We have removed that part in the revision as this part is not implementable. In general, changing the image will not prevent people from buying them despite. People buying blacklisted assets will open a host of larger issues when unsuspecting users reach out to ZenDesk having bought a blacklisted asset. Verifying whether it’s really a new user or the same user will be near impossible so this presents an even bigger manpower concern.
I see then what can we do at this point that we can place in the proposal as sanctions? .
as for
- Review third-party apps/bots/programs
since you’ve mentioned its not practical at this time. then it means we can do it in the future. we can slate this as future development then .
Hello, Keizer. Apologies for any misunderstandings I may have caused. We won’t be able to do it now or in the future due to priorities. Reviewing these applications not only will take a lot of time but will also opens a host of issues where a player can claim to be using a certain app when in fact they’re using another app. From my perspective exemptions like this open a loophole that can be exploited.
LG (if applies) can create a policy where the tool will have the developers and an option to be contacted. with this process you’ll have at this time the right to see if something is breaking the econ or not and developers will have to follow you for the certain requirements.
In cases where tools are private players are aware on where they get it from.
LG will have to ensure to set terms that while some 3rd party application is allowed they run the full risk of getting sanctions or warnings if found the tools were not up to the standard.
We already have the site where you get all the links to everything right? Reviews should also be done by Devs and not just zendesk.
Hello, Keizer. I’d like to once again mention that anything that requires further work or development is not officially feasible. Given the treasury runway, we do not have the luxury of hiring developers/additional liveops team to do this work. As indicated in my proposal, what I proposed ensures that no additional resources is unnecessarily allocated in this work while still meeting the goal.
Edit: It has come to my attention that this has been misunderstood. I’d like to point out that this doesn’t mean we do not have runway but is meant to mean that we have other priorities at this point.
Please do not get me wrong - I am not against your proposal. Truth to be told, your proposal is very advantageous to LG given that what you’ve written grants LG full authority on most things. My only contention is the manpower and development requirements that are currently not feasible given our current priorities and our runway.
Hi @lgNanessa
so with all the challenges that is currently up in our table
what can we do at this point that we can place in the proposal as sanctions?
can we : ?
- Any staking rewards to be recieved by the specific wallet will also be nullified unless appealed.
- Voting rights will be suspended for the wallet except on making appeals
thanks for sharing the challenges.
I have not discussed this with the Vault team but I do think the first one might be doable. This would entail turning off their future rewards.
The second one will be harder to implement due to Snapshot’s technology. I don’t believe a strategy like this already exists within their system.
In addition, most people do not game on their staking wallets so I personally don’t see how we can associate an in-game account with the respective staking wallet.
Hi Nessa,
again thanks for letting me know all this.
from my understanding at this time We can
- block only wallets from accessing all our services.
What are the other things we can put as a sanction? w/o the ones that i’ve mentioned already above.
can we please ask Vault team? or does @darthschmitty13 also knows what other methods we can apply? need an answer from LG on what we can commit and what we cannot so we can send this to snapshot before 30th.
Thanks!
Hello again, Keizer. You are correct that we can only implement a wallet ban at this point.
Involving the staking wallet’s rewards is unenforceable. As mentioned, very few use the same account for staking and the game.
As the author has withdrawn the proposal. This thread will now be closed. Thank you very much for participating in the discussion.