We, the Genesis League Sports (GLS) team, propose to extend the current distribution of airdrop rewards for staked GMLSPA packs by an additional 20,000,000 GLX at a daily rate of 193,548.39 GLX per day. This would raise the maximum cap of the distribution pool for pack staking rewards from 100M GLX to 120M GLX.
This continued airdrop will be funded from the future partnership pool described at https://whitepaper.genesisleaguesports.com/tokenomics/genesis-league-governance-glx-token and will last for 103 days beyond February 23, 2023, with an end date of June 6, 2023, unless the game is released before that date. The future partnership pool has an allocated 1.4B GLX and would change to reflect a 1.38B GLX allocation, or a higher allocation if the game is released prior to all 20M GLX being distributed.
If the game is released before June 6, 2023, then the airdrop will stop on the day of the release, and any remaining tokens from the 20,000,000 GLX pool will be returned to the DAO.
The current rewards structure for staking GMLSPA packs, as outlined in the whitepaper, will remain unchanged until the end of the airdrop on February 23, 2023, after which the proposed extension will take effect if the proposal passes.
We believe that extending the airdrop rewards for staked GMLSPA packs will provide additional incentives for users to buy and stake their packs and participate in the GLS ecosystem. The proposed extension will also help to further distribute GLX tokens to the community, thereby promoting wider adoption of the GLS platform.
We recognize that the success of the GLS ecosystem is dependent on the participation and engagement of the community. Therefore, we encourage all members of the community to review and consider this proposal carefully, and to vote based on what they believe is in the best interest of the community.
Thank you for your continued support and participation in the GLS ecosystem.
Sincerely,
The GLS Team
I want more rewards just like everyone else but I am fundamentally against voting to give myself more rewards. It is done too much in Splinterlands and seeing that its the first vote out of the gate here is disheartening. Just leave it the way it was.
Giving early investors an even bigger slice of the pie doesn't broaden participation.
Is the staking feature change an incentive to get users to BUY packs? If so i'd want to see data on how the last run did to encourage pack buying? Or just so the governance tokens are properly distributed among stake holders like pack buyers ... i think because the game is not out and may take until JUNE that it's perhaps understandably long time and makes me worried about over centralization of the token among the relatively few pack holders... unless of course you're seeing new users coming in getting packs.
I'm very much willing to change by vote but for now I'm gonna vote NO until i have data or a good counter argument. I really am on the fence and could see myself easily changing my vote I'll think through it some more but support the NO for time being.
And yes I am a top holder of packs so NO vote does not benefit me except that I'd like to see more distribution of tokens happen AFTER the game has a successful launch.
Hey! tnx for sharing your reasoning here and to me it makes sense what you say.
My reasoning why I will be voting yes has to do with the question: how do we achieve a succesful season 1?
I do believe that the sales numbers will have to increase in order to have a succesful game. if the game would sell all packs we would have 42.5M bcx in season 1 (from which 2.125M GF) This leaves us with 40.375M BCX for season 1. Assuming SPL BCX calculations apply I would expect an average of 201 BCX to max a card. There are 577 player cards – meaning: 40.375M (Total BCX) / 577 (player cards) / 201 (Average BCX to max) =348 maxed cards for each player card
With +/- 300K packs sold (and one player holding 60K) we get into a situation where the competitiveness (and thus the chance of it being succesful) becoming a question. With 1500000 BCX we will see 1 (to +/- 20) player(s) being able to get such a dominant position in the game (for the number 1 pack holder - even if he splits his packs over 3 accounts he will still outrank the number 2 by far). Is this going to be sustainable or will this player be able to secure this position for the upcoming seasons aswell (possible with multiple accounts).
From this reasoning more packs need to be sold in order to give the game a competitive start. Because you can only start once, it has to be a strong start – so I personally have no objections to allocating more resources to make this happen.
This proposal does not only reward the early investors – it encourages them, as well as any other player to buy more. Which would benefit all stakeholders (in both the long as the short run). Since the packs currently require GLGT the investors that will not buy packs will also benefit as the demand for their staking reward token will increase (and thus the value). Michiel
Buen análisis !PIZZA
Here's my take on this proposal.
Pros:
Increase (drastically) rewards for early purchasers/holders of packs
Increase (somewhat?) early pack sales
Cons:
Reduce (slightly) future partnership GLX
Reduce (drastically) investor confidence in the whitepaper distribution being implemented as planned
Reduce (somewhat?) the value of all GLX that has been purchased/held to date by increasing inflation.
As is, I will be voting "no" for this. If it were modified to take the GLX from the GLG gameplay rewards and give it out at a much slower rate, I would reconsider.
Since i am presently voting NO i want to make sure people know I do NOT think it "drastically" reduces confidence in whitepaper... I think this is a pretty small change and proposals are exactly what is meant to handle AND it requires 66% of stakeholders to also agree and that's a pretty large consensus.
I simply happen to believe there are not enough pro impact that i can think of right now. I will not be un-happy if it passes.
What i'd like to see is a healthier ecosystem with more users to help decentralized the vote a bit more and i think this will instead centralize it... we may just have to wait until game gets closer and more people come in.
I appreciate your take on this & your call for some data to prove it could drive pack sales.
I personally do believe it will drive more pack sales as it creates a huge benefit to buying them in presale 2. The staking rewards in presale 1 drove me to personally buy many packs, its anecdotal data only at this point but I know many others were the same. This 20m distribution drives cost per pack down alot for presale 2 buyers and the project could really do with a boost in pack sales (271k sold so far).
More pack sales would have the effect that you desire (wider distribution of the tokens). It would have to be done in tandem with the MLS season launch and some marketing to get eyes on this project though ofc.
Well, I am more and more afraid to make any investment decisions here or in splinterlands because of these types of votes. Whitepaper changes need to have overwhelming support IMO. Only a 2/3 majority is not enough to give me confidence that big players/stakers can't buy a bunch of something and then pass a proposal to shift value to their holdings. Similar to insider trading but not technically illegal.
Would 3/4ths be enough? 75% ?
It would be a lot better. Personally I like 80%, whitepapers shouldn't be changed unless they really really really need to be changed.
For non-whitepaper changes 66.6% is reasonable.
I am probably voting yes on this, as probably the pack sales are slowing down now, and we want that the team may gather enough funds to start with a solid game.
I Agree with most people here, that u should not alter the whitepaper in order to extract some money from possible customers. Which basically sets already the tone, that u dont seem very concerned with asset inflation. The rewards for packs where given out, and many people myself included, planned accordingly. This reminds me to this situation where they suddenly started giving out vouchers for spl nodes - the worst most disrespecting move they did so far. Get the game ready and let people enjoy their rewards before most everybody else.
Congratulations @gls.dao! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 50 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
I would vote YES, but no clue how to vote 😀
You can use either https://peakmonsters.com/proposals/glx or https://splex.gg/proposals/gls to cast your vote.
Thanks a lot!
View or trade
BEER.Hey @royaleagle, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!We love your support by voting @detlev.witness on HIVE .
View or trade
BEER.Hey @royaleagle, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.View or trade
BEER.Hey @royaleagle, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
Feel biased commenting on this since I hold exactly 0 packs so I'll just leave it at a "No vote" and bring the game ASAP so I see if I actually want to play it...
Think it's an amazing idea, because eye only got wind today , of being able to purchase packs at all. Only just discovered as an sps and validator node holder , that eye am Connected to this ,and began staking GLX last week.
So eym glad that people like me have an opportunity and it gives me great confidence in Genesis team, because they are giving the entire community time to catch up and be able to participate , at this level
NOT everyone is an oversized whale
and my feels are that in this world GATES like this need to stay open longer
not everyone is a lighting bolt with 100k in their pocket
that gets everywhere before everyone else
so blessings
I gifted $PIZZA slices here:
@avidez(1/5) tipped @michiel87 (x1)
Please vote for pizza.witness!
As @jarvie has pointed out, I'm not sure the purpose of this. Is it to incentivize the purchase of new packs purely? Or are we afraid that the existing pack holders will sell if they don't get MORE rewards? Without clarity, I would not be inclined to vote for this.
As @fighter4-freedom has pointed out, this type of change makes me lose confidence. Since the value of any token is based on the belief in the future, then any changes to what we "thought was going to happen" should be a) carefully explained and not vague and b) pass a very high threshold of need in order to shift the rewards.
My first reaction is I want to support the team to make the game successful. But when I think about what is best for the game, I'm conflicted because this proposal simply seems like a way to placate the pack holders because there will be a delay to the game going live.
A worse case scenario would be that the team NEEDS sales and is afraid they aren't going to get them and want to "juice" the payout to entice people to buy where they might not otherwise buy them.
I truly hate to be negative and I won't vote til I have more answers, but I don't like paying people to be patient, nor do I like paying people to buy packs. I don't think any sustainable game can get away with gimmicks for long, and I sincerely hope that we can both survive and thrive on the strength of the team's vision and purpose.
I will listen though, and hope that we all strongly consider the implications. Taking away from the future holders to give to the current holders is easy to vote for, but at some point the serious investors will wonder "where is the line, where does it stop?".