You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "Losing 20%" : Low cost for high gain?
1 point I'd like to make is that there are people that buy food with their post payout. Try telling someone struggling to get by in Venezuela to take a 20% paycut, on top of how much they have already lost out from the bear market. I get the big picture, and the long term benefits and all that, but why should the little guys have to pay the full price of this without impacting on those that could most afford to lose a little in the short run? My suggestion: Take the "worker"funds out of the pool first (10%) and then keep the rest of the funds with the same distribution rates. Everyone pays a smaller price for something aimed at benefiting everyone. Why should just 1 group have to pay for something to benefit 4 groups?
I am also paying for my food via STEEM, and have done for over a year. 20% off my earnings, living in Spain means back to work for me. I understand this isn't an option for some, and think the 'what about Venezuela' point will crop up a few times in the next few days.
Blocktrade's comments thread will likely yeald a better arguement than mine: https://steemit.com/blocktrades/@blocktrades/blocktrades-beginning-development-of-steem-proposal-system
Personally, I don't think a 3 year old blockchain project should be given a pass/fail for its inability to support Venezuela.
I think author rewards are the least important of the 4 (or 3 if you group comments in?). There will always be authors (Steem will always pay better than Facebook) but a cut on Witnesses could see an exodus. Chopping curation, which has a huge push to be increased recently (that didn't happen), could see the end of anyone trying to discover and support the best content. Bringing Author rewards closer to Curation could see a change for the better for content discover?
As Taraz mentioned, there is no risk here to the un-invested creators with no SP. If the large-staked holders chose to sell we wouldn't be discussing this for much longer.