Why you should be voting NO on proposal 202: make rentals seasonal only
Hello! Today I'm gonna talk about the proposal that's being currently voted on and why we should not pass it.
While I think this should never be implemented, that's not what's important right now. The only reason that matters for now is that we had a very recent change to rental floors going from 0.1 to 1 DEC. This is another proposal that I was against but I've lost that battle. Not that it will matter for much longer since it mostly affects to the oversupplied Chaos Legion cards, which only soon move to Wild only.
We just implemented a significant change to the rental system and we should see its impact with enough time to give us relevant data.
After all that is said and done, we can go back to this topic. Still, I believe seasonal rentals are just not good. There's a reason they are mostly ignored by both owners and renters. It's just not good. Removing the daily rentals to leave us with the crappier rental version seems like a move real life governments make. People do X; government gives alternative Y that no one likes and uses; government bans X to force people to use Y; government claims great success because people are using Y.
0
0
0.000
Even HIVE or Splinterlands are decentralized, it's still a game of rich people who own a majority of HIVE or SPS.
We should expect a system like the election, where everyone has 1 vote, no matter how rich she/he is.
If there's one thing I learned with Splinterlands is that a DAO doesn't work well for a game.
However, it would kill the game to move away from that. It would be a massive rug to the people who have invested in SPS.
One vote per person would require KYC for an account with spellbook and even with that it would be possible to register family and friends. Maybe it would require the account to be at least X time old and have Y modern ranked games played before a vote counts, to make it more difficult to create extra accounts to vote.
Thanks for your conversation. I'm 100 % with @olaf.gui on the issue. I'm not into voting at all and wonder whether voting can be delegated to organize, without delegating other priviledges but voting. I'd then took a look into delegating my voting.
To me there are three kinds of people: rich, poor and undecided. Asking for one vote per person goes in the direction of poor, while I'd rather judge it undecided. Since you can not live rich or poor but only die rich or poor. And until we die it's undecided.
!invest_vote
@anjanida denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient!
@anjanida thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !
sorry but this post is.... bad. Your arguments are really bad, like it's not good, not good. Why not good? give exact examples
My point with this post is not to argue why I think this is a bad idea, although that is what I believe. I did give the biggest possible reason which is both owners and renters much prefer daily rentals because those are widely more used.
Regardless of that, my point is that we should not change rentals in any way when another change has just been implemented (even if it was voted months ago).
Congratulations @olaf.gui! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP