Thank you all for the excellent feedback — I really appreciate the depth of analysis and the constructive tone from everyone. Let me address the key points collectively and outline some potential compromises that could make this proposal more broadly acceptable.

First, on the idea of a flat reduction (e.g., 25%, 50%, or even 75% efficiency for rented SPS) — I understand why this approach feels simpler and more direct. It achieves the main goal of differentiating between owned and rented SPS. However, I still believe the progressive tapering system offers a few key advantages:

It avoids sudden shocks to the rental and card markets.

It gives players and guilds time to adapt, preventing abrupt behavioral changes.

It allows the DAO to fine-tune the rate or introduce caps later without reversing an immediate cut.
In essence, it’s not about protecting inefficiency — it’s about achieving balance without breaking confidence or liquidity overnight.

On the topic of delegated SPS, I completely agree that delegation is essential for new player onboarding and account management. The intention is not to punish genuine delegation — especially to alt accounts or newcomers — but if we completely exclude delegated SPS from this system, we risk opening a loophole. That could allow players to simply route SPS through delegation rather than rental, creating a distorted or exploitative situation.

A fair compromise might be to grant full efficiency (100%) to newly created accounts for a limited period (for example, the first 3 months, as Shade mentioned). After that, delegated SPS would be subject to the same global tapering efficiency as rentals.
That would protect real new players, while keeping the system consistent and harder to exploit.
We’d just have to confirm with the team whether that’s technically feasible and not too complex to communicate in-game — since over-complication could hurt accessibility.

As for timing and priorities, I know development bandwidth is limited and new SPS utilities are being worked on. But I actually think this is the right time to start working toward a shared solution.
We’ve been “waiting to see” for a long time — and while that’s understandable, it also keeps us in a reactive mode. A gradual mechanism like this one could start aligning incentives now, quietly improving token dynamics without needing a major technical overhaul.

Regarding the bid-ask rental market, I absolutely agree that it’s a strong and elegant structural solution. It would anchor SPS value more firmly around ownership. But we’ve been discussing that model for quite some time, and it’s likely dev-intensive, which may explain why it hasn’t materialized yet.
That’s why I see tapering as a complementary and more achievable first step — something that addresses behavior and incentives, while leaving room for future structural solutions like a true SPS rental market.

Finally, on the economic impact, I fully acknowledge that this isn’t a dramatic short-term measure. It’s a structural correction designed to rebalance incentives over time:

It reduces continuous sell pressure by making reward extraction through rented SPS less efficient.

It increases buy pressure by motivating players to accumulate and stake SPS, achieving independence from rentals.

It builds awareness around the benefits of long-term holding and participation in the ecosystem.

Personally, I’d even support a more direct intervention — like setting a higher rental floor or temporarily suspending rentals — but I know that would likely cause a sharp shock to card prices and liquidity, which I want to avoid. The tapering path provides the same direction, just through a smoother and more predictable transition.