RE: Steem experiment: Burn post #2
I can't believe that as people all over the world are potentially starving and desperately working for Steem to support themselves, an initiative has been created to burn Steem out of existence.
Is there any reason that it wouldn't be better to spread the rewards from an effort like this across underprivileged Steemians around the globe who have been scouted as worthy?
I appreciate the concept's mission to help the reward pool's health in the long run, but this makes me sick to my stomach. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the mechanics or logic behind burning valuable Steem which minnows and human beings are desperate for.
I vote for an experiment to share the Steem more fairly from a benefactor pool, not destroy it. Thanks for your reply if you get the chance.
To the extent this is successful in increasing the price (which is quite likely since a significant amount of STEEM will be directly purchased from the market for the burning process) then it does benefit all Steemians, whether underprivileged or not.
Thanks for an amazingly quick reply and vote. I hear you, but want to propose the counter-thought that perhaps people in need are a higher priority than making sure every investor gets maximum return on their holdings via market price value.
For example, I haven't had 100% voting power in months, stuck well under 60% down to 28% because I love voting for others to help them. I don't care about maximizing my rewards because helping others is my highest priority.
To this end, I suggest a simultaneous experiment to see if people would vote to distribute the rewards, and let the numbers show which is preferred, or just do both at the same time.
I'm not nearly as experienced here as you are, but perhaps a different perspective could spark some additional positive change.
All stakeholders already have the ability to do exactly that, by voting for the posts or comments they believe should receive rewards as you suggest. So I would claim we are conducting that exact experiment already!
Understood. But you have the platform most don't. While all stakeholders have the ability, we both know well that many of the influential ones (via SP) sit on their hands, vote for their favorites, or let their bot delegations do their curation.
In principle, what you said is completely correct. In practice, watching on the ground floor daily, consensus seems to be that it's a miracle to have that occur in meaningful ways. Most stakeholders are minnows playing with bingo chips.
I really appreciate you taking the time to engage in discussion.
"people in need are a higher priority than making sure every investor gets maximum return on their holdings via market price value."
This would seem demonstrably (and obviously) false, as Steem is definitively NOT a charity, and definitively IS something you can invest in, ie. an investment.
What makes you think this is a charity, or that others who put real money in should?
You do realize what engaging in Steem charity does, right? Tiny mouths all dump immediately to feed, suppressing price. Investors may hold, increasing price.
Thanks for catching my comments and sharing valid points. Since you asked:
In my view, in any society, platform, or world, People > $.
Charity > than building investor wealth.
Helping others in need is the best feeling in the world. Burning $ to make holders with real money more wealthy is beyond upsetting, etc., in my humble eyes.
"Charity" increases global awareness, goodwill, adoption, and utility, which would actually make Steem worth much more in price in the long run, if it's truly supposed to develop into a worldwide global currency. Is that logic not fair?