The STEEM VIRTUAL SUPPLY decreases - I have a QUESTION for you [ENG-ITA]
Puoi trovare la traduzione ITALIANA dopo quella in INGLESE.
Hello!
I write this post because I noticed about an event that I didn't know could happen but, having no idea why, I would like to be able to find out. So I tagged some of the users who more than anyone could give an explanation to my question (I apologize in advance for the trouble, but I hope you can give me an answer).
Let’s go to the point.
For some months now, I’ve been taking part in the initiative We love power up by sharing a summary of my power up activities. Inside the post, I also started to report some basic data of the platform: from the price of STEEM and SBD up to some updated data on the performance of the tokens powered compared to the totals released.
However, a week ago, I found something I didn’t know could happen: the virtual supply reported by the explorer had decreased by about 3.5 million tokens compared to the one of two weeks before.
Why the VIRTUAL SUPPLY has decreased?
This is in short my question: yes, because from the explanations that some users gave of this parameter, it seemed that the virtual supply couldn't go down. According to these sources, the STEEM VIRTUAL SUPPLY would be given from the amount of liquid STEEM, plus the amount of STEEM locked as STEEM POWER, plus the corresponding value in STEEM of the existing SBD tokens.
If this definition is true, like said, the virtual supply would never have to decrease. In all the last months, this parameter has remained in line with this principle, increasing each seven days by about 6-700 000 STEEM.
I couldn't give an answer, and I didn't get certain answers from anyone in the community where I am writing. The objective of this post is, first of all, to signal to who like me thought that the virtual supply couldn't decrease, that in reality it seems can it; second point, to try to reach a conclusion on how this has been possible.
I ask you this first, @justyy @alejos7ven @msharif @kouba01 @hungry-griffin @steem.history @rme @cryptogecko @symbionts @remlaps @pennsif @steemchiller @steemitblog @steemcurator01
since I have no experience in terms of programming language, but that I know how it is all a matter of algorithms and rules written in a language in which I am not versed.
The question is:
Can virtual supply decrease?
Or is there an error in the explorer?
And if yes, if it can decrease: how is it possible?
I thank you all in advance for your cooperation. I hope you can briefly explain the exact definition of virtual supply and the mechanism by which the overall value has decreased rather than increased. I greet you and hope to receive some clarification on this. I add that, not knowing which community to use for this my post, I opted in using the one I use most frequently. I also decided to donate 25% of the earnings of this post to the #burnsteem25 project, also taking into account the reason why this post was published.
A greeting from Italy!
Qui puoi trovare la traduzione ITALIANA.
Ciao!
Scrivo questo post perché ho notato un evento che non sapevo potesse avvenire ma, non avendo idea del motivo, mi piacerebbe poterlo scoprire. Quindi ho taggato alcuni degli utenti che più di tutti potrebbero saper dare una spiegazione alla mia domanda (mi scuso anticipatamente per il disturbo, ma spero voi sappiate darmi una risposta).
Vediamo.
Da alcuni mesi a questa parte, prendo parte all'iniziativa We love power up condividendo un resoconto delle mie attività. All'interno del post, ho iniziato a riportare anche alcuni dati basilari della piattaforma: dal prezzo di STEEM e SBD fino ad alcuni dati aggiornati sull'andamento dei token poweruppati rispetto ai totali rilasciati.
Tuttavia, una settimana fa, ho riscontrato qualcosa che non sapevo potesse accadere: la virtual supply riportata dagli explorer era diminuita di circa 3,5 milioni di token rispetto a quella di due settimane prima.
Perché la virtual supply è diminuita???
Questa è in breve la mia domanda: sì, perché dalle spiegazioni che più di un utente dava di questi parametri, sembrava che la virtual supply non potesse scendere. Secondo queste fonti, la VIRTUAL SUPPLY di STEEM sarebbe uguale all'ammontare di STEEM liquidi, più l'ammontare di STEEM bloccati in forma di STEEM POWER, più il corrispettivo in STEEM degli SBD esistenti.
Se questa definizione fosse vera, come detto, la virtual supply non dovrebbe mai diminuire. In tutti gli scorsi mesi, questo parametro è infatti rimasto in linea con questo principio, aumentando ogni sette giorni di circa 6-700 000 STEEM.
Non ho saputo darmi risposta, e non ho ottenuto risposte certe da nessuno della community in cui sto scrivendo. L'obbiettivo di questo post è, prima di tutto, segnalare a chi come me pensava che la virtual supply non potesse diminuire, che in realtà sembra poterlo fare; secondo punto, per cercare di arrivare a una conclusione su come questo sia stato possibile.
Lo chiedo in primis a voi, @justyy @alejos7ven @msharif @kouba01 @hungry-griffin @steem.history @rme @cryptogecko @symbionts @remlaps @pennsif @steemchiller @steemitblog @steemcurator01
considerato che io non ho esperienze in termini di linguaggio di programmazione, ma che so quanto sia tutta una questione di algoritmi e di regole scritte in un linguaggio in cui non sono ferrato.
La questione è:
La virtual supply può diminuire?
Oppure c'è un errore negli explorer?
E se sì, se può diminuire: come è possibile?
Ringrazio anticipatamente tutti voi per la vostra collaborazione. Spero possiate spiegare brevemente l'esatta definizione di virtual supply e il meccanismo per il quale il valore complessivo è diminuito anziché aumentare. Vi saluto e spero di ricevere qualche delucidazione in merito. Aggiungo che, non sapendo bene quale community utilizzare per questo mio post, ho optato nell'utilizzo di quella che adopero più di frequente. Ho inoltre deciso di donare il 25% dei guadagni di questo post al progetto #burnsteem25 tenendo presente anche della motivazione per la quale questo post è stato pubblicato.
Un saluto dall'Italia!
Hi, I answered you on Twitter, too, but now that I'm home I can also answer here. See this post.
As I understand it, the key is that every SBD represents a debt for $1 worth of STEEM. Since the virtual supply is the current supply plus the STEEM owed for SBD debt, when the price of STEEM goes up, the amount of
SBDSTEEM owed to retire the debt goes down, and that lowers the virtual supply. (But, this only applies when the SBD market cap is less than 10% of the STEEM market cap. If it goes above 10% - like it was for the last 1+ year - different rules apply.)Ok @remlaps, thank you for your answer. But there is a point that I don't understand in your post, and it's the one about the SBD price variation.
What you indicate as the SBD value on the blockchain is actually an average of the markets (I don't know which ones are used to establish it, whether internal or external). According to the Steem Whitepaper, SBD on the blockchain should continue to be worth 1 USD in STEEM, which means that by converting 1 SBD I will obtain as many STEEM as needed to have a value of 1 USD (this is what the interfaces previously allowed to do with automatic conversions, while today an internal market has been created, which is more advantageous being the price of SBD greater than 1USD). This means that it's the price of STEEM (and its changes over time) that leads to a change in the debt that SBD represents, and not the changes in the price of SBD (which is instead a value external to the blockchain born from the introduction of SBD on internal and external markets). At least, this is clear from how it is described in the whitepaper.
Therefore, the conversion of the value of SBD to STEEM shouldn't be affected by the value of SBD in internal or external markets. What changes is the value of STEEM: if the value rises, less STEEM will be released by virtually converting an SBD; however, if the value of STEEM drops, the number of tokens released should be greater (thus leading to a bigger increase in the virtual supply). Although the value of SBD may change, according to the Whitepaper, this will not change the value that SBD has for the blockchain, which should remain fixed at 1USD in STEEM.
The thing that can change is the algorithms used to carry out the blockchain, and this is why I mentioned various experts in the sector: if they change something compared to what was described in the Whitepaper or if they have different specifications to provide, only they can know it.
This is correct. As far as the blockchain is concerned, 1 SBD is always worth 1 USD, no matter what happens on external markets (remembering that this only applies when the SBD market cap is below the 10% threshold, and SBDs are being printed). So, the only things that effect the virtual supply are the number of STEEM in existence, the number of SBDs in existence, and the price of STEEM (i.e., the number of STEEM required to convert SBDs to STEEM). I had a typo in my reply yesterday. Sorry for that. I updated it now.
In reality, what had left me most perplexed was the post you had indicated to me on your profile. I read this:
and I didn't understand well: according to the mechanism mentioned in the Whitepaper, the value of SBD doesn't affect the "debt" of the blockchain. It only affects whether the blockchain will release - or not - SBD when the threshold levels are reached. But not on the amount of debt at that time.
To give an example, if SBD loses 30% in value, the debt continues to be the same as when SBD was worth 30% more. The only change is that, if you fall below the "10% threshold" the blockchain starts printing SBDs, and from that moment the debt will hypothetically increase again, as the number of existing SBDs will increase.
Tell me if something in the reasoning doesn't add up, it's above all to clarify things for me too @remlaps.
Well, the SBD can be valued in 2 ways. From the blockchain's perspective, when the SBD debt ratio is below 10% the value of an SBD doesn't change in terms of USD. It's always $1. But the value changes in terms of STEEM, which is what I was alluding to in that excerpt.
Imagine that the price of STEEM is $0.25. Then 1 SBD valued at 1 USD costs 4 STEEM. But, if the price of STEEM goes up to $0.50, then the 1 SBD debt can be paid off with 2 STEEM. In terms of STEEM, the debt was reduced by 50% (4 STEEM / SBD to 2 STEEM / SBD). The 3.97 and 3.48 in the excerpt you posted represented the number of STEEM required to pay off 1 SBD at the time when I posted.
Multiply that number by the size of the SBD supply, and you have the debt portion of the virtual_supply. So, you can calculate it with the numbers from Steem World (ignoring rounding and time sampling differences):
i.e.
internal_median_price) = 3.86 STEEM per SBDcurrent_sbd_supply) = 48,689,144 STEEMcurrent_supply) = 497,763,677 STEEM (virtual_supply)That first line is the one that does "the magic". When STEEM's
internal_median_priceprice goes up in terms of SBD (and USD), that ratio goes down, which brings the SBD-related debt (bold) in the 2nd and 3rd lines down, too. If the price of STEEM were $1, than that number in the 2nd and 3rd lines would be reduced to 12,613,768 STEEM and the virtual supply would be just around 462 million.Yes, ok, it's clear. Simply, I don't see the internal median price in STEEM. I'm not used to considering the price of SBD in STEEM because it isn't shown by the blogging interfaces, and this creates a bit of confusion.
And if I can ask you instead: when the debt ratio is under 10%, what changes? New rules come into play for calculations made by the blockchain, or simply the virtual supply is calculated as STEEM current supply + (SBD current supply / median STEEM price) ?
You can actually see what happens when it crosses the 10% threshold by looking at the graph in the post I linked above.
Basically, the blockchain stops tracking the true median price and, instead, holds it constant at the 10% threshold. That's why the number of STEEM per SBD in the bottom-right graph showed at 3.97 for the whole time that SBDs weren't printing. What that means is that anyone who executes SBD conversions winds up getting less than 1 USD each for their SBDs (which is why they removed the conversion function from the Steemit wallet several years ago).
Ok, I understand. It's a little bug, basically.
But the question becomes: when the 10% threshold arrives, is the virtual supply also calculated using that fixed price (to quantify the market cap of SBD in STEEM)? Or is the real SBD/STEEM PRICE ratio taken into account for this use?
I will try to find a reply for you!
Remlaps commented with the explanation. I didn't understand the specifics, but he clarified almost the principle of the mechanism. Thank you very much for your collaboration Alejos :D
Ho guardato il tuo post al tuo post, poi leggo, vedo che hai una risposta alla tua domanda, quindi ti saluto e basta.
Sì, Remlaps mi ha fatto capire quale sia il motivo. Grazie comunque per esserti fermato :)