You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Thoughts on the Steem Proposal System (SPS)
Your solution for the worker system is sensible and fair but it doesn't look like we're headed in that direction at all.
Asl far as economic improvements one of the goals is stated to discourage delegating and bid bots. As I check the accounts of many witnesses their SP is delegated.
I fear that my business model will be destroyed by the EIP. I reward good comments with an upvote in an attempt to increase engagement, I upvote my own post but give way more back in prizes on my contests and I don't use bid bots.
I'm very concerned about my future here as I have bought paid over $20,000 for SP based on a different economic system.
I honestly don't think that current earnings will be all that much different for people with our SP levels. What we may lose in post rewards we can make up in curation. There will be a period of time where things will seem to be in limbo and rewards will appear to be heading down, but I think they'll balance out.
This has been an issue since the beginning. I even made many remarks about this back in 2016. Changing economic protocols isn't good for recruiting investment. That's why we need very good rationale for doing so and we need to make sure that we get it right in as few changes as possible.
But right now, things are definitely broken. It would have been great if people had listened to sane voices before all of the protocols were changed in HFs 17-19. We could have avoided the last two years of absolute destruction of the economics and the social atmosphere here. A lot of these problems were predicted and the previous rationale for the previous code pointed out that, without the protocols originally chosen, we'd likely see exactly what we've seen. When some of us questioned the changes and asked for explanations, we were ignored or, worse yet, vilified and/or shunned.
It's extremely important that we get things right this time around and going forward from here. I'm not confident that HF21, as currently proposed, is the right move.
I'd prefer to not have the SPS right now. I don't think it's necessary. I don't believe that, if only we had a worker proposal system, Steem would be much better off than it is today. A lack of such a system isn't why things have gone downhill.
Pulling funding from content rewards as a whole while trying to improve incentives for stakeholding and curating is counter-intuitive. I don't know how these devs and witnesses can propose and seemingly be on board with this. It's just sheer ignorance/stupidity, in my opinion.
Meanwhile, we have too much STEEM on the market, an inflation rate that will continue growing the amount beyond any foreseeable demand, and now a new system is proposed that is meant to be used to pay for devleopment/marketing...which means those tokens will likely need to be sold at market prices.
I would much prefer to put off the SPS, eliminate SP "interest," reduce consensus witness rewards, and then go forward with the EIP. I think we'd see much more upward pressure on prices and a better overall experience on the platform for users (assuming anyone can get a user interface right around here).
I think most of the complaining about the EIP right now is a little absurd, given the state that Steem has been in for two years...when those protocols were changed for the worse. We need to get back to a place where we have more sound economic incentives and reward allocation. We need more baked in accountability and abuse mitigation, like we had previously. The EIP doesn't even resolve everything. It's just a first step. I'd prefer to see the delegation protocols deleted from the code, a change in the daily vote target (to 20 votes per day), and a few other rollbacks/improvements.
But I know none of that is going to happen. Maybe in another two years when I'll be vindicated again. If anyone is still around by then.