If I were @ned , this is how I would change the system #2

There were lots of conversations going on in the kr- community because of the kr-1000 club tag. If the tag was for noise marketing, it seemed successful. If it was sincere and was not a marketing method, it didn’t seem successful and it’s hard to achieve anything with it.

There are different reasons between people but the main reason I started to invest in Steem was the Steem white paper. Now you would wonder what part of the paper made me do that.

The first thing that motivated me was the Abstract part.

If you have the opportunity, I recommend reading the Steem white paper if you’re investing in Steem. You will learn what Steem pursues and what it aims to achieve.

The Abstract part mentions these three principles in the outline. Only a few would decide not to invest in Steem after reading these principles. It is that appealing.

I consider the top three principles crucial.
Firstly, the ones who contribute to a venture are mentioned that they will be rewarded from the Steem block chain and it is currently functioning in that way.

Because the third principle referred that various products will be created, I don’t oppose to Seu dal kkang (A Korean term for paying Steem dollars for upvotes), randowhale or self votes. It is the way that the Steem block chain pursues.

Today’s topic is what I would change if I were @ned, and it’s going to be about the second principle of the white paper. Steem equates the value of capital and labor. But the current coin distribution shows otherwise. The value of labor is priced higher than the capital.
As a result, the price of Steem is undervalued and it is becoming the reason for conflict of interests.
The recent controversy over the ‘1000 Steem power club’ is essentially the conflict between the capital group and the labor group. So there is no right or wrong in this situation.
The two groups are both expressing reasonable opinions.

Let’s look at the distribution of the new coin.

• 10% Witness fees (Close to the value of labor and capital)
• 15% SP interests (Closer to the value of capital)
• 18.75% Curation rewards (Closer to the value of capital)
• 56.25% Author rewards (Closer to the value of labor)

Currently 90% of the new Steem coins (excluding the witness fees) are distributed to the users. According to the 2nd principle of the Steem white paper, the value of labor and capital should be equal. Therefore the 90% should be distributed 45% each to the labor and capital.

But at the moment, 56.25% of the 90% is being distributed to labor value, and 33.75% is distributed to the capital. The value of labor is 11.25% overvalued. As a result, Steem power investors are sensing that the two values aren’t equal and problems like the thousand club controversy are arising. A lot of people are supporting it too.

(Image source : http://www.fmkorea.com/296313445)

Human beings are very intuitive. Without reasoning, people instinctually know the way that is more beneficial. That’s why wherever you go there will be a shortcut like the image above.

The current Steem block chain is over pricing the labor value than the capital value. As a result, the users are instinctively hesitating to invest in Steem, and this is unprofitable for neither the capital nor the labor provider.

There is no reason to overvalue the capital but nor is there a reason to undervalue it. There are needs to equalize the value of capital and labor according to the Steem white paper.
If I were @ned, I would change the current coin distribution as follows.

• 10% witness fees
• 10% SP interests
• 35% Curation rewards (https://steemit.com/kr/@yoon/77wp9d After reading this article, I found my logical errors, so I corrected the rewards from 40% to 35%)
• 45% Author rewards (https://steemit.com/kr/@yoon/77wp9d I corrected it from 40% to 45% after reading this.)

If it is distributed this way, Steem might become the first crypto currency to equalize the value of capital and labor.

What are your opinions?

This post was translated by @zoethehedgehog