Thinking about this a lot over the last few days, I am choosing to vote No.

Here's my reasoning:

1. Although I believe in funding the DAO, I don't believe that increasing the cost of card transactions is the best way to do so. You might argue it's a "short term pain for long term benefit", but if that's the case then I believe now is not the right time given market conditions.
2. Before implementing more things that fund the DAO, I would like more clarity on the DAO's spending plans. The DAO currently already has quite a bit of funding, and it's unclear how it will be using those funds.
3. While this proposal would effectively reduce circulating supply of DEC, it doesn't remove DEC from existence. Also the scale of the impact on DEC would likely be tiny, therefore the impact on getting DEC to peg would be small while the relative impact on small players or 3rd party marketplaces would be larger.
4. The main thing I'd like to see more of is Splinterlands the company getting a share of all transactions. Personally I think that's important as I care deeply about the continuity of Splinterlands. This proposal does not help with that. I like @jarvie's suggestion of giving some % to Splinterlands API servers, and feel that's more important than what's being proposed above.

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.