The proposal to increase the card market fee in the game Splinterlands can have negative consequences for players, especially those involved in card rental transactions. Increasing the market fee means that the renters will have to bear this additional cost, which can negatively impact their profits and financial viability.
There are several negative effects associated with excessive taxation in any context, and this also applies to online games. Here are some arguments that show how increasing the market fee can negatively impact players:
Reduced profits for renters: Players who rent out their cards to others often rely on the income from these rentals. By increasing the market fee, a larger portion of those profits will be directed towards fees, reducing the amount of resources available to players offering cards for rent. This can discourage players from continuing to rent out their cards and harm the in-game economy.
Barriers to access: Increasing the market fee can also create barriers to access for players. If the fees become too high, more casual players or those with fewer financial resources may struggle to participate in the card market. This can result in exclusion of certain player groups and limit diversity and participation in the game.
Discouragement of trading and commerce: The increased market fee may discourage players from trading and engaging in commerce with each other. Higher fees reduce potential profits and make transactions less appealing. As a result, players may feel less motivated to participate in the card market, undermining the vitality and dynamics of the game.
Card devaluation: If the market fee is increased, players may experience an overall devaluation of existing cards. As a larger portion of resources is directed towards fees, players may be less inclined to invest in rare or valuable cards as the return on investment may be compromised. This can negatively affect the value and attractiveness of cards in the market.
(html comment removed: )
It is important to consider these negative effects before implementing an increase in the card market fee in the game Splinterlands. Striking a balance between generating revenue for the platform and maintaining a fair and attractive environment for players is necessary.
If the interest rate is maintained at 5%, the arguments above fall apart, and the favorable vote becomes the better option. Currently, I vote against it.
Thanks for taking the time to put together this detailed feedback.
Below are some counterpoints:
As the owner of multiple decks I have rented out on market, this is quite negligible. The fee increase from 5% to 6% decreases rental revenue by 1.05%, (94% instead of 95% of earnings). On the contrary, with roughly 1mil DECs getting burned per day (using historic data), the price of DECs is likely to increase by much more than 1.05%, so renters should actually see an increase in revenue, not decrease.
This does not affect new player entry as it does not affect the price they buy at, only the amount sellers receive. However, I admit it does affect cashback services, but I would assume most "new players" do not know about these services at the very beginning anyway.
Interestingly, one theory as to why ETH NFTs went up so much during the 2021 bull run is because most projects charged between 5-10% creator fee, plus a 2.5% Opensea fee totaling 7.5% to 12.5% total fee plus gas fees which were often $100+. Therefore, to make a profit people would list their NFTs higher by at least the total fee, plus whatever profit they wanted. Due to this, the price continued to climb which created a momentum and FOMO effect. I'm not saying that this will happen in Splinterlands nor am I saying that high fees was the sole catalyst for the NFT boom, but there are many sides to consider and I honestly believe higher fees will not have the intended consequences you mentioned. However, I will admit that there has been a trend of lowering fees, not increasing them recently on ETH, but that is most likely because most projects are bleeding and they want to incentivize more trading. On the contrary, this proposal should logically increase trading activity as DEC prices increase due to the reduced circulation.
Similar arguments to before, the owner will receive roughly 1.05% less in card sales. However, DECs should increase by much more than 1.05% due to this proposal. Once DEC is at peg, SPS will likely increase as a result of this proposal due to the need of burning SPS for DEC utility, thus increasing the rewards for all players.
Please keep in mind this is the 2nd time I've proposed this, and truthfully the 3rd major iteration of this proposal. I have spent tens of hours already replying in Discord servers, private messages and my previous post so you can feel assured all of the above you have mentioned has already been considered.
However, I do welcome more discussion as inevitably there will be something no one has thought of yet!
1% is negligible to the user, but it is not negligible to the burn that it deserves the fee increase? 1% is 1%, it is the same for everyone and it is NOT a negligible amount. Less DEC is not strictly equal to DEC more valuable, the value of DEC comes from demand, which is just not there at the moment.
It affects new players as they try to switch cards, sell some they barely use anymore to buy new ones. As soon as you buy a card, even though the seller is the one who payed 6%, your asset is ALWAYS worth less 6% than what you payed, since you WILL have to pay those 6% as well to sell it. Every asset always worth less 5% than the market price.
You can't compare the most popular NFT blockchain/platform (BY MILES) during the hype of a BULL market to this, and even then Yodins/Kitties/Lammas were selling for 1000$+ in Splinterlands at the time with a fraction of the hype ETH NFTs had. The high fees are the reason there are NOT much more people involved in ETH NFTs (especially gas fees), it's precisely the opposite. ETH NFTs are dominated by whales and are NOT for the "common joe". Splinterlands is a game, we want everyone to participate, the more the merrier.
DEC alone will not increase the price of cards by much more than 1.05% out of nowhere, at least not until hype comes back to the game.. Doesn't matter how much you "force burn" it.
I know I'm being quite annoying and I am sorry for it, but I've yet to see a single explanation on why the fee increase would ever be good besides burning more DEC. All I see is "DEC burn good, DEC value up", which is far from the truth otherwise a token like SHIB would be exploding in value since they burned almost half the supply. WE are the ones paying for that burn, so we are the ones losing whatever it gains.
If you can convince me otherwise I'd gladly accept defeat, but I just don't see it, nor from you, nor from anyone who is supporting this. Everyone just mentions burning is good, but no one mentions why essentially burning 1% of OUR assets and having worse fees is good.