I downvoted as I dislike making more than one change to a card at a time. That said, I understand the sentiment behind it. While new cards have introduced interesting and fun abilities, there have been

This seems like a dramatic and sudden way to end vouchers. It appears you and Matt are making two main arguments. Vouchers are difficult for new players to understand. Vouchers reduce the amount of DEC

I think burning cards only would work better.

I will vote no although I understand why people may vote yes. I believe this proposal will, by reducing the fun derived from opening rewards, do more harm than good. It is clearly aimed at and will impact

I will be voting yes to show confidence in Matt. I do think, however, poor precedents are being set for future DAO hirings: If Clayboyn remains anonymous (which is his right although I personally consider

After playing a load of Modern I'm now even more convinced this is the way forwards. Thanks for both proposals!

Do you know the reasoning behind the DAO being excluded from earning? If that reason no longer stands then the DAO should absolutely be profiting from its contribution. Great proposal.

Hey thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree that New User Experience and onboarding must be given strong priority. However, how can you onboard a new user when the first battles they fight (after leaving

Thanks for your reply. The elegant tokenomics of Splinterlands already provide a solution for this. If bots are removed from modern, the SPS per match will increase dramatically at all ranks. This will

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I'm sorry if you preferred the original proposal. I thought Matt's solution was a good compromise. We are in agreement on the need for anti-bot measures so I ask

Thanks for your comment. I think we both have the same goal: an area for humans to enjoy competing. I view this proposal as a first step towards this goal. It has if nothing else shown the team that the

Thank you for the support Team Philippines! I want to see real players get back into this game too.

This seems like a really smart solution. It solves an important issue and phases itself out as player liquidity grows. As a tangent it's curious how I never used the word "liquidity" before I

Great post with lots to think about. I do think this proposal is a step towards finding the answers to many of these questions. I also agree that editing the original proposal was not ideal. I have not

I've updated the pre-proposal. Thank you for giving the community such a strong tool to voice their concerns and effect change. If you want me to update the pre-proposal any further please let me know.

I agree to your suggestion. How do you want me to proceed? Should I edit this pre-proposal? Should I create a new one? Or, as it does not strictly fall under the purview of the DAO, do you want to bypass

Thanks for the kind words and fair criticism. I can definitely improve upon things next time! This proposal system is one of the greatest things I've seen in terms of giving players a voice.

I suppose the idea we are working towards is adding rulesets and game states that are very hard to code solutions for. I'm not sure how difficult that is or if it is even possible but I like your thinking!

Bot vs bot could be interesting... Similar to watching Stockfish vs AlphaZero and their unique strategies. I imagine the game needs more complexity to reach anywhere near those levels though. Maybe after

Thank you!