RE: Why You Shouldn't Criticize Liquidity Monopolists: Liquidity Is More Important Than Spread - It Gives Steem Value!
I feel like this argument isn't altogether honest. People haven't been appointed. They earn the rewards because they trade the largest sums in Steem/SD as market makers. Otherwise they'd get replaced by those who could essentially stake larger sums.
Secondly, with this autonomous fund, you risk spending more than with liquidity rebates, which is why liquidity rebates exist. In practice, in some periods that may not be the case but that's a very credible risk.
Assuming no wash trades, in one case you are paying someone 1200 each time he provides liquidity, in the other case you are paying someone (the autonomous maker) 1200 regardless.
Assuming wash trades, wash trades can't carry on all day without providing at least some liquidity, given that limit orders will be placed by agents other than the market makers, so you would still be paying less than the agent who is receiving 1200 Steem an hour regardless.
Why? Because you'd be paying for the liquidity they provide, rather than just paying to equip them with the tools to provide liquidity.
Satanic price)
hahaha
I feel like my criticism is indeed honest. It doesn't matter if they were appointed or not, either way it is a huge waste of money. Sure, there is some liquidity being provided, but it is not largely "useful" liquidity (a decent amount of liquidity close to the price feed).
As to your other point, you misunderstand how my proposal would work. Any liquidity incentive scheme you could come up with will cost stakeholders 100% more STEEM than my proposal. Read what I wrote here, that should clear it up... not all dilution is created equally:
Oops, didn't read that part.
That's a pretty good idea, and I would endorse it actually.