You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Bounty 20 Steem: Should we fix SBD?
You are taking him almost completely out of context with the "SBD has no utility" pejorative... Here's the context:
| the objective of SBDs is stability and without it they have no utility
I completely agree with this statement and if the decision is to not in any way maintain a peg, or seek to maintain a peg, or change the peg THEN SBD has no utility. If that is the case what is the point of it all and should it be removed from the protocol?
That entirety changes it all up, but you do make a good point about "not needing to power down" which is a 13 week process. If we dispense with SBD and "the peg" to U$D then our 50/50 could be Steem and SP I suppose.
Steem provides this utility. Ie if there is too much SBD in circulation the blockchain pays rewards in SP and STEEM. So that is not a utility of SBD. What SBD provides right now when it trades above $1 is higher rewards. But the intended utility of sbd is non existent when the peg is not working.
Agreed, but I still think that the embedded market control system of SBD issuance is slowly bringing about the "peg" that would show STEEM is a stable and marketable cryptocurrency. The ballooning supply of SBD is bringing down prices faster than any other moves and as explained by your boi @lexicomical, this is simply from the higher post rewards. Looks to me that the system is working rather well. I'd just be interested to find out if this is by original design or a result of HF19 or a prior hardfork.
@knircky