Steem experiment: Burn post #5
January 19 post for burning rewards. Same rules from: https://steemit.com/steem/@smooth/steem-experiment-burn-post-1
In three more days, the first burn post will reach payout and then the daily buying-and-burning process will start. The more votes these posts receive, the more SBD will be used to buy STEEM from the market in order to burn it.
I am somewhat confused about the goal or these burns, and the ability to reach that goal.
Is this the response to certain Steemians "abusing" the system and grabbing a large portion of the rewards pool? If so, aren't you just adding value to their take?
(Abusing in quotations because I don't believe they are doing anything wrong}
I have directly addressed this question in one of the earlier threads. It is possible that redirecting a portion of the reward pool in this manner will introduce more scarcity where stakeholder voters then exercise more care to see that remaining rewards are more focused on the most deserving posts. It is also possible that the total reward pool could be reduced so much that even the worst abusers share is reduced in absolute amount (a sort of scorched earth strategy, which could ultimately deter abuses). In fact the only way that wouldn't be the case would be if this initiative increases the value of STEEM proportionately more than pulls from the reward pool, which would be a sort of objective standard by which we could say this initiative is adding value to the Steem platform. Or it is possible this has no beneficial effect whatsoever with respect to the reward pool (including that stakeholder voters decide to allocate little or nothing to this buy-and-burn).
Either way I'm reasonably convinced this buy-and-burn strategy does act as a natural stabilizer for the SBD peg, so that in itself is some benefit, assuming of course that it receives some meaningful allocation.
It does "Add value to their take" in my view as well.
Will be flagging to return the steem to the reward pool. Will wait for visibility.
Interesting that you would do that, may I ask what the reasoning is? Taking money from the rewards pool and burning it just lowers the inflation rate.
I can see the pros, but wonder what you think the cons are?
(not being confrontational at all, just wondering)
see above response
Out of curiosity: what's your reasoning for flagging?
Smooth's first and main point is that the rewards are too large for the size of the community which is giving incentive for abusive behavior. (see his first post linked above) It's a nicer way to say "Reward Pool Rape". (can reward pools give consent?) To burn the rewards punishes good and bad attempts at earning it equally. It is not an effective tool for fighting abuse.
The most expensive and shady reward pool behavior is executed by some of the largest stakeholders we have. I want to see a greater and broader distribution of the steem to more stakeholders. If we have to see some scammy behavior, I would rather see some spammer get a few dollars than limit distribution.
We have tools - upvotes and downvotes to control where the reward pool goes. Nobody wants to curate, but everyone wants to control the flow of the rewards?
I do realize limiting supply can improve the price. I'm not interested in the short term games. I think what we need as fast as we can get it is a better spread of the wealth. I am willing to sacrifice short-term gains to work towards it.
It's just an opinion. I find the discussion around it interesting.
To the extent that is accurate, it is making the distribution worse. Allocating here at least keeps it the same. That's limiting the damage, no?
My issue is that it limits both "unshady and shady" behavior equally and does not address any of the issues of the platform.
At best it pushes all of our problems down the road without solutions. I am not upset about people allocating their stake to burn.
I am just returning the small amount I control back to the reward pool where I think it belongs. I am willing to be swayed and enjoying how this is being discussed.
Thank you for your response!
I appreciate all of the opposing viewpoints.
I give smooth credit in that his course of action is:
voluntary
does not benefit him directly
promoting conversation and awareness
It does (or at least, could) benefit me to the extent it increases the price, although not disproportionately relative to other stakeholders.
Proof of burn
Author reward 216.772 SBD, and 41.617 STEEM POWER for smooth/steem-experiment-burn-post-5
Sold 253.582 SBD for 244.499 STEEM on internal market
https://steemd.com/tx/b906fd4e03319300e6ca5d4fcf4ac50fe4c320d6
Total burn of 41.617+244.499 = 286.116 STEEM
https://steemd.com/tx/e8a0f7955dc162c4a8e01003984ecab7a6c5bd08
good post, I like your post ..
I need your support please visit my blog https://steemit.com/@muliadi
if you like my post please give upvote, resteem you follow me.
thank you, keep on steemit
Still studying this whole post burning experiment to see how useful and rewarding it'll be.
Anything that'll add value to the reward pool is acceptable.
I'll be on the lookout to see the good that'll come out of this.
Thanks for sharing this and
Happy Steeming
Thank you for sharing your knowledge, I am new to the community and I will learn from people like you, who inspire.