@davemccoy , aren't you a part of the Splinterlands board? I don't think your opinion is unbiased. And I don't think that mentality that got us here will fix the problem.
This proposal is devaluation of DEC and will only create inflation - this proposal is literally to sell a dollar value for 80 cents - this is the definition of the inflation. And with burning Vouchers for discounted DEC we add direct minting of new DEC on top of discounting it in the first place. (And I sure am burning my Vouchers for it to mint me free DEC!)
You can't force the demand for a product nobody wants!
Splinterlands should first make a good game and then demand would come - but that is harder than just writing proposals and making promises of the future gains, isn't it?
No @dragonkitty I'm not part of the Splinterlands team or board. I'm just a player like anyone else. I'm flattered that you think I am though :)
Regarding your points about inflation, I believe this is pulling forward demand for DEC and at the same time giving a use-case for Vouchers. I also believe that the DEC sinks for land alone will more than dwarf all the floating DEC currently in existence. In fact I would suggest that the game DEVs have plans for more than 10 Billion of DEC burns in the future between land and new guild alliances. I don't know any more information than anyone else, that's my basis for forming my conclusions.
I do agree that you can't force demand, in fact I think these DEC-B tokens shouldn't even be listed on the markets. If they are truly just a way for players to pre-buy something they want, then the players shouldn't mind locking up those til they are usable when land potions and/or New Guild Alliances are live.
Finally, I'm assuming that there will in fact be demand for vouchers, and if so then whoever wanted them would appreciate having a choice of either DEC (money) or VOUCHERS (promised perk for staking SPS). Choice is ALWAYS a great way to run a business, and both options support the game and the stakeholders.