strongly on the dao. then why are you sticking so hard to splitting the market fee on listing fee that no market except peakmonster wants. it seems to me a bit like we are negotiating with peakmonster and not with you. since listing splitting has nothing to do with the dao fee and everything brings us only disadvantages except peakmonsters.....
Here is a list of the top PKM holders. However, that does not include the PKM that are in liquidity pools which is where most people hold their PKM. I personally hold about 0.865% of the liquidity pool which again, is around $500 worth of PKM 😅
The reason I am sticking in the market fee split is simply because I want to see more incentive for frontend development and it makes sense to reward developers who do. As you know, I have already updated this from 2% for listing to 0.5% for lister after taking in the feedback of existing marketplaces.
thanks
What happens when the DAO flushes a huge sum of DEC into the market, when the over 66% approve a huge purchase? This won't be good for the price of DEC, and everyone will be able to front run it because of knowing if the vote passes or not.
You are right, this won't be good for the price of DEC and I think it is rather obvious, so I don't think it will ever reach the 66% approval to simply sell DECs on market. If a proposal like that ever passes, I think the game would have other problems worth worrying about more haha
On the other hand, a proposal to simply burn the DECs held by the DAO is much more likely to pass (and I will personally vote for it)
Seems like it would be stronger for the proposal to just burn the DEC rather than put it in the DAO.
Is that correct or did I misunderstand your response and/or the proposal?
By distributing it to the DAO, we give the community flexibility to do what they feel is best, which includes simply burning it if that's what the community wants
so, to be clear, this vote is to make splinterlands markets less efficient, making splinterlands assets less liquid and valuable. and the primary justification is that it will help remove DEC from circulation and get us closer to the flywheel?
this proposal just seems flawed from the get go.
imagine this proposal just said "everyone has to donate X DEC to the DAO, so we can get closer to the flywheel effect"
the function of forcing this to happen, just happens to serve the purpose of obfuscating what is really happening, while making markets less efficient, and splinterlands assets less valuable to purchase.
I suppose there is the value that there is only a 1 percent decrease in efficiency of the market, while there is 2 percent going to the DAO, and in theory we all kind of have some say about how the DAO spends its assets. but that isn't a reason to do it, that is just a mitigation of the harm.
I'm not much of a whale or anything, so i dont move the needle a whole bunch, but i'm thrilled to vote against this proposal. maybe this is more attractive to whales whose marketplace fees are insignificant compared to the amount of influence they have over the DAO or something.
there are better ways to encourage DEC consumption, that dont hurt the community and splinterlands assets so much.
Almost every NFT project on ETH using OpenSea has a creator royalty, this is what the DAO royalty is trying to replicate. Most projects on Opensea have a 2.5% to 7.5% creator fee plus 2.5% marketplace fee, which means users are paying anywhere between 5 to 10% just in fees, not including the high gas fees on ETH.
Despite these "inefficiencies", Opensea is currently generating hundreds of millions of dollars volume per month, and in the billions per month over the bull market. The Runi collection is currently at 5% creator fee which means sellers pay 7.5%.
I personally think this market fee revamp is long overdue, the company or DAO should be getting something for all market transactions but it is not fair to marketplaces to simply take away their revenue, hence the split between players and marketplaces. Even at current low market volumes, this proposal will earn the DAO over 1 million DECs per day. If you prefer to see the DECs in the DAO burned, I am happy to raise a proposal every now and then to simply burn all DECs in the DAO and let the community decide.
so your argument is we should give up our advantage over eth? 😤
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!
I'm wondering how to make a proposal. I'd like to suggest the Dao hire some economists to make decisions for the good of the game economy, and stop asking every Tom Dick or Harry to vote on it. Probably 99% of Dao voters fall into one of two camps: People like me who don't know a damn thing about economics (even though plenty of us will for some reason flex like we do), or whales voting in their own self interest after accumulating so many assets thanks to the lack of prevention of multi accounting. So frankly, asking those two cohorts of people to vote on matters of utterly vital technical importance to the long term health and therefore survival of the game's economy is batshit crazy. You're asking either the uninformed or the self-interested. Get a small team of informed experts and get them to make plans for the game's economy. Stop making wild guesses on how to get DEC back to peg and other economic problems and then asking us uninformed lot to give you the green light to do it.
Everyone needs a slice of the pie.
You could humor this battered old player and buy a token from me. 😀
I will vote yes.
KAWPHE
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-ProposalThank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @cryptoeater!
Updated At: 2023-05-12 01:15 UTC
The general idea seems decent to me. I would prefer to keep the fee at 5% as it is currently, give 1% to the DAO, 2% to the buy side, and 2% to the sell side.
This eliminates the drawback of cutting into seller profits by raising the fee.
I like this tweak
I am fine with it as well.
Also 2.5/1.5/1 is another option to compromise
However i do think splinterlands API servers should be compensated because they spend thousands to keep those going. So perhaps maybe .5% or 1% to keep them paid could be an option
UPDATE: My opinion is evolving. I'm now leaning 3.5/.5/1.5 ... But i'm still supporting it and still listening to other ideas.
Yeah, I tend to agree. I wonder if those costs will be diminished in the future by the likes of the transactions being offloaded to validators who process the transactions in lieu of the current cloud infrastructure that is in use.
hmmm solid point. Would be interesting subject for the town hall ... at least interesting for us two. haha
I mean, in the interests of decentralisation, you'd want to have as many game transactions occurring on validators. SPS is the reward for that; much live running a HIVE witness node, and it helps offset a significant chunk of costs for the team, allowing them to increase their margins.
The fact that they're selling the licences makes it all the more genius long term, right? :)
That is very true and the community would definitely be a lot more receptive of it. Although this cuts the proposed DAO funding by half, half is still better than nothing!