RE: SPS Governance Proposal - Crypto Gaming Recovery Fund

Something to consider - pragmatically, of course. If the "Failed gaming projects" were a result of their audiences actions - (as opposed to one of poor design, or bad implementation, or poor security) - would we want that olive branch to be extended to a potentially toxic, abusive audience?

Is there to be due diligence on which projects and under which circumstances players are given an olive branch?

Are there provisions to not reward members who already have existing splinterlands accounts and assets to get free stuff just because they were involved in something that tanked?

I can probably think of other considerations, but just putting them here to provoke some discussion.

I no longer have any SPS stake, so my opinion may not matter at all, but I think these are important things for people to think about.