You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Locking stake for 100% passive income, improving content, helping apps
Yes, it can leave the pool a little dry but at the same time that will also put scarcity on the markets and push prices upward (hopefully) and encourage new users in. While they might not be getting rewarded in Steem, they can be rewarded in SMTs that are powered by that Steem. Isn't that the eventual goal anyway? This should essentially force new users onto the applications and games to earn and give a kickstart of users to all the apps as they transition to SMT distribution instead of Steem.
I think... :)
"also put scarcity on the markets" I don't know if that is going to be true. The overall inflation will be the same regardless of who it goes to. I don't think it is valid to assume that passive investors won't cash out what they earn, which would put the same downward pressure on the market as if a content creator or curator did the same.
If we are bringing SMTs into the picture, why not just eliminate STEEM rewards altogether? @clayop has brought up a proposal along these lines. It is an interesting idea.
I would tend to agree. Inflation is inflation with much the same effect unless it is actually and effectively directed to pay for activities which add value to Steem. Very little current author and curator rewards fall into this category (it would be nice to try to improve that, but unless we do I think you are right).
That would be my preference. My proposal on this was to airdrop a STEEMIT (or some other name) SMT onto all STEEM/SP holders and the latter would take over the rewarding function. Everyone can then hold or buy/sell the token or combination of tokens that they desire: the native/core low-inflation bandwidth and governance token (STEEM) or the inflationary rewards token (STEEMIT).
I’m in favor of that proposal.
I don't see the market scarcity manifesting in any good way. Anyone who is currently excessively self voting or delegating to bid bots is already locked up in SP which isn't trading on the markets. Adding an investor class lockup doesn't change any Steem scarcity as current users "flip the switch". It only could presumably influence Steem price by bringing in new investors who are coming in now on the prospect of sidestepping the original Proof of Brain mechanism of Steem. Essentially we'll be hoping for Steem price appreciation at the tradeoff of making 60-80% of Steem used exclusively for self voting. At that point I think the whole system fails.
Proof of brain as a standalone distribution mechanism has already failed. This idea suggests a hybrid approach to visibly distinguish the returns from PoB from passive income, so those who want to participate in the PoB don't get discouraged by drowning in the rest.