People will sell into it, and buy back later and make a profit.
Meaningless in the overall system. If people buy and sell the same amount of the token, then it doesn't matter. In order for this to be negative, people would have to argue this will make people leave that otherwise wouldn't. With the token trading roughly 86% of par, I don't see how the DAO paying up to 95% would do anything more than give a few people leaving a few extra $s.

This is my biggest concern. We will stand to "exit" $500k worth of assets from the game. Be this existing DEC, or people who may be about to sell cards into DEC who then have a lovely off ramp which would see the price of DEC plummet as these holders all ran for the doorway of the DEC "buy back".

This is all, in my most humble of opinions, a symptom of the community passing the DEC-B proposal. It never made any mathematical sense, now we have harebrained schemes like this which will "pump and dump" the DEC token, and the community is not only

A) Broadcasting this via a proposal but also
B) Using DAO funds.

The additional nuance and complexity here is that Bulldog is a respected member of the community and has delivered the message in a convincing and confident manner.

There has not been much depth in discussion on HIVE, on the governance proposal thread, where we should be discussing these things in an immutable manner.

I am all for people changing their position, but I want people to be able to justify, in coherent, and cognisant terms, why they change their views.

DEC is certainly a priority, but there are other ways we can achieve faster parity.

For one, we haven't seen the implementation of the additional DEC burn from market fees.

Once we see this, the next logical step is to fund leader board rewards from market fees, which ceases the issuance of any new DEC, outside of cards being burned.

Finally, we await the launch of land to act as a sponge to take up DEC as power sources.

If then, and only then, DEC is not at peg, we should consider further measures.

This proposal to spend 500K of DAO funds is a knee jerk manoeuvre that I can guarantee will only cause a temporary spike in the price of DEC and a slow bleed back to where it is, or even lower. We will not be able to measure the success of such an endeavour when other use cases for locking DEC are yet to be implemented.

It would be then foolish to state that this proposal is a success when the symptom bringing about a proposal such as this has not yet been addressed.