The DAO has quite a bit of HBD and HIVE that's all referenced in the proposal. I think it would be prudent that we push for more DEC sinks as any may be released to offset sell pressure.

No offense taken... I'm not working with their lawyers. The only thing they are talking to their lawyers about (well as it pertains to this and that I'm aware of) is whether or not the DAO as a decentralized

DAO assets: There is no yearly repayment schedule, there's a total repayment amount which relates to one of the core problems that the company is working to address. They don't have steady/diversified

20% is what's being offered, I suppose the DAO could try to negotiate more favorable terms if it would like to do so. Keep in mind after 20% there's a 50/50 rev split so assuming we're repaid it would

The same accounting applies on both ends. When the next core set and what that cycle looks like is up to the DAO to decide. I've shared my thoughts, others may feel differently. I don't need things to

Code, art, website design is all IP. Not exactly a spend if it's being returned, more of a loan or investment on the DAO's behalf, all of which have been favorable to us in the past (we've done some smaller

The company is the one currently exploring the legality of it with their lawyers and why there's a blank space to include a link to the agreement for everyone to read once it's approved. One of the main

The company already has roughly an equivalent amount of sales. We'd more or less be annualizing them and taking on the risk that they are unable to keep up with the past 4 year average sales. In return

I've spent quite a bit of time in discussions and analyzing the financials with Dave. The DAO doesn't have to keep the company afloat for 2 years. I think the realistic situation is that if we don't want

In cases where non-Splinterlands assets are used, Steem Monsters Corp will value those tokens at market value at the time of receipt. In cases where DEC tokens are used for payments, then the price will

Yes, after 2 years we could assess if a similar deal makes sense for the DAO and/or company moving forward. Either way we retain co-ownership of the IP if the proposal runs to completion.

There are still clear and tangible deliverables related to repayment. The core set, miniset as well as other revenue streams that the company currently has, such as seasonal events and market fees, would

I think in general we don't want to go into the direction of the DAO micromanaging every development. You can see very recently how that turned out on the Survival mode restart where we already had several

It would mean we both equally own the IP. In the event something happens with the company, we still own the IP. It can't be sold or taken from us and we don't remove their rights to use it either. We could

There is a full audit of DAO assets that I do every month on the DAO's blog page. Not an April Fool joke lol.

Well Jimmy, the level restrictions are the compromise it takes for this to have any chance at passing. Arguably yes you could do the same behaviors with max level cards, but at that point the cost to do

So this actually couldn't be further from the truth in your case specifically and I'm going to show you why. I just pulled your data and know exactly how much SPS you're earning and how many matches you've

Vote no if you'd like to do so.

CP doesn't really work anymore (if it ever did). Black Foils more or less threw CP out the window, even for tournaments. We used to be able to gate tournaments with CP because you could just do RF and

I actually just updated it to make a smoother progression in champ while trying to address some of the concerns. The minimum card levels are not really negotiable as people have proven time and time again