I don't know what to tell you - we're voting on a pre-proposal regarding an Agreement (for which the current vote is overwhelmingly in favor of). Regardless of whether the pre-proposal presenting it accurately describes the Agreement (it does not!), the Agreement is what will be binding on the Company and the DAO, assuming a final proposal passes (and with whatever the Agreement states at that time when it is signed by both Parties), and it matters not at all what the proposal or pre-proposal presentation posts say about the Agreement. Download and read the Agreement - that is what you are really being asked to vote on.

I will grant you that the "deal" may be bad for the DAO, using your apparent good vs bad criteria of whether the DAO has fewer DEC tokens post-deal (in 2 years) than now. Would it still be a "bad deal" if DEC price stabilizes closer to peg in 2 years? ...if the SPS price is higher in 2 years? ...if we expand the player count in 2 years?

I do think things are better now, and getting better all the time, as the team's messaging is striving for. I see a lot of optimism from the players about the future. I think that giving the Company 2 years of stable and reliable funding makes it more likely we see that future and success. Having the guaranteed revenue every month (because bills have to get paid all the time, not just when pack sales are offered), takes a huge burden off the team's plate and let's them focus on getting stuff done to hopefully create that more successful future. It also decreases the incentive to offer more and more stuff at a faster pace to secure revenue as they go (e.g. constantly bleeding the current players dry to stave off collapse.)

If the Agreement doesn't happen, it's not the immediate end of everything - we will probably see the same smaller set-by-set and promo/reward card DAO funding agreements already being used, and those haven't really hurt the DAO. Things will continue, it will just be harder on the team.