Smooth's first and main point is that the rewards are too large for the size of the community which is giving incentive for abusive behavior. (see his first post linked above) It's a nicer way to say "Reward Pool Rape". (can reward pools give consent?) To burn the rewards punishes good and bad attempts at earning it equally. It is not an effective tool for fighting abuse.
The most expensive and shady reward pool behavior is executed by some of the largest stakeholders we have. I want to see a greater and broader distribution of the steem to more stakeholders. If we have to see some scammy behavior, I would rather see some spammer get a few dollars than limit distribution.
We have tools - upvotes and downvotes to control where the reward pool goes. Nobody wants to curate, but everyone wants to control the flow of the rewards?
I do realize limiting supply can improve the price. I'm not interested in the short term games. I think what we need as fast as we can get it is a better spread of the wealth. I am willing to sacrifice short-term gains to work towards it.
It's just an opinion. I find the discussion around it interesting.
My issue is that it limits both "unshady and shady" behavior equally and does not address any of the issues of the platform.
At best it pushes all of our problems down the road without solutions. I am not upset about people allocating their stake to burn.
I am just returning the small amount I control back to the reward pool where I think it belongs. I am willing to be swayed and enjoying how this is being discussed.
Interesting that you would do that, may I ask what the reasoning is? Taking money from the rewards pool and burning it just lowers the inflation rate.
I can see the pros, but wonder what you think the cons are?
(not being confrontational at all, just wondering)
see above response
Out of curiosity: what's your reasoning for flagging?
Smooth's first and main point is that the rewards are too large for the size of the community which is giving incentive for abusive behavior. (see his first post linked above) It's a nicer way to say "Reward Pool Rape". (can reward pools give consent?) To burn the rewards punishes good and bad attempts at earning it equally. It is not an effective tool for fighting abuse.
The most expensive and shady reward pool behavior is executed by some of the largest stakeholders we have. I want to see a greater and broader distribution of the steem to more stakeholders. If we have to see some scammy behavior, I would rather see some spammer get a few dollars than limit distribution.
We have tools - upvotes and downvotes to control where the reward pool goes. Nobody wants to curate, but everyone wants to control the flow of the rewards?
I do realize limiting supply can improve the price. I'm not interested in the short term games. I think what we need as fast as we can get it is a better spread of the wealth. I am willing to sacrifice short-term gains to work towards it.
It's just an opinion. I find the discussion around it interesting.
To the extent that is accurate, it is making the distribution worse. Allocating here at least keeps it the same. That's limiting the damage, no?
My issue is that it limits both "unshady and shady" behavior equally and does not address any of the issues of the platform.
At best it pushes all of our problems down the road without solutions. I am not upset about people allocating their stake to burn.
I am just returning the small amount I control back to the reward pool where I think it belongs. I am willing to be swayed and enjoying how this is being discussed.
Thank you for your response!
I appreciate all of the opposing viewpoints.
I give smooth credit in that his course of action is:
voluntary
does not benefit him directly
promoting conversation and awareness
It does (or at least, could) benefit me to the extent it increases the price, although not disproportionately relative to other stakeholders.