On 11/11/25 18:37, Mischief via agora-business wrote: >> 9259~ Janet+ 1.0 A reasonable limit > AGAINST > >> 9260~ Janet 1.0 A reasonable tax > AGAINST > > 9259 and 9260 just kneecap those who put in the work without anything (even > an acknowledgment) in return
I'll admit that's fair for 9259. I was in a hurry to do *something* after seeing the numbers (and I had limited time for Agora that day, so I wrote those proposals rather quickly). The exponential growth is coming to a head *right now*, and while the balance point may need tweaking, I also think, for a few reasons, that the proposal is better than just allowing players to continue accumulating the equivalent of exponentially more radiance wins. (I recognize we are both self-interested here, and this is potentially somewhat motivated reasoning on my part, but I don't think that's most of it.) And, regardless, I don't think that's a fair characterization of 9260. It's a rebalancing, certainly, but it would come with sufficient notice for people to plan around, and it would apply equally as well to anyone else trying to start playing the subgame. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor
