Alternative Voucher Proposal - Transition from DEC Utility to Exclusive Voucher Items in the Glint Shop
025866d45404634c9a096256b6d44ae4f1e441d4
Alternative Voucher Proposal - Transition from DEC Utility to Exclusive Voucher Items in the Glint Shop
To strike a balance between those advocating for the discontinuation of Vouchers as a replacement for DEC and those who believe Vouchers should offer exclusive benefits to SPS stakers and Node holders, the following streamlined proposal is introduced.
Summary
This solution removes the team’s obligation to offer special value on every sale (eliminating “DEC discounts” with vouchers) while still providing exclusive benefits to those who have staked SPS or purchased Nodes. It is the simplest to implement and offers the team numerous opportunities to foster loyalty.
Proposal Overview
Primary Change:
If approved, this proposal will end all current and future uses of vouchers, including as DEC replacements, for pack or pre-sales and the unlocking of soulbound cards. Simply put, vouchers will no longer be accepted as payment for anything other than items explicitly marked as "VOUCHER ONLY" in the Glint Shop.
Edit 2024.07.14 1429 UTC
Above Primary Changes have been clarified; edits in bold italics
New Implementation:
The team will be authorized to add at least one item in the Glint Shop that is exclusively purchasable with vouchers. This item (such as cards, land items, skins, etc.) will remain available until replaced by a new item. Multiple items may be added, but there will always be at least one voucher-exclusive item available.
Rationale
This proposal aims to minimize costs while preserving the special benefits for SPS Stakers and Node Holders. It will eliminate the use of vouchers as DEC replacements and prevent future voucher use for DEC-related transactions (e.g., Soulbound unlocking).
There will be no need to soulbound vouchers, and the team can scale the program by adding more items as development resources allow. This flexibility extends to offering various items, such as land items or skins, instead of cards.
By adopting this approach, the team maintains its commitment to Stakers and Node Holders, especially after SPS distribution ends.
Practical Example Implementation
Given the current shortage of development resources, the goal is to utilize existing assets for minimal effort implementation. The following outline serves as a guide, though the team may adapt it as needed:
- Use existing cards from the upcoming Rebellion Rewards set, distributed through the Glint Shop.
- This provides a year’s worth of items: 4 cards (1 released every 3 months) from the Rebellion Rewards set. Each rarity will have the following voucher costs:
- First 3 months - Common: 10 vouchers
- Second 3 months - Rare: 40 vouchers
- Third 3 months - Epic: 100 vouchers
- Fourth 3 months - Legendary: 500 vouchers
Note
Seeing that this is an alternative to @cryptoeater's Proposal #147, in the event that both pass, the proposal with the greater absolute staked SPS volume of FOR votes takes priority.
EDIT
2024.07.14
0443 UTC
As per the requests from Cryptoeater and in order to achieve a mutually agreeable compromise, I would like to add in the following amendments to this proposal:
To improve NPE, we need a Vouchers:DEC LP (similar to GRAIN:DEC) in game so new players can buy without using Hive Engine. Remember they can already buy SPS/DEC in game with third party services.
As a compromise between soulbound and transferable, simply implement a small fee of 12.5% (same as grains) to transfer to players.
Get rid of the ability for Vouchers to be traded on Hive Engine (also like grains), this is to ensure the company meets regulatory requirements of not operating an exchange. Furthermore, this also removes the 100k SPS/month Voucher:SPS LP emission. Players can deposit vouchers from HE but bridge to withdraw them will be disabled
Remove vouchers from validators software, this will ensure costs are kept down for validators. At the very least, treat them as the same class of assets as grains, if grains were to be on validators.
I appreciate the attempt at a compromise but I can't get behind this. Anything sold for Vouchers is something that could have been sold for DEC. There is no way to have vouchers not compete with DEC in some way. Also, I don't want to see the card supply further expanded just to make use of a token that needs us to invent a purpose for it to exist. A good rule of thumb is to simplify complex systems when you can. Getting rid of vouchers is an easy way to simplify a complex system.
Thanks for the feedback, @imno. We'll see where this leads us - at the very least I am happy to continue the conversation on what a potential outcome could look like. I am a big proponent of representing compromise as there will never be a solution that satisfies us all and this felt like exactly that. Compromise. Cheers
I agree almost 100% with you. I do prefer this solution to what we currently have, but I don't know if it's enough to vote yes. We need a proposal that at some point gets rid of vouchers altogether.
This is a much better proposal in my eyes.
It preserves the incentive to both stake SPS and to own Nodes by creating something special that can be earned, and at the same time doesn't burden the team because it gives a lot of flexibility in implementation.
Also contrary to many comments made today in various places, I do not feel this will compete with the team selling promo cards, as these are only able to be obtained via vouchers in the Glint Store and there is no limit or allocation while they are in print. Plus there is no requirement for them to even be cards, they could be other items that the team decides.
Most importantly, this will remove vouchers from all aspects of the game where they are used as a substitution for DEC purchases. This will achieve the objective of the other proposal (to unburden the economy by vouchers being used for DEC substitution).
Finally, I don't agree with people that feel that we should abandon people that are doing what we want (staking SPS and owning nodes), because using that logic we theoretically could remove rewards from every aspect of the game (LPs, ranked play, tourneys, even reward cards). We should continue to incentivize the behavior we want if at all possible, and in my opinion this proposal gives a very low bar for achieving just that.
I am voting for it and I definitely appreciate @bjangles for taking input from me and others to craft an alternative proposal.
Thanks, Dave. We'll see how this thing shakes out!
To me, this proposal kicks the problem down the road by mitigating the issue (rather than actually completely solving it). However, it's easy to vote "yes" for, since it's not really that upsetting to anyone, haha. What I like is that it offers a compromise while a more long-term solution can be properly planned and implemented.
The only tweak I would make is that maybe we would create a "Voucher" shop page, instead of cramming it into the (Glint) Reward shop page.
Something to consider: Producing new items to purchase will be a lot easier once Cosmetics are finally launched. Until then, creating items for a voucher shop might be challenging. After all, the example you give (reward card Draws) would steal some of the value from Glint. The point of the soul bound reward cards is that you could only get them by actually playing the game (via Glint). If you can get them with Vouchers, it sorta defeats the whole point.
Thus we're back to a solution that is dependent on a future update to the game (cosmetics) or it forces the team to do more work trying to come up with new products that could have been priced in DEC.
Having said all that, I think the overall idea is sound (until we come up with something better), so I'll vote "yes". Even if the proposal can't realistically be implemented until we release cosmetics, at least it's a plan that can be slotted in sometime this year.
Thanks for taking the time to offer some feedback, @nateaguila.
This felt like the best compromise that I, along with help from some others, could come up with. As with all DAO proposals and executive decisions, nothing is final and can always be amended later - and this solution felt like one that at least gets us moving in the right direction. Based on your comment, it feels like you're of the same mind.
Re: the voucher shop / glint shop - I'm indifferent and would leave all of the implementation / experience to the experts on the team.
I'm not sure the "example" provided in the prop is clear, but it suggests to simply remove 4 soulbound cards from the upcoming set and instead offer them via vouchers only (and NOT via chests and/or glint).
Cosmetics would be a huge plus in my mind and would be exactly the type of stuff I'd love to see available via a voucher shop (I seem to remember a pretty sweet Iziar skin being revealed at a TH many moons ago - I would definitely part ways with some vouchers for that!)
Some additional context around the voucher-exclusive items is the idea that they would not be soulbound, but, of course this would be at the team's discretion.
This thinking is at least partially with regards to Matt's pushback that vouchers are a hurdle in the NPE.
Vouchers, as proof of time staked, and, by extension the voucher shop, are going to naturally cater primarily to veterans of the ecosystem.
Therefore, desiring to participate in said exclusive sale(s) would require a deeper dive into Hive / Hive-Engine (cue the Academy for tips on navigating 3rd parties).
Offering non-soulbound items via the voucher shop would allow for these items to be listed & acquired via in-game (and external) markets AND protect the NPE from being unencumbered by vouchers.
At any rate, should this thing pass, will default to all best judgement from Nate & co.
Cheers
By creating a voucher shop, we ARE solving the problem, not kicking the can down the road! We are using vouchers to give unique access to exclusive items. That's the point!
I'm very curious as to the whole 'cosmetics release' comment. If I remember correctly, from listening to you on THs, there already exists multiple skins of every card in the CL set? Possibly even Rebellion? I understand your desire to make skins REALLY cool by giving them utility, but I would point out you guys are also missing a huge opportunity to generate much needed revenue or provide huge token sinks. Sometimes the simplest solution is best. The community has made it very clear over the years that they are hungry for cosmetic skins and will gladly buy them!! By not releasing the CL skins while CL is in modern, the team is missing a golden opportunity imho.
I think you guys are SO creative and have incredible visions for what SPL can be, but it's too easy to get caught up in wanting to make every project a huge and complex (albiet REALLY cool) thing. But this makes things move too slow since the resources are not available to do ALL of these things to the level you want! Releasing things in stages (as you mention you guys do) could be REALLY beneficial for things like skins/cosmetics. Have the CL skins just be cosmetic! Give us battle backgrounds that are just cosmetic! The community will be happy to consume them and you guys can release them however you want... sell some for company revenue, use some to BURN DEC, sell some for vouchers, put some in reward chests etc etc etc. When you have time to give cosmetics utility, THEN add utility to the next set!
I have heard you point to the fact that the Alpha/Beta skins did not sell well, but to be honest (and no offense to whomever created them) they do not have the appearance of a cohesive set, don't really match the SPL 'artwork branding' you have developed, and the skins are not really at the level of the original art on those cards. The CL skins are COOL, we've seen examples. Comparing the old set of skins and CL skins is comparing apples and oranges.
This proposal in my mind should not produce as much conflict as changing vouchers to DEC-B. I really don't care about vouchers either way but the team developing the game claims they're a burden. If anything is making it more difficult for the dev team I vote to remove it.
Yo Canada! Unsure if it's vouchers as a whole or if it's vouchers in their current capacity that is the pain point for devs, but I hear your point. Let's see how the team responds. Cheers dude - thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts
Delegate Tokens and HP to Fallen Angels to earn weekly rewards!
Delegate | Join to the guild
So basically we would have a shop for DEC, one for vouchers, one for glint? How does that make sense? Glint would basically be untouched by this solution so we can disregard the glint shop, but DEC and vouchers would just have their own exclusive shop while still being tradeable?
All you do is force people to exchange between the two tokens if they want to make a purchase. If there is something you want in the "DEC shop" you sell vouchers (if you have any) and the other way around. Forcing trade of 2 tokens on a secondary market sounds very new user unfriendly to me.
Apart from that you have to artificially come up with what new voucher only items? At least you can't use items from the glint shop, otherwise you break the idea of glint. And putting items from the DEC shop there and you might as well just give out DEC instead of vouchers.
I think the idea is interesting at first glance, but after a while you realize that the only one benefitting would be the VOUCHER:DEC trade.
Its not only that is "user unfriendly" the problem is this is not fixing anything because vouchers will still "leech" value from dec
That proposal Need to be changed with forcing the splinterlands team to release a new item every X months, otherwise they Will Just release One and that remains Forever, its flawed right now
I'd hope that there were multiple items available, ultimately allowing for the demand to equal / surpass the daily mint rate. Thanks for the comment, Wolf!
I will repeat something I have said before: During the early days VOUCHERs acted as a way to guarantee yourself a spot in Presale events because VOUCHERs were very scarce. That should be the utility for VOUCHERs. It was almost like a decentralized version of a whitelist. We need to go back to that and reducing emissions and having exclusive use cases is the best way forward IMHO.
I was leaning on supporting the other Proposal before I came across this. VOUCHERs should stop being a DEC replacement. Those who oppose VOUCHERs for getting in the way of DEC burns of have a very good points. What most people are missing in this conversation is the original reasons behind the introduction of VOUCHERs.
I agree that vouchers should serve as exclusive access vs a coupon approach. Not sure what that will ultimately look like but the main purpose of this proposal was beginning that conversation. Let's see how this whole thing shakes out. Cheers Vimukthi!
I will give it my vote in the DRAFT Proposal period, but when it gets to the Live Proposals, I really don't know.
I think I'm going to follow what Matt or someone else smart thinks about this.
Fair enough and thanks for helping to get the proposal through to official voting. All ears in terms of what compromise could look like. Cheers Tsanks!
Wasn't a voucher shop the plan from the beginning... not sure when that got abandoned.
The way we are currently using them is nothing more than a distraction from DEC, we definitely need to stop using it as a discount token.
Removing vouchers entirely is an appealing option as well (multiple node holder here) unless they can deliver on the "exclusive access" angle which this prop covers with a minimal amount of work, so I will vote for it.
Removing vouchers entirely will always be on the table until it happens, so I think we should lean towards options like this one first.
Also, if they aren't removed entirely, the one spot vouchers should remain as a discount token for is node purchases.
generally like the idea as a step towards the right direction, but i think it might be better to not remove the current utility of vouchers by eliminating exchange-possibilites, but only add the exclusive items to the shop to bump up voucher demand - unsell i miss a major point in keeping the 'discount'-applicability of voucher-tokens...
clearly the better alternative to the last proposal, but not quite there yet imho, but there is always room for one more, right?
All about starting the conversation for what things could look like. Moving the pendulum in the direction of returning as much value to DEC & SPS as possible is the name of the game here and I felt like this is ultimately a step in the right direction. Thanks for dropping your thoughts here Unicron!
This is a much better proposal. I'm voting yes!
Thanks for doing this. I still lean toward ripping the band-aid off quickly and putting vouchers behind us.
While vouchers are tradeable, anything in the voucher shop is also available for DEC.
We've just given the player the hassle of swapping or selling DEC for vouchers.
I've upvoted because I'd like to see it escalated to a full proposal and be voted on by SPS stakers, but unless there's something I'm missing, it'd be a downvote from me.
Yea man - ultimately just wanted to get the conversation going around compromise. I like the idea of reserving exclusive items to those long-term stakers & commitments to the game (via vouchers and absurdly priced items that would wipe voucher supply) vs opening that up to everyone (via DEC). Either way, let's see how this whole thing pans out. Cheers, MC!
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @thepeoplesguild!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal
Updated At: 2024-07-17 00:45 UTC
This proposal changes the use of vouchers from promo sales to just use vouchers to get full items.
This is even worst than what we have now.
If the team uses the "voucher shop" to sell a worthless skin then vouchers will have the same utility than with cryptoeaters proposal, 0.
If the teams uses the "voucher shop" to sell useful things like cards then the damage of vouchers to dec would be far worst than what we have now. People will just sell dec to get vouchers to get the new shinny card instead of buying dec if the card was just sold for dec.
Theres no upside to this proposal, theres not good outcome.
It also puts all the weight and responsability to maintain voucher useful onto the teams back once again.
Fair enough. I understand the sentiment that any "shop" items could be sold via DEC but I do believe that moves everything from being available to the few (proof of time stakers) to the many (anyone has access to DEC). At the end of the day, just wanted to get the conversation going around alternative approaches. Cheers for droppin by to stick a comment on here, Eldon!
Im sorry Im agasint your idea bjangles, I know it comes from a good place.
But thing is that what you are proposing is for the team to do what they have been trying to do with vouchers this entire time. To create enough voucher sinks. Sadly they will fail because they wont sustain it in time.
And this will actually backfire. In the future we will either have less vouchers around in exchange of increasing the card pool (if the cards are good) or we will keep having a voucher problem and oversupply (if the cards are crap).
We should really go back to matts original idea of stop emiting vouchers and build something with that premise, everything else will fail.
All good man! No need to apologize. I'm of the belief that there is plenty up Nate & co's sleeves to more than satisfy the community's appetite for aesthetics, that this would be a win for new players by way of re-introducing the unique & collectible back into the game and the team can price these things at absurd rates aimed to wipe vouchers from the table. I expect we'll get more info as one of these proposals moves forward. I could be wrong (and in fairness, so could you), in which case, we can swing the pendulum further and completely omit vouchers. That's always on the table.
I have to admit your proposal would look a lot better if it stated vouchers will only be exchangeable for cosmetic stuff
Even if this passes I really hope the team wont implement selling cards for vouchers, that would be bad.
thanks for putting up a proposal i will personally vote no to this though.
I'm for removing vouchers for simplicity sake but feel as many incentives to buy and hold nodes (there are 60k of them and buying them burns 80% of the SPS spent) should be in place.
SPS staking in my mind already has enough options i.e we can rent out our SPS / Use to get more in daily games / voting rights etc to drop vouchers without compensation
edit: Was there a commitment given to SPS stakers?
Cheers for taking the time to drop your thoughts here, Micheal. We'll see how things pan out with all of this - I think we're all very open to compromise of a different color. Let's see!
Hi, I have a few suggestions for this proposal on top of what you have already mentioned and if agreed, I will be happy to vote yes.
Essentially, code vouchers to have the same limitations as grains to ensure company meets regulatory requirements of having an in game vouchers LP.
I believe with these updates, we can get best of both worlds while both sides compromise a bit.
Thanks CE. Will reach out to you this weekend to ensure I'm fully understanding the requests here and get the edits implemented. Cheers dude
Upvoting for for now, really like how the community put up a couple voting options at a time! This should be done more often to include more perspectives. Will be voting for both to start, but ultimately I think I'll be a no for this if I think @cryptoeater proposal looks promising to pass. Don't want DEC-B but I think removing completely is the better option. My emotions & trust are not tied to the origins of this token whatsoever - "what it was meant to be" sentiment. Sometimes letting go of the past is the best way to move forward.
Why can't you implement the salt system and a voucher shop would temporarily include:
1 - Desalinization crystals (I'm assuming these are soulbound while land is being worked on)
1a - Temporary 24 hour boost to DC's earned in ranked
2 - Salt tokens (I'm assuming these are also soulbound while land is being worked on)
3 - Temporarily put a crafting section (alchemy lab) in the mana well area and change it from "open" to "open and craft" so we can make enhanced potions by combining salt with regular potions and make enhanced potions tradeable
4 - Enhanced gold and legendary potions could be used to get a GF version of a skin or jackpot chest increased chance
vouchers are a great concept, ruined by the team adding voucher distribution to nodes last minute and doubling supply. At that time I was advocating for voucher purchasable items, had the team implemented that as promised we would not be here, another sad result from not understanding supply and demand economics.
the same will happen in time to all card prices, unless we start sacrificing cards to upgrade max cards to new levels with multiple choices and a pathway similar to diablo, not allowing all but just 1 route like a decision tree going 3 ways every post max level.
cards are lovely and i have a ton, but we overprinted big time with no natural sink because most people dont burn cards for dec these days
my 2 cents, ill suppport both proposals either way despite thinking we just need more uses for vouchers.
god bless
Thanks for the thoughts here, @forsakensushi. I, too, was hoping for the voucher shop to make its way into existence. Perhaps it's too late, but there is still a decent shot to achieve equilibrium with voucher burns / mints. If not, we can always swing the pendulum further and rid ourselves of vouchers completely. We'll see how it all pans out. Appreciate you dropping a comment man!
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Hey @forsakensushi, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Do you want to win SOME BEER together with your friends and draw the
BEERKING.You can see how worthless this idea is just by looking at the voucher market sales in anticipation of this passing.