MIP-13: Merit Circle: A New Era


For everyone creating threads on fancy mediums about us, none so far have contacted us directly to query about our motives. We find the picture you used for your article appalling and disrespectful. We’re sure you understand why. @philh

Putting parties in place has nothing to do with “mobs”, it’s an attempt at seeking justice and recreating mutual value. The DAO has no control over these so called “SAFTs”, yet, the DAO feels we were wronged. Just because you’re amazed you found a hint of authentic cypherpunkery, does not mean we have to play by your sense of reality and morals. Morals are, after all, a social construct.

You might want to update the article with and through the context of our last post.


Honey Barrel
Vanquisher of non-Frens
The Freefolk Fellowship


Edit: Reading back, we think it’s fair to say that some people looking in do not have full context on the on-goings of the DAO, and it’s apparent a few don’t follow the entirety of the community. It is vital we channel this in a better way.

1 Like

After several days of communicating with Merit Circle Ltd (the organization that we signed our SAFT with) in an attempt to reach an agreement on specific points of collaboration, we now feel the need to share some information directly with the Merit Circle community to clear up some matters. Once things started to escalate in this forum, we worked on the understanding that Marco, Tommy and Mark, as leaders of Merit Circle Ltd, were best placed to explain the position and our contributions to the Merit Circle community.

During this process we suggested to the Merit Circle Ltd. team to disclose many of these details sooner as we felt there were clear points in the thread that had been mischaracterized or were otherwise outright false. There has been an apparent reluctance to do so, despite our insistence that further clarification of these details were material and could have brought valuable context to the DAO’s discussion earlier, and we feel this has unfairly painted YGG in a bad light.

As the above post by Merit Circle Ltd makes clear, none of the seed investors are obligated under the legal documentation of the SAFT to provide any specific value add services. Further to that, there is no provision for Merit Circle Ltd to unilaterally cancel the contract regardless of how this has been presented by them to the community.

These are two simple disclosures that the Merit Circle Ltd founders could have made clear to this community on day one. It is not clear why this important information was not made available to everyone much sooner, as it would have prompted a far more productive discussion.

In any case, we would also like to expand on the brief notes outlined by the Merit Circle Ltd founders in their above statement as to YGG’s contributions, so that everyone in the community can have access to the same information as the founders do.

  • Merit Circle COO Mark Borsten has known Gabby Dizon, co-founder of YGG, personally since 2018. In September 2021, Mark and the team approached Gabby and asked the guild to invest in the seed round for Merit Circle, which YGG did.
  • As a further show of support, Gabby also committed additional funds from an angel network that he is involved with, Nifty Fund, to support Mark, Marco and Tommy.
  • Despite queries from YGG’s own community regarding the virtue of supporting an unknown, would-be competitor, YGG invested in Merit Circle’s seed round as it felt it would be a net positive for the play-to-earn guild ecosystem.
  • At that time, it was extremely early in the founders’ journey. YGG and Gabby’s support and financial backing added significant credibility to the guild, which we believe helped Merit Circle to close additional investment in its seed round.
  • YGG and Gabby also made direct introductions to multiple funds and angels during the seed round (some of those chose to invest, some passed, and some others Merit Circle chose to pass on).
  • YGG was also very supportive in endorsing Merit Circle to many of various investors during their negotiations, some of whom were YGG investors before they were Merit Circle investors.
  • The Coindesk article placed by YGG was on October 8, 2021. This media coverage gained Merit Circle excellent exposure and helped them build credibility ahead of the public sale. Additionally, it appears to be the first time Merit Circle received any organic media coverage that they did not pay for. Merit Circle’s previous ‘media coverage’ was a single post marked as “PRESS RELEASE” on bitcoin.com (this is a service where companies pay $1,500 to post an article; it is sponsored content, which is not the same as journalism). Coindesk is a well-respected publication, with the second highest reach of any crypto news publication in the world. Coindesk does not accept payment to publish press releases, this is factually incorrect.
  • The backing of every seed investor, including YGG, through their funds, their inferred goodwill, and their public support, contributed to Merit Circle having such a successful public token sale. This is why projects announce all of their seed investors publicly ahead of their sale, as this support is hugely valuable in setting public sale expectations. This is likely also why Merit Circle specifically opted to announce its partnership with YGG on November 1, 2021, just one day before their public sale (November 2, 2021), so that they could directly benefit from this goodwill.
  • In our internal evaluation of this current governance situation, our team found that even after the public sale, various games and industry leaders only found out about Merit Circle through its association with YGG.

Additionally, YGG provided advice, guidance and support to the Merit Circle operations team as they were getting ready to scale.

  • In October 2021, when Merit Circle only had 1,200 Axie scholars, MC reached out to YGG asking to lease at least 1,000 Axie teams (3,000+ Axies) to nearly double its scholar base. YGG immediately said yes to MC’s request with favorable terms (the standard deal for fully-fledged YGG managers, 70/20/10, where MC would take a 20% share and YGG only 10%). Ultimately, MC opted not to proceed due to operational complexities, however YGG was immediately willing to provide the asset rental support that was asked of our guild.
  • YGG also provided advice about Axie breeding at an early stage. YGG’s Head of Game Operations shared our industry-leading expertise and insights with MC directly, giving access to specific competitive information about team composition, breeding, and the broader Axie-Meta that allowed Merit Circle to improve breeding output and efficiency at a greater rate than would have been possible through trial and error. This is highly valuable information and expertise that YGG would only share between its closest partners, in the interest of mutual prosperity.
  • YGG has also provided introductions to early-stage NFT games so that Merit Circle had the option to purchase assets where YGG has already completed its due diligence. We cannot be responsible if either party opts not to close the deal.

It is also worth noting that advice and help goes in both directions. When called upon, we feel we have been ready and willing to lend assistance, but there is an extent to which good leadership relies on leveraging the resources on call. Had Merit Circle Ltd. come to us more regularly we would have endeavored to support even further where we could.

This information is provided in good faith because we want the Merit Circle community and the YGG community to know that we go above and beyond our legal obligations by working hard to support our shared play-to-earn ecosystem even if this information is not always widely known.

We have always looked to be collaborative not combative with our partners - this is the basis of strong partnerships. We support partners like Merit Circle so that we can build a better play-to-earn ecosystem together. We do not see this as a zero-sum game, especially when we seek to develop alongside one another in many of the same virtual economies.

This process has made it clear that your community would like us to engage in community initiatives more often, and we hear you. We have possibly been too reliant on Merit Circle Ltd leadership for guidance throughout this process. Once the obligations to us have been fulfilled, we would be very interested for both of our communities to work more collaboratively if that is the desire.

This response can be found as part of Yield Guild Game’s official statement which can be found on our Medium.


I am voting NO after reading the YGG response above.

If anyone has been following @HoneyBarrel content on telegram before, they should realize that this proposal clearly is just another intentional attempt at sabotage of Merit Circle.


As a matter of principle, honor your agreements. If it was a bad deal, learn from it and move forward. Reputation and credibility matter. A LOT.
I’m voting NO.


Agree with this.
Will be voting NO .

Lets learn from this instead of setting a very bad precedent going forward.


ill be voting no to this proposal. the potential negative outcomes have not been thought through and in my view would affect the DAO and its operations moving forward. this action is unnecessary


#P2E would never be the same without the revolution #YGG… It just wont be! Not in another lifetime. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I read this from reddit 3 months ago, but I still remember how they related YGG to the California gold rush. If you think about it they really do have similarities and it explains why YGG works that way. Not sure if you can find it, but if you do that would be great especially for new or contemplating users.

1 Like

Hi all,

I respect the healthy debate, but I’m strongly against ejecting YGG or any other Merit Circle member at this point, for the following reasons:

  1. It’s impossible to weigh up individual contributions on a spreadsheet, even with the benefit of hindsight, because no one knows what contributions (big or small) turned out to be pivotal. Did ten tweets achieve more than one tweet? Did any number of tweets achieve more than a single unrecorded conversation at an in-person event? Who’s to say? Equally, looking to the future, it’s possible that a member who achieved little or nothing during Merit Circle’s launch will make a pivotal contribution during the long-haul of core activities. Again, who’s to say?
  2. Merit Circle is a collaborative effort at a very early stage, operating in a Web3 space that is itself collaborative but immature. If we need to identify a competitor, let’s look at Steam or the Google Play Store rather than YGG or any fellow blockchain project. And if we are building a new DAO culture, let’s build one that encourages cooperation and partnership rather than in-fighting. I came here to scrutinize game-fi projects, not the motivations of my colleagues.
  3. One last point, speaking as an early-stage investor (a role that often leads to insults in the DAO world): A fair investment market is what helped bring Merit Circle and many other potentially-good blockchain projects to life. If we damage the principles of such a market, for example by retroactively (and perhaps illegally) taking away the rewards from someone who took an early risk, then we may damage fundraising for many future projects, especially DAOs.

I will vote NO, even if the OP adds a clause to the YES option, as MeritLtd has requested.


Sharif Sakr

BR Capital


#YGG is the future of #NFT #gaming and that is #based LOL. They have all sorts of famous #P2E games.

The proposal is now up for voting!



YGG has community programs too. They think of giving back to the community that helped them achieve what they have now! I do not think they have bad intentions when they decided to be a seed investor.

In my humble and honest opinion… Without YGG, Merit circle is nothing🤐 Ask gamers and they know YGG more!

Cool, vote wisely and think carefully!!! Do not let your decision be affected/hyped by others. You know what I mean. It is your money afterall! :face_with_monocle:

1 Like

Agree. Is this some kind of people power? Well, the legalities of the contract comes first, dont they?

I was reading the replies and I have read great points from those who said NO. It is like some just are crowdsourcing but really cannot point out which was actually breached. This is what happens when there is too much democracy!

Just to introduce myself, I’m a Merit Circle follower and investor since the LBP and I think I read quite everything pulished about the Merit Circle DAO. I don’t give my thoughts often but this topic is huge, for Merit Circle and as a “DAO case law”.

I’m uncomfartable about taking the right to punish YGG this quickly.
Why just YGG ? Have all the seed investors been really checked ?
I think a lot of $MC investors are really worried about the down pricing and the incoming dilution. But we knew it since the beginning !

As @DollyDali said, I think that an “audit of value-add” for all seed investors will be a prerequisite of such a proposal.
Then I think each “failing” investor should have the right to answer to this “audit of value-add”.
Hence the DAO could discuss clearly and choosing or not to creat a case law for the whole DAO concept.

Thx to all of you. I really like to see such an interest in the MC DAO !

With that - I don’t see any sense to continue discussion. I vote NO - other option is both unethical and extremely harmful for Merit Circle - both legally and reputationally. Even this discussion by itself increases toxicity around our brand and thus makes harm: the sooner we close it - the better.

1 Like

First of, this whole thing is fascinating :eyes:

I think in this case it is not just about the value add part.

It seems it is also about the fact that the community believes that the YGG brand is adding negative value to the Merit Circle DAO. Because of their questionable business practices pointed out in this thread (eternal fundraise for team - no value share with their community), but also because of the perception of a direct competitor being invested and having a share/say in MC.

There is a further underlying conflict of interest, because it is a direct competitor. Both things can affect an organization for better or worse in a very real way.

This does not apply to any of the other early stakeholders… Although I do agree, that the other early stakeholders should also be held accountable for the value-add part with the same scrutiny.

I do think we need to consider the “gentlemen agreement” part. SAFTs usually leave very little protection for the buyer, even more so with a DAO I would imagine. That doesn’t necessarily mean the MC DAO should “exploit” that. Or it should at least consider potential reputational effects of such a decision. In essence I don’t think there is any significant reputational risk to redistributing DAO incentives. As long as it can be argued fairly across a consistent framework, so decisions are not perceived as arbitrary or unfair.


I appreciate your post. But it is a NO for me… YGG is doing its job! Maybe you are just expecting way too much! Again, it is a no for me. :slight_smile:

1 Like