As @jarvie has pointed out, I'm not sure the purpose of this. Is it to incentivize the purchase of new packs purely? Or are we afraid that the existing pack holders will sell if they don't get MORE rewards? Without clarity, I would not be inclined to vote for this.

As @fighter4-freedom has pointed out, this type of change makes me lose confidence. Since the value of any token is based on the belief in the future, then any changes to what we "thought was going to happen" should be a) carefully explained and not vague and b) pass a very high threshold of need in order to shift the rewards.

My first reaction is I want to support the team to make the game successful. But when I think about what is best for the game, I'm conflicted because this proposal simply seems like a way to placate the pack holders because there will be a delay to the game going live.

A worse case scenario would be that the team NEEDS sales and is afraid they aren't going to get them and want to "juice" the payout to entice people to buy where they might not otherwise buy them.

I truly hate to be negative and I won't vote til I have more answers, but I don't like paying people to be patient, nor do I like paying people to buy packs. I don't think any sustainable game can get away with gimmicks for long, and I sincerely hope that we can both survive and thrive on the strength of the team's vision and purpose.

I will listen though, and hope that we all strongly consider the implications. Taking away from the future holders to give to the current holders is easy to vote for, but at some point the serious investors will wonder "where is the line, where does it stop?".