The purpose of this proposal is to attempt to make the Splinterlands marketplace more sustainable by reducing low value transactions and offsetting network expenses. After the previous proposal to raise the rental floor to 1 DEC passed and was rejected by the team, I spoke to Matt to make sure that this proposal would be implemented if it were to pass.
Proposal
UPDATE 10/22/24
Based on feedback from the comments, I'm making the following change to this draft proposal:
If this proposal passes the listing fee for cards on the marketplace, both for sale and rental, will increase from 1 DEC to 5 DEC. The 5 DEC will be burned. This should help limit the aggressive repricing which increases infrastructure costs.
If this proposal passes the listing fee for cards on the marketplace, both for sale and rental, will increase from 1 DEC to 10 DEC. 5 of the DEC will be burned while 5 of the DEC will be sent to the Splinterlands team.
Notes:
This proposal was discussed as an alternative to another community suggested proposal which aimed to increase the market fee to 10% and to have 6% of all market sales go to the company for hosting the marketplace. There is another ongoing proposal that aims to make the market more sustainable in a different way. It is possible to pass both proposals and implement all changes or to pass neither.
Pros:
- Reduce transaction spam by increasing the cost of automated repricing.
- Burn 5 DEC
and pay the company 5 DECfor each market listing. - Make the marketplace more sustainable without increasing the overall market fee (currently 6%).
Cons:
- Listing fee goes up from 1 DEC to 5 DEC.
- Using automated services with aggressive repricing parameters costs more.
Neutral:
- Rentals still exist in perpetuity as long as they are rented once every 60 days for only one listing fee. Unless a card owner closes a listing to reprice a rental, they will likely pay no listing fee. This is good for card owners looking to rent at a fixed rate long-term but also means that floor rentals still tax the servers for essentially no fee.
I am 100% against this. To start, the listing fee should have never been implemented for first time listings. It should only apply to a card being listed, after it had already been listed in the past X hours/days. Increasing it even further would be devastating in many ways. It encourages players to do deals outside the market, which increases the risk of scams.
I am ok with an increase of the listing fee for relisting, not for listing for the first time.
If this proposal 10 dec is only to hit relisting bots, your idea is much better Olaf.
Thanks! It makes much more sense to hit the mass relisters than everyone.
I’m definitely against this!
If our goal is to increase card ownership, raising listing fees is not the way to go. We already have the 1 DEC listing fee, which, in my opinion, has been sufficient to reduce transaction spam to an acceptable level.
This proposal effectively imposes a direct fee on owning cards. If someone wants to sell or rent cards, they will now have to pay even more, and that’s not the direction we should be taking.
Additionally, I believe this would negatively impact the rental market, especially for cheaper cards. If there's increased demand for cards on the rental market, many people might avoid relisting their cards due to the 10 DEC fee.
My estimate is that there are fewer than 20,000 listings daily. If anyone has more concrete numbers, please share them.
Assuming 20,000 listings per day:
20,000 * 10 DEC = 200,000 DEC
That’s 100,000 DEC burned and 100,000 DEC going to the team.
This would translate to roughly $3,000 USD monthly for the team, which, in my view, wouldn't make a significant difference. Keep in mind, we would likely see far fewer listings if we increase the listing fee. Even if we did maintain 20,000 listings, I don’t believe this change would be worth it.
Some concrete numbers would be helpful to assess this properly!
Market activity would likely decrease due to less card flipping. Rental prices might stay about the same since rentals only need to be listed once, but continuously increasing market and listing fees could eventually push third-party marketplaces to bypass the Splinterlands API for card sales or rentals.
If that happens, the official marketplace’s sales volume will drop, leading to fewer DEC burned and reduced revenue for the team.
So overall, I see this as a huge negative for the entire Splinterlands economy.
Just for the record, I'm not going to champion either of these proposals. I just wanted to provide some context here, I mainly suggested this as an alternative to the people that were asking for a 10% market fee. 1 cent listing fee seems much more reasonable to me than that. The DAO doesn't have to accept either proposal. If they're both bad, vote against them.
I think 5 DEC is a better price.
Roughly equivalent to 1 Common card.
If 10 DEC is put on the listing twice, it is equivalent to burning 1 Rare card.
I feel it's a bit too expensive.
Updated to 5 DEC based on this and other feedback.
Come on just use POLLs first to get an idea of where people stand before we skip to proposals like this. This is crazy going straight to proposal like this. Or pay your 100k dec personally to make this proposal because it's something you strongly believe in.
From pay-to-play we are going to pay-to-own.
I have been playing/investing in this game from day one. What is the deal? The Splinterlands Team constantly disses the original investors and anyone that promotes this game.
Keep up with this 💩 and this game WILL DIE! It has one foot in the grave now, and these stupid-🫏 proposals are the banana peel on the other foot.
Cut it with the crap, sir! Take the suggestions listed in the other comments. The DAO does not belong to STEEMMONSTERS, INC. Comprende?
Another thing, which we don't need right now.
What it would change? - Nothing.
There will be less and less transactions and there are not many at this moment.
I sold almost all my cards after "1 dec proposal", mainly 1 bcx cards I had thousands of them, but why I should have them to just pay more and more for trying sell them with profit?
Now you propose 10 dec to get angry even those, which not care before.
I am trying to understand why you try push fast changes like this and only reason why is, because new players will not have memory of what was before, but old players will lost their last interest in making deals on open market. if there in foresable future will be a way more new players than existing one, there is no problem, but what, if no?
What is better now?
Doing nothing with this and not lost players because of this 10x change or just trying implement this thing with poor efect.
The suggestion to raise market fees got brought up several times. I suggested this as an alternative solution because I figured 10% market fees would be as popular as the current voting suggests. Ultimately it seems neither is popular. Message received. Thanks for the feedback.
If the economy was strong and SPS price was stronger, maybe. The market strength is NOT THERE to justify such an increase on an already struggling market. I'll put it simply when a business/market is struggling you don't go increasing sales tax to improve margins. Any increase is not a good move. We are in this mess because we keep adding increases to paywalls and moving the goal posts. It's not a good look. How many times do we have to play this dance for people to actually get that proposals like this work against encouraging players no matter how nominal you think the increase or impact is....
Definitely think more players and stronger market volume solve pretty much all of our problems. Doesn't look like this is going to pass anyway, but it was mainly just presented as an alternative to the 10% market fee suggestions which seemed kind of nutty to me.
Love ya work. Was not directing my comment at you but the broader community. We have to stop with these extra hoop/extra cost proposals, they are killing us one player at a time. If these kinds of proposals keep coming up it means there are people still not reading the room. :)
I get it and I try to do my best, but yea I think I dropped the ball on this one honestly. Looking into reworking the guidelines to prevent a situation like this again. Current guidelines are way to lax and they lead to me wasting a lot of time fielding gripes that probably shouldn't even be directed at the DAO and then spending a lot of time cleaning up the messes the proposals tend to make. It's just not worth the headache for me or the community.
Talking to the team about getting polling integrated into the in-game governance system in a non-intrusive way so that people can opt in to get alerts about them. Hopefully we can make that happen.
Free market will find a way around expenses if the expense goes up high enough. We are talking about a 10X increase. This is only a cent in fiat value. For those of us who have been spoiled by feeless transactions, $0.01 is still a lot of money. If this was only 2X of the price, I could support it. It could even be 3X. I have seen others express similar sentiments.
I reduced it to 5x based on this and other feedback. I know it's not as low as you are suggesting, just wanted to make you aware of the change.
NOPE
Please stop squeezing us players. Leave current fees as they are and please no more proposals such as these to increase costs.
Just for posterity, this is players/stakeholders suggesting the changes, I ran it by Matt so we didn't end up with another "1 DEC minimum rental price" situation (proposal that got rejected not long ago). Doesn't seem like they're passing anyway though, but I hear ya.
Big scam. I´m still angry about last time! Proposal to raise rental floor to 1 DEC passed! Its not a Dao at all if team can still reject it! Just everything what is not in their favour they could reject and thats not how a dao work. Team have to do whatever the voters want.
I like the proposed change.
10 DEC sounds much, it's a 10x from what we have right now after all. But then again, that's only $0.01 to list a card - compare that to the fees you pay for trading on most other chains and it suddenly sounds pretty reasonable...
I also think some middle ground could be a better idea. I did like the idea of the 1 DEC minimum rental price, not sure why the team rejected that
Could we raise the price to 5 dec instead? A 10x increase seems a bit extreme to me. People trying to sell reward cards already have thin profits(or in many cases a loss) after paying to unlock them. 5 dec should be enough to reduce the spam, and if I am wrong we could always raise the price at a later date. There is a reason the federal reserve will raise or lower interest rates in small increments. Economies need time to adjust and don't adapt well to drastic changes.
Based on this and other feedback, I changed it to just a 5 DEC burn.
And I changed my vote, but I don't know if enough people will read the post again and do the same.
In theory we can do whatever, but I'd point out that if people are selling at a loss they should probably just burn the card. There's really no point selling a card below burn imo.
I don't know what the conservative guess on how many transactions this would be, but I support it. We need to convince the team to enforce a 30 day rental maximum per transaction
regardless of how well the rental does.
Right now junk CL cards entire sale price are around 12 DEC a card. The extra benefit of this is we might get millions of garbage cards burned.
From my understanding - unless it has changed...
Rentals do NOT exist in perp... if they are not rented during a 60 day period, they are removed from the rental market...
The floor rentals that cost 0.1 DEC (1/100th of a penny at peg) have been listed for over 2 years. They just sit on the floor price and never seem to hit the 60 day expiration.
Oh... many... MANY of mine have fallen off on my test account @pointonedec - which is where the idea of the 1 DEC Floor came from 😄
I like the idea mostly because it might stop some of the constant undercutting that's going on.
i dont sell that much cards but i think 10 DEC is bit high.. 6 DEC will be better
Updated to 5 DEC based on this and other feedback.
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @clayboyn!
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: 2024-10-28 02:20 UTC
"New Proposal" = More money from Players to the Team.
Again
And Again
And Again
It was definitely players suggesting this, not the team. I don't think this one will really generate money for them as much as it would gate transactions, which could lower costs. The other one would actually generate revenue, but 10% fees is a lot (clearly I'm not the only one that thinks so).
Se uma proposta dessa for implementada é melhor procurar mercado de terceiros ou parar de comprar/alugar cartas no mercado de Splinterlands. 1 Dec já é caro.
I rent out a decent amount of cards. SO this would affect me, but still it doesn't bother me so much. If it was a proposal I'd probably vote for it. Most of the concerns I see being voiced seem speculative, whereas most of the benefits I see people listing seem solid and concrete. Anwyay jmo.
Not hugely for or against this. It's not a massive amount in the grand scheme of things (1 cent at peg) but it feels somewhat unnecessary.
A few pieces of feedback for future similar "proposals":
(1) Run a poll first. You've done it for other topics but not for this one. Not sure why tbh. Seems based on community reaction that it definitely should've been run as a poll first.
(2) Give data on the expected gains. In this case, how much DEC is currently burned from the 1 DEC and how much would be burned/sent to the company if it changed to 10 DEC and transactions stayed the same (which is unlikely, but for comparison's sake)
(3) What is the primary objective of the proposal? Revenue for SPL or reducing network expenses? If it's the latter, then data should be shared on that. Can we estimate this would reduce network expenses from X to Y? If the delta is big, and that's the primary goal, perhaps there would be more supporters.
Thanks for the feedback. It was a community suggestion and clearly not a popular one. I am actually hoping to get the polls linked on the site with optional alerts which I think would be more useful.
I'll support any measure that reduces spam transactions and mass repricing which tax the servers.
1 DEC rental price is a much better use of time. It would actually make the rental market worthwhile again and could increase the price of cards.
Pricing and listing fees are just a tax on active players.
This problem is normally solved by having an api limit and charging for more if you exceed that limit.
Matt won't allow 1 DEC minimum for rentals (even though its a PASSED PROPOSAL) because he says it will be negative for new players. I disagree completely 1 DEC vs sub 1 DEC is still ridiculously cheap for any new player. Now PACK PRICES, I wish the same mentality would be applied!!! Anyway no way should we raise list costs while rental costs are not at all minimized.