I think a better proposal would mirror @burnpost in trading the SBD for STEEM if the price of SBD is $1+, and burning the resulting STEEM, and either burning or converting (via blockchain convert function) the SBD if the SBD price is <$1 (some additional nuance is needed for dealing with the haircut rule, which I haven't gotten into here).
These could be two different proposals (one to trade-and-burn and one to burn or convert-and-burn) but that requires stakeholders to be constantly adjusting proposal votes in response to market prices to accomplish the same maximally-beneficial effect, which is probably worse.
Burning SBD when it is worth more than $1 is actually harmful to Steem stakeholders so I wouldn't support this proposal as-is.
It might be a good idea later on.
At this stage I want to see how proposals work out.
I also don't want to waste resources in a furnace while massive dumping is going on.
1000 is a lot!!
That's like saying we don't want the steem proposal system.
Well technically it's like saying we don't want half of it. Because right now looks like 2000sbd are being added each day.
How come you went with 1000sbd instead of 2000 or just 1 million like the refund?
I wanted the proposal to burn a significant amount without necessarily being overwhelming.
If people want to burn more, can easily make another proposal as well as this one. I didn't want to go with a huge number that could very quickly eliminate the DAO funds, because if this was pushed up above the return policy maliciously (for example because someone lowered the return policy in order to facilitate something else, and then this was pushed up in response, temporarily having a false kind of consensus), that any damage it would do would be limited by the time it was up.
The idea is to somewhat reduce Steem inflation when it is desirable, not to eliminate DAO funds entirely, asap.
Another way to do this would be to have multiple smaller proposals (say 100 SBD each, or perhaps an assortment of sizes like physical coins: 100,100,100,100,500,etc.). As many as desired could be voted up and the rest voted down.
I think a better proposal would mirror @burnpost in trading the SBD for STEEM if the price of SBD is $1+, and burning the resulting STEEM, and either burning or converting (via blockchain convert function) the SBD if the SBD price is <$1 (some additional nuance is needed for dealing with the haircut rule, which I haven't gotten into here).
These could be two different proposals (one to trade-and-burn and one to burn or convert-and-burn) but that requires stakeholders to be constantly adjusting proposal votes in response to market prices to accomplish the same maximally-beneficial effect, which is probably worse.
Burning SBD when it is worth more than $1 is actually harmful to Steem stakeholders so I wouldn't support this proposal as-is.
👍
hash
Nick Program
Nice
nice
It might be a good idea later on.
At this stage I want to see how proposals work out.
I also don't want to waste resources in a furnace while massive dumping is going on.
SBD is debt, we're not burning resources but debt. It's only in the unusual case when SBD is above $1 that we are losing out by burning SBD.
Posted using Partiko Android
hello
This post has been included in the latest edition of The Steem News - a compilation of the key news stories on the Steem blockchain.
I keep get a "something went wrong" error. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong to turn this into a proposal?
o
Hi 👋🏽
it might be a good idea
1000 is a lot!!
That's like saying we don't want the steem proposal system.
Well technically it's like saying we don't want half of it. Because right now looks like 2000sbd are being added each day.
How come you went with 1000sbd instead of 2000 or just 1 million like the refund?
I wanted the proposal to burn a significant amount without necessarily being overwhelming.
If people want to burn more, can easily make another proposal as well as this one. I didn't want to go with a huge number that could very quickly eliminate the DAO funds, because if this was pushed up above the return policy maliciously (for example because someone lowered the return policy in order to facilitate something else, and then this was pushed up in response, temporarily having a false kind of consensus), that any damage it would do would be limited by the time it was up.
The idea is to somewhat reduce Steem inflation when it is desirable, not to eliminate DAO funds entirely, asap.
Another way to do this would be to have multiple smaller proposals (say 100 SBD each, or perhaps an assortment of sizes like physical coins: 100,100,100,100,500,etc.). As many as desired could be voted up and the rest voted down.
voted.
you have a point but still it depends on the stakeholders ☺️