You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: (Very) Basic stuff Steem needs to fix: my personal list

in #steemlast year

Still don't get how removing the reward pool would be good though since its Steem's only edge over existing platforms (although it still kinda sucks atm, will see when communities swing by). Removing it just makes Steem no different than these platforms, and not even accounting for the burden of the blockchain. Moving it to an SMT is likely gonna "decouple" it as it also becomes harder to list on exchanges and there'll be lack of bandwidth demand since it's just easier be on the traditional platforms when there's no reward pool.

As for SBDs, maybe a consideration is to make it better instead of removing it completely since a native stablecoin does seem to be the requirement for mass adoption.


The main thing that is required for SBD to be better is for STEEM to stop plummeting in value. It isn't necessarily the only thing, other tweaks might be needed and this was understood when some improvements were made in HF20 but we wanted to take a conservative approach and make one tweak at a time.

No crypto-backed stablecoin is possible if the crypto backing plummets too much and too fast. DAI would also fail (to remain stable) if ETH dropped like STEEM. BitUSD failed similarly several months ago.

As for the reward pool, I think the argument is basically that the system overall doesn't work in the sense that the high inflation contributes too much to the investment being unattractive, ultimately destroying the asset value, at which point the rewards become negligible anyway (which is what has happened). Your comments centered around differentiation, and that's certainly a valid perspective, but differentiating by being worse is hardly useful. Given such a choice it is better to be less differentiated and perhaps try to come up with other ways to stand out.

Yes, you're right. As I mentioned in the OP, this is purely a personal thing. I'd rather see a niche, but sustainable one, with people building their own communities; than offer a USP that has proven to be unsustainable. I'm quite surprised by the reaction in the comments, I totally expected more people to support retaining the reward pool. But I understand that perspective too.

I'd be happy to give SBD another go with completely new protocols. Alternatively, one can also consider integrating DAI. There are ways to limit STEEM's debt to DAI by very smooth curves that ramp up very conservatively (or not at all) with temporary price pumps.

Well, right now SBD comes from reward payouts, which is what automatically ramps up with the STEEM price, so if you got rid of STEEM reward payouts you could, and indeed would have to, completely change the mechanism surrounding how SBD gets created.

However, you can't in general place arbitrary controls over the supply of any stable coin, or it won't remain stable. You have to choose between stable price and unstable supply or stable supply and unstable price (or perhaps some point in the middle with nothing being actually stable, but just volatility-dampened).

The DAI protocol does the supply control required to keep it stable. Evidently, it has managed to hold close to $1.00 even through very volatile phases.

All STEEM has to do is manage its debt to DAI. Which, yes, will require a paradigm shift, not ramping up DAI purchasing when the price pumps temporarily, etc. All of this is just throwaway thinking-out-loud, of course, and I'm well aware it's not going to work for multiple reasons with Steem in its current state.

The DAI protocol does the supply control required to keep it stable

It keeps the price stable, not the supply. The supply can ramp up very rapidly, even more rapidly than SBD.

Another semantic misunderstanding, I meant supply control = controlling supply to keep the price stable. I didn't mean supply stability, obviously.

I guess I just don't understand what you propose to use DAI for or how it would be used, but that's okay, we both know it isn't going to happen realistically.

I was just thinking out loud, since the argument is that there's a need for stablecoins on Steem, and other dApps that need stablecoins are starting to integrate DAI. Obviously, it's never going to fit the current Steem model, so let's move on.

Earlier Dan Larimer have suggested the gradual forced redemption of SBD for Steem Power, which, if implemented, should make SBD more stable.
While the forced redemption hardly would be accepted, the voluntery might work as intended as well.
I mean, when being in the haircut area, by doing convertion we might get a check box to choose whether we want to get 90/80/70/60 cents for 1 SBD liquid, or to get 1$ for 1 SBD, but locked in Steem Power.