Splinterlands: Revisiting the Automation Side

The Splinterlands ecosystem continues to evolve according to the desires of the community and the innovative process of its DAO votes. The latest of updates are changes to Terms of Service which impact the third party automation services. This came with a very close vote but our voices are being heard so now comes the period of watching the implications and impacts of said changes. I have quickly felt the impact as the automation services from third parties have had to pivot and adapt to the new reality.

These services are businesses at the end of the day so it is understandable that each searches for ways for them to become more sustainable over time while it adjusts with the economy and community. These service now need/want more of the piece of the pie of players and their collections. In my case, with thousands invested, I refuse to share my rewards despite acknowledging and experiencing the large SPS benefit of doing so. However, I feel that the administrative burden of tracking the sharing is an issue for me.

The other issue I have is that, in some cases, it was never disclosed that a reward share would be necessary for use after buying the token which is a trust issue although I understand the need to have a sustainable business for said services. These changes will now mark the second time I have to stop my approach to automation given a request to share my rewards. This time I do have an alternative to use the Battle Helper in Wild still but those costs have also increased to a level that basically does the same of taking one asset I am earning to transfer in another asset. Given my need for DEC for Land, I am opting accumulate it and sacrifice my net rewards for now.

While I enormously benefited from different levels of automation with my card collection, I feel that the attempt to move towards a more human interaction is good although I have doubts on how well they can enforce it within a system meant to be censorship resistant a decentralized. This will put more pressure on development to focus on gameplay that attracts and retains players in the short term given how far the economy is still away from balance. The risk will be a continued vicious cycle of less engagement and activity in a circular economy where volume matters.

I openly voted against these and other measures to limit activity within the ecosystem. I think this has altered the original vision of a decentralized community with freedom to use our assets as we choose. While this is not me giving up on the game, it is a cause for concern as this is the community that really wanted this in the past. Maybe I am wrong and this will bring players back and add new players but I think it will take time and luck given the outside dependencies needed to make this successful for the ecosystem. One thing is sure in that times will continue to be interesting!