RE: A simple, radical change to Steem that could fix most of our problems.
@tcpolymath I know I'm late to the party, but could you make a follow up article explaining the math behind this idea of having Steem investors getting 100% of their stake rewards.
I'm asking about the math because, correct me if I'm wrong, I think Steem currently has a monetary inflation rate that is decreasing at a fixed yearly rate. Would your proposal require Steem to be minted at an ever increasing or exponentially increasing rate of inflation?
In this new hypothetical proof-of-stake system for Steem if we set the inflation rate at let's say 2% would upvotes raise the inflation rate above the baseline/default inflation rate?
I'm not saying that I want Steem to have a deflationary policy; I just want to point out that the success of Steemit Inc is primarily measured by and for better or worse primarily determined by the price of Steem. I think having an inflationary monetary policy with a speculative cryptocurrency i.e. a crypto coin whose value constantly fluctuates is a bad idea, because some content producers are trying to live off the value of Steem and I think most people don't want the value of their income to constantly fluctuate.
Would it be possible, in your opinion, for all investors and users to invest in Steem and only receive their stake rewards in SBD and would it also be possible to have an SBD that is actually relatively price stable like Tether's TUSD or MakerDAO's Dai?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Steem currently has a diminishing rate of monetary inflation and would your proposed system require Steem to adopt an accelerating rate of monetary inflation, to put differently?
Would the fear of raising the inflation rate be the primary reason as to why Steemit Inc chose to divide the stake reward among Steem's various types of users/participants rather than have each and every user receive a stake reward that is exactly proportionally to the amount of Steem they invest in?
I would also like to ask if the circular effect you talk about when describing how proof-of-stake coins work to increase their own value over time is in fact a positive feedback loop. The critical mass effect that you say is required to make a proof-of-stake coin become popular and self-sustaining in the long-run sounds like the reason why ICOs exist in the first place if I'm not mistaken. I think ICOs are better at creating the required critical mass for the widespread adoption of a proof-of-stake coin than mining or airdrops, the latter of which has recently become very fashionable. Could you also more clearly articulate what you mean by "critical mass" in a follow up article?
I would also love to hear your opinion on the U Network (the UUU token) and if it can effectively solve the upvoting problems that currently plague Steemit.
I'm not really pushing this anymore, though I'm ok that some other people have taken it up, so I'm really not going to do followup posts, but I can answer that briefly.
I don't see why this would be necessary. There's not any new Steem being created, just a portion of the rewards pool is getting carved off to give to people who would rather have it directly. So when the inflation rate is 8%, you would be able to elect to get 8% directly, or have your 8% tossed into the voting rewards pool to be distributed by that mechanism. The rewards pool would be driven entirely by people who had elected to do that. So the inflation rate could keep decreasing, that would be fine.
My understanding from what Ned has said is that the primary reason for the upvoting system is to get Steem into the hands of as many people as possible by making it possible to earn it in what's essentially a free-to-play system. I may be reading into that too much, though. (In any case, while it has worked to get a lot of people a little Steem, it kind of flopped at putting an effective amount of Steem in the hands of a broad populace.)