You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: BlockTrades beginning development of Steem Proposal System
From talking to people in the community and my personal preference I would first like to see what is done with donated money from Steemit/community then mess with the author rewards. I could be on the minority side here but isn’t this something we can put up for a vote community vote to see where the funds come from?
Posted using Partiko iOS
The fact that Steemit has offered to donate funds is great, but those funds will run out relatively quickly, and I am fairly certain that donations from the rest of the community won't come close to funding any real projects, at which point this system will be mostly dead. IMO it must be funded from inflation if it is to be sustainable past Steemit's donation.
Ultimately, rewards are viewed in USD terms, so the "bet" here is that if we put serious funding towards development/marketing/etc it will increase the market price of STEEM such that rewards are increased in USD terms.
I disagree. Here's why. We reward folks for posting, curating, and witnessing. That's what rewards go to. Those rewards are the inflation. Decreasing the rewards paid decreases the incentive to do those things. Author rewards particularly are already too low. Look at retention, and consider that reducing rewards to authors will make retention worse. Creators of content are the spigot from which ALL the value of Steem originates, and we're losing creators.
Further, I agree that donations won't work. @ned's generosity will get us going, but stable funding will be necessary to create value in Steem.
Votes are stake weighted. Capital gains are stake weighted. Increase in the price of Steem as a result of development funded via SPS will produce capital gains, and directly benefit stakeholders. This will not directly inure to those earning rewards, only indirectly when stake holders curate and pass on those gains to creators.
Stake receives the benefits, and should be the source of the funding. Tapping rewards will harm Steem, and put downwards pressure on price by making worse the problems we have with content quality (trending), and witnesses (many of whom barely, or do not, break even now) who we need to keep the blockchain secure. Decreasing incentive to witness is the last thing we should be doing.
I have said it better here. Please have a look and correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, let's not decrease rewards, but fund development directly from those that will benefit from it, without reducing incentive to produce other benefits essential to Steem.
Thanks!
Agreed
I agree, plus I would also like to see the needed inflation pulled from other places than only from author rewards. Pull some percentage from author, some from witness, and some from sp inflation.
I agree. While the proposal is great in general, I'm not sure if "Proposal funding to come from author rewards pool" is a good idea, especially if it really only comes from there. After all, this kind of major change should be decided by some votes. @dpoll is an option and I actually hope @blocktrades first build a good voting system on their own.
I'm with Dan here, the author pool is the community's life blood, while there are many whales who could easily cover these costs, especially if split among many.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yeah.... I dont think you would have a lot of success with the "donation" route. The distribution right now is extremely one sided, the richest accounts getting most of the STEEM, meaning that you can throw away any notion of the "community" donating anything.
Best you can hope for are donations from a extremely small number of, lets call them, charitable whales, like yourself, Blocktrades, Acid, etc.. But even those donations would remain extremely small.
I would rather go with the taking from the reward pool option..
If @blocktrades could maybe answer, how would a reduction of author payed inflation look like in relation to post payouts? The stats presented are overall token distribution.
If I'm not mistaking, what they are suggesting would result in a 20% reduction of post payouts across the board.
Wait, an aprox cut of 20% per post on author side?