RE: I submitted my first hardfork pull request to the Steem blockchain! (Updates to the SBD print rate.)
Thanks for taking the time to make the contribution and do some of the heavy lifting with regard to code alteration... While your changes make sense on paper, it does not account for the huge circulating supply on Steem already on the market, what people fail to realize is the Marketcap of Steem is inflated given that Steem is added that does account to monetary exchange, for example, 100 USD trader base on 50 Steem at price 2 dollars would give figure of 50 times 2 which would give it 100, that 100 trader can bring market cap 1000 if the seller wants 10 per Steem. But we also have to account for Steem models that basically pays in Steem, but there aren't typical buyers willling to support that price, crisis comes when everyone wants to sell (prolong period), then your 10% calculation would sink the market by that factor.... I know most people don't like to hear it but we don't have volume/liquidity to support the high Steem price we are trying to achieve, the most market appropriated approach would be the print SBD base on the market rate, this would significantly dry up supply of Steem as less Steem and SBD would be printed to support Steem demand... The major issue here, some tough choices has to be made, Steem supply is to large, SBD high price isn't the problem... We also risk killing the enthusiasm high SBD comes with and turning off traders, its a matter of combing between these two worlds but Steem trading volume even before the market downturn has been pitiful... What we should focus on is getting Steem trading volume up to that 100-300 million trading volume, and work with 1 USD as a flow rather than set in stone, if we should use Tether as reference it typically has trading volume of 3-5 billion USD roughly translating to 2.5 billion circulating Tether... Base on those numbers realistically Steem would need to have Marketcap of at least 125 billion to support SBD... I am saying this to say, our targets should be getting Steem trading volume to realistic 100-300 USD trading volume, trying to print more without thinking of rough times like we are experiencing now, would make this a recipe for disaster, for me working with a floor and taking advantage of purchasing more Steem to soak up supply or cash out may be more prudent rather than these over zealous witnesses scaring traders.... Another thing we have to change here is our attitude, we can't have witnesses talking about dumping Steem on the market and Stinc would be doing the same, what kind of moral does that leave... The system presently isn't robust enough to deal with abuses, so even that takes away traders.... Once again thanks for your contribution
Sorry, but I do not understand your com. Also there are a few things that you are saying which indicate you do not fully understand how the STEEM/SBD mechanics work. I suggest reading the whitepaper if you haven’t already.
There are a few comments where I responded to a few concerns which sound similar to what you are raising.
Thanks for your response, I think I rest my case on this matter I would continue to power down, there are a few thing that you are saying which indicate you do not fully understand how the Steem/SBD mechanics work. I suggest reading the whitepaper if you haven't already that's a good enough clue for me
Good luck guys....
I am trying to understand what your concern is, but I’m sorry your comment is not clear.
I think... and please Daudi correct me if I'm wrong. I think what he was trying to imply is that if we force SBD down, the speculators that we depend on (in his opinion) to prop of the price of Steem and SBD would lose interest on this blockchain.
Maybe, because the volume of steem is low already (most of steem is not liquid, its locked up) and without volume runs can't happen in a sustainable way.
So, maybe (i'm reading the comment again for the 10th time) the argument is that by keeping the SBD low volume as a debt token against Steem we are creating a "false" scarcity of some sorts, thus enabling possible pumps on a low market cap crypto (which of course is how it works).
Again, I say... If I'm wrong interpreting that comment, I'm sorry. It's not very clear.
I happen to understand very well the argument for a pegged asset and the value it could bring to the commerce aspect of the blockchain. However, I'm of the idea that having some liquid rewards be speculative could be enough incentive as to bring speculators (we need them, we don't sell ads) to participate of the space, thus giving us liquidity.
So, I happen to think. that what Polymath said above.
Which is something apparently you proposed yourself might be more in the middle for most, and won't make some Steemians run to the hills in fear.
Just my two cents... Hopefully I made sense.
Thanks for trying to clarify. It sounds like he is reading way too far into this change. It should have minimal influence over anything related to trading volume, and there is still plenty of room for speculation. It is a relatively minor tweak to correct a condition that seems to be against the best interests of stakeholders.
I appreciate the kind reply Tim, I for one think that as much as this is important, because it obviously is. The biggest shift on the platform needs to be cultural. But that is a conversation for another day, for another post.
I happen to think lots of the organic demand for steem might come from an app than anything else that we could tweak on the code.
Case in point Steem Monsters. I never played magic the gathering, but I happen to think that the Steem Monsters game is going to fix this lack of organic interest (from regular Joes actually investing) we require for runs to be sustainable and it will offer a viable model for mainstream adoption...
Time will tell, but 12k in sales in a week is pretty bullish to me.
In any case, thanks again
Cheers
this is really bad . but steemit is really not so much helpful