Here's my take on this proposal.
Pros:
Increase (drastically) rewards for early purchasers/holders of packs
Increase (somewhat?) early pack sales
Cons:
Reduce (slightly) future partnership GLX
Reduce (drastically) investor confidence in the whitepaper distribution being implemented as planned
Reduce (somewhat?) the value of all GLX that has been purchased/held to date by increasing inflation.
As is, I will be voting "no" for this. If it were modified to take the GLX from the GLG gameplay rewards and give it out at a much slower rate, I would reconsider.
Since i am presently voting NO i want to make sure people know I do NOT think it "drastically" reduces confidence in whitepaper... I think this is a pretty small change and proposals are exactly what is meant to handle AND it requires 66% of stakeholders to also agree and that's a pretty large consensus.
I simply happen to believe there are not enough pro impact that i can think of right now. I will not be un-happy if it passes.
What i'd like to see is a healthier ecosystem with more users to help decentralized the vote a bit more and i think this will instead centralize it... we may just have to wait until game gets closer and more people come in.
I appreciate your take on this & your call for some data to prove it could drive pack sales.
I personally do believe it will drive more pack sales as it creates a huge benefit to buying them in presale 2. The staking rewards in presale 1 drove me to personally buy many packs, its anecdotal data only at this point but I know many others were the same. This 20m distribution drives cost per pack down alot for presale 2 buyers and the project could really do with a boost in pack sales (271k sold so far).
More pack sales would have the effect that you desire (wider distribution of the tokens). It would have to be done in tandem with the MLS season launch and some marketing to get eyes on this project though ofc.
Well, I am more and more afraid to make any investment decisions here or in splinterlands because of these types of votes. Whitepaper changes need to have overwhelming support IMO. Only a 2/3 majority is not enough to give me confidence that big players/stakers can't buy a bunch of something and then pass a proposal to shift value to their holdings. Similar to insider trading but not technically illegal.
Would 3/4ths be enough? 75% ?
It would be a lot better. Personally I like 80%, whitepapers shouldn't be changed unless they really really really need to be changed.
For non-whitepaper changes 66.6% is reasonable.