To be used as in to be sold or to be used as lottery prizes in some form?

Some more data: A lot of DEC is burned throughout the ecosystem through market fees, land LPs, wild pass, etc. While this varies wildly depending on many factors a rule of rough average to go with is about

I will add some argumentation I collected for a proposal to stop the burn, I didn't run in the end because of the development with the DAO taking ownership: Advantages to burn: Well, the obvious advantage

My bigger question about all this is what the DAO is going to do with the codebase. I guess proposals will have to follow, how this is going to work and whether this is a "code is owned but that's

Apart from minimum card levels being terrible, I would also suggest less brackets. The playerbase is not that big to begin with and splitting it up in 6 brackets feels overkill. Maybe that is the reason

First of all, I appreciate the effort and I like the idea of limiting the maximum level of cards, but forcing a minimum level is just terrible. It makes sense for survival where it is all about the individual

Does land really need more general boosts? There are millions more resources produced than consumed each and every day. The only thing which keeps land resources prices up is that people are hoarding for

I would say if you use reward chests payed for by glint can use potions they should be buyable with glint. It's not like you can buy all the new potions with glint, so I guess that is fine. Maybe put a

My understanding was always that modern cards have the penalty and cards no longer playable in modern don't. Otherwise modern cards are just second rate cards that will absolutely crash in value (not just

This sum.. I mean archon + Rush Townsend = 2x5 range damage in round 0 (and likely another 2x5 immediately after due to the high speed). 20 range damage before the enemy can react sounds perfectly balanced.

I don't try to approach it from a position of trying to do a different proposal. I already voted for this, because it is better than not having it. I just try to mitigate (completely subjective) issues

At the risk of being annoying with it, this makes it again a bit more complicated than it has to be. A card having a CP score, a PP score, now additionally a conflict score which would only be introduced

I like what I read for the most part, but it is again so many small things packed together in one big yes or no proposal. I don't think splitting into wagon kits and wagon repair kits makes much sense

You have to at least submit your teams, if you don't you don't win, but submitting any team and not winning still counts, but it has been a long time since I actually managed to lose every single game,

There is discussion in the tournament discord right now about a modification / followup proposal to make the tournaments happen again. There are also average participations for each tournament type based

I said most CA. The ones cancelled are typically tournaments with heavy card restrictions or Expert level tournaments with very high CP requirements. Simply tournaments for which a small amount of players

I understand completely what you mean and I discussed the scaling down you describe in some draft versions, but I really don't like proposals that include too many changes where a voter may be forced to

This all sounds reasonable, but would require quite some rework of tournaments. A major advantage of the proposal above is, that it is very low effort.

This is not an anti GF proposal, most GF modern or wild are not affected. It mostly hits exotic configurations like GF Diamond alpha and untamed only. Yes it will drive away some application from these

You would have to check the tournaments, but most GF CA, GF modern and GF wild are not affected. Examples of affected tournaments are GF Diamond alpha and untamed only. That said, I am absolutely for driving