You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why The Worker Proposals By @blocktrades Are Bad: A Viable Solution Instead
Why not just take a equal cut from 5% of all the reward mechanism at an "equal" rate so that way we dont have to increase inflation and everyone on the platform is invested in the success. Either way is essentially doing the same thing, but skimming from current rewards has less external ramifications.
Posted using Partiko Android
Because the benefits of SPS inure directly to stakeholders, and only indirectly to those whose work creating, curating, and witnessing create all value Steem possesses. Do you want VP to be based on rewards? That would be silly! VP is based on stake, and polls to effect application of SPS will apply VP. Improvements will produce price impacts on Steem, which is directly benefiting stake, not rewards.
Why dodge the reality that the authority to vote SPS is based on stake, and therefore the responsibility to fund SPS should be based on stake?
If rewards are taxed, the incentive to create benefits are reduced. Stake which does not create benefits then gets a free ride, which increases the relative power of stake which neither creates, curates, nor witnesses. Do you really want to provide incentive for stake to do that? Because that's how you do that: tax rewards to fund SPS.
The benefits of SPS inure directly to stake. VP which will determine SPS application is based directly on stake. Since both the authority to effect SPS and the benefits of SPS are determined by stake, so the responsibility for funding SPS should be based directly on stake.
Don't decrease incentive to create incentive for investors. Create clarity and control for investors to produce SPS funding that produces the gains they seek.
That could be done although that proposal is not on the table.
Ned brought up a point the other day about the Witnesses. He took it from the security perspective although I see two problems.
A) there are already many of the lower ranked witnesses who are not making money with their node. It is a losing proposition and cutting their return could cause more to close down.
B) this was Ned's point. You want the witnesses making a lot of money to secure them from being bribed or taking outside money. This makes sense. If someone is borderline, they are open to be corrupted. Not a 100% level of protection but it is a barrier.
Corrupt people are going to be corrupted regardless of if they are making money. Im ok with witnesses making a little less money along with everyone else.
I also dont see the deal with a few witnesses shutting down who arent making money. New witnesses will always come along and take their place.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yeah, we are break even at the moment with not a lot of hardware. I suspect any cuts will likely rule out profit (near term at least) for pretty much all witnesses outside the top 50. It's top 20 or not a lot at present.
They're talking about 20% from the piece of the pie that is over half of the pie.
But I agree they should take a piece from all 4-5 sections witness, authors, interest ... I can't remember all the sections.
And then I think they add some extra inflation like suggested by the author