When I saw this new governance proposal about hiring Steem Monsters Corp (the same as Splinterlands, yes they’re a company) to create a *Mini-Set*, I must admit I felt a bit divided. On one hand, I totally understand the logic behind raising funds for the **SPS DAO**, bringing in a new card edition, generating hype, and keeping the game running. But on the other hand, I feel like the community needs to be a little more critical about what is actually being delivered and how this impacts the game in the long run. So here’s my perspective, straight to the point, but in a constructive way.
#### If you haven’t seen the proposal yet: [SPS Governance Proposal - Hire SMC To Create a New Mini-Set](https://peakd.com/spsproposal/@splinterlands/sps-governance-proposal-hire-smc-to-create-a-new-mini-set)
First, the initial cost really caught my attention.
#### **1.200M DEC** paid *up-front*.
That’s no small thing...
The justification is that this time there won’t be any type of revenue share with the company, meaning *100% of the funds raised go straight to the DAO*. In theory, that’s great, because it guarantees that the SPS DAO has more breathing room to fund rewards, pay for services, and stabilize the economy. But at the same time, I wonder: is this upfront investment, in this format, really sustainable for players and investors who are already feeling the weight of the in-game economy?
The proposal also states that this new edition will launch in **December 2025**, falling within the *Conclave Arcana* arc. This means the cards will carry all the properties of that set: *collection power, burn rates, land production, etc.*. That part is fine, since it keeps consistency.
But I feel the question isn’t just “consistency,” it’s whether we really need yet another set on top of a game that still hasn’t managed to expand its player base as it should.
Speaking of *packs*, there will be three types:
#### **Standard, Alchemy, and Legendary**, no Starter.
The split seems fair, and the detail of reserving **10% for the DAO** also makes sense, since it gives more flexibility for future proposals. But looking at the numbers, it’s a lot: 250k Standards, 50k Alchemy, and 25k Legendary. If the idea is to really sell everything in six months, the campaign will need to be very aggressive. Otherwise, a good portion will end up sitting with the DAO, which could be positive (depending on how it’s used), but could also just turn into dead stock.
One point I found **really interesting** is the pricing. Using DEC, SPS, and even **USDC**, the packs are set like this:
* Standard for \$5 (or 350 SPS)
* Alchemy for \$20 (or 1,400 SPS)
* Legendary for \$25 (or 1,750 SPS)
The trick of giving a strong discount when using SPS is actually pretty smart.
It creates *real utility for the token*, which is something we’ve always felt was missing. And, of course, opening sales to USDC is also smart, because it helps the DAO build a *stablecoin base*, avoiding the need to dump SPS and DEC at fire-sale prices when liquidity is needed.
If we already know the game’s economy needs stability, isn’t constantly creating new sets turning into more of a quick fix than a definitive solution? Like a “band-aid” over a deeper problem? I can see how the *Mini-Set* can really raise good money, but I don’t know if it solves the central issue: **how to attract new players and keep the game alive beyond the crypto bubble**.
The *presale* model also follows tradition, with promo cards, titles, and rewards for top buyers. This definitely generates hype, but it also reinforces the *whale-centric* profile, where those with more money stand out even more. I’m not against whales they’re a vital part of the ecosystem but I think in proposals like this there could be something extra for *casual players*, who already feel a bit lost or even demotivated when they see that everything revolves around heavy spending.
Now, about the logic of the proposal itself, the DAO needs to raise around **100M SPS per year** just to cover rewards.
If this edition really sells well, it could even surpass that number, securing funds for the future. In theory, that’s great. But what worries me is the company making it clear that if the DAO doesn’t approve, they might launch the set on their own and keep all the profits. That almost sounds like a “if you don’t approve, we’ll do it anyway.” Honestly, I think that weakens the governance idea a bit.
After all, if the community’s decision-making power can be easily ignored, where’s the real decentralization?
### I do understand their side, of course.
Splinterlands as a company needs to stay financially healthy, but as a player I feel like this kind of message leaves a bit of a bitter taste. It feels more like pressure than an invitation.
That said, I don’t want this analysis to come across as just negative criticism. On the contrary, I do see value in this proposal. I think **raising stablecoins for the DAO** is urgent, and giving more utility to the **SPS token** is a step that should happen more often. But in my view, all of this should come with a clearer strategy for growing the game itself, not just for raising funds.
In the end, I’ll vote in favor, but cautiously.
Because I want to see the game I enjoy evolve, but I also want that evolution to come in a sustainable way, with long-term thinking.