Some thoughts on the post put out by @donekim and @upvu...

I recently proposed the idea of using the steem.dao to buy and burn steem by submitting a proposal to the steem proposal system and then using the sbds from said proposal to buy steem on the internal market and ship em to the null account, effectively burning them.

Those ideas can be seen here:

https://steemit.com/steem/@jondoe/what-if-we-used-the-sbds-created-every-day-in-the-dao-to-buy-and-burn-steem

https://steemit.com/steem/@jondoe/using-the-dao-sbds-to-buy-and-burn-steem-how-we-can-make-it-happen

The steemit.com user @donekim of upvu recently put out a response to my idea, which can be seen here:

https://steemit.com/hive-101145/@donekim/sbd-steem

My comments and responses to some of the questions mentioned in the above post...

(Source: https://steemitwallet.com/market)

1. Based on my understanding and experience with the Internal Market, the order book is run by bots, it's automated. When one order is taken out, a new order shows up courtesy of bots resupplying liquidity that they presumably buy off external exchanges when inventory gets low enough. So, just looking at the current volume and liquidity (especially when SBDs aren't even being paid out to anyone) won't give an accurate description of what the internal market could feasible process were a program like I suggested above be implemented. The only way to know for sure is to test this out and see exactly how much volume the internal market can support. As we can see above there is very little liquidity, a large spread, and a thin order book. I suspect that as we buy STEEM off the ask and start moving up the price, more and more orders will continue to show up due to the automation of bots I mentioned above. That being said, I can't say for sure this is how it will work out without actually testing it first. The good news is that should we try testing it, we can always stop it immediately if it doesn't work like we hope.

2. This is not market manipulation, but instead should be framed as instituting a program to help SBDs trade closer to the dollar peg, and in the process moving that value from SBDs to the main coin STEEM. The entire program only really works or makes sense as long as SBDs are trading north of a dollar. Should SBDs fall below a dollar the program can be stopped immediately and things go back to how they are right now, albeit with most likely a bunch of steem burned and higher steem prices.

3. I recently spoke with several developers would said they could build the script to make the service automated and completely transparent to everyone. Being gamed wouldn't be so much of an issue if the service continuously buys steem as SBDs flow into the account. There is no accumulation of funds, no set time to buy, etc etc etc. It's all flowing and all fluid. The crux will depend on how much volume and liquidity the internal market can actually support and like I said above considering its all automated, it's impossible to tell without actually trying it first.

4. I am strongly against the DAO being used to fund any other kind of development. I just am. Over the years we have seen this abused by developers who either don't ever deliver anything or deliver much less value than the amount of value they have taken in. I suspect the exact same thing would happen here as well. Part of the point of having steem power and making everyone an owner in the ecosystem is that they will be incentivized to work to increase the value of their stake. Developers should be incentivized to increase the value of their holdings and not paid huge chunks of money from the DAO with no accountability as to how those funds actually get used. Hard NO from me on using any funds from the DAO for anything other then the buy/burn of STEEM I mentioned above.

Overall I think this is worth testing out, though like I said I would only support the DAO being used for the buying and burning of STEEM as it helps everyone proportionately. I am strongly against using the DAO to fund any other projects like is suggested at the end of the @done.kim post. The lack of transparency and accountability makes it a non starter for me.