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.

Thanks Dave :)

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 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

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!

I like this tweak

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.

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 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!

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.

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.

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 did some maths, and it looks like, with current market activity, we'd easily fill the reward pools with the DEC generated from market activity at the current volume levels.

It would also result in more rewards at the Champ end of the spectrum, while ensuring that no new DEC would be issued.

Perhaps its two birds with one stone.

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

Feel free to ask any questions you may have regarding this proposal, but most should be answered in the proposal itself

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.

Correct, I have about $500 worth of PKM, but sadly no, that does not make me a top holder :(

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

Thank you for taking the time to voice your reasoning on voting no to this. To address your concerns:

1. 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.

2. 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. 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.

3. 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.

4. This point I understand well, and I spoke with @yabapmatt in depth about this before writing up this proposal. 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 whole, 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.