You could just as easily just allocate the sales to buying SPS. That the DAO could simply list the packs on the secondary market (like it was done with Verico) and it wouldn't require an actual shop page.

Voted for it, but I really don't see the point in an SPS discount. Just will make it more difficult to implement and they can't be listed on the secondary market. I also don't know why the packs must be

I don't think the non-card market is particularly plagued by constant listing and delisting. It was an issue with the rental market years back when the bots were constantly relisting hundreds of thousands

I understand the sentiment for modern, but for wild and survival this proposal is inherently anti-human. If you do that, you would have to effectively ban bots out of fairness, because the bot services

I wouldn't extend this specific sale, but yeah, one month is a bit short if people need to shuffle funds around or sell. I guess it was meant to create urgency, maybe it will be different now that a the

It reads like it, but just to be sure. The 0.5% go to the liquidity provider a.k.a DAO, right? No burning nonsense, right?

My understanding is, that the DAO never offered a bounty to begin with. There was no agreement beforehand and I read somewhere that originally the guy wanted to keep 25% as a finders fee. In my opinion

To be used as in to be sold or to be used as lottery prizes in some form?

Some more data: A lot of DEC is burned throughout the ecosystem through market fees, land LPs, wild pass, etc. While this varies wildly depending on many factors a rule of rough average to go with is about

I will add some argumentation I collected for a proposal to stop the burn, I didn't run in the end because of the development with the DAO taking ownership: Advantages to burn: Well, the obvious advantage

My bigger question about all this is what the DAO is going to do with the codebase. I guess proposals will have to follow, how this is going to work and whether this is a "code is owned but that's

Apart from minimum card levels being terrible, I would also suggest less brackets. The playerbase is not that big to begin with and splitting it up in 6 brackets feels overkill. Maybe that is the reason

First of all, I appreciate the effort and I like the idea of limiting the maximum level of cards, but forcing a minimum level is just terrible. It makes sense for survival where it is all about the individual

Does land really need more general boosts? There are millions more resources produced than consumed each and every day. The only thing which keeps land resources prices up is that people are hoarding for

I would say if you use reward chests payed for by glint can use potions they should be buyable with glint. It's not like you can buy all the new potions with glint, so I guess that is fine. Maybe put a

My understanding was always that modern cards have the penalty and cards no longer playable in modern don't. Otherwise modern cards are just second rate cards that will absolutely crash in value (not just

This sum.. I mean archon + Rush Townsend = 2x5 range damage in round 0 (and likely another 2x5 immediately after due to the high speed). 20 range damage before the enemy can react sounds perfectly balanced.

I don't try to approach it from a position of trying to do a different proposal. I already voted for this, because it is better than not having it. I just try to mitigate (completely subjective) issues

At the risk of being annoying with it, this makes it again a bit more complicated than it has to be. A card having a CP score, a PP score, now additionally a conflict score which would only be introduced

I like what I read for the most part, but it is again so many small things packed together in one big yes or no proposal. I don't think splitting into wagon kits and wagon repair kits makes much sense