First I'll start with a self-congratulation for being so awesome. Why? STEEM Backed Dollar. It went far above the dollar peg it was "supposed" to trade at. Many started calling it broken and wanted to "fix" it. After hearing these demands which I considered unwise jargon I called for Free Market All the Way!!! approach.

 Some people needs to see the price back at the actual value. As a Free Market advocate I'm opposed to doing anything regarding the situation. 1 SBD can be converted into 1 USD worth STEEM. It's much like the original USD which was a claim on 1/20th of an ounce of Gold. If the market is willing to pay more, Let it pay more. There is no Aggression happening.It's not breaking apart steemit or STEEM. It's actually good for the people who had few SBD in their accounts. It will even lead many people to convert their SBD into STEEM Power making them even more invested in the platform. 

STEEMBackedDollar is like a gold backed dollar or paper gold. It's a note that say you can exchange this for X amount of Y. It was designed to be converted (not exchanged) to 1 USD worth STEEM. It's a safety net mechanism that was assumed to be stable but the free market pumped it up. SBD now has $12 price tag and $1 intrinsic Value" 

 All you need to understand is that SBD only worths 1 USD at the end of the day. People in Venezuela pay massive premiums for USD. People in Zimbabwe are buying BTC at almost 50% higher prices. There really is no harm done in these activities. 1 SBD is still just 1 USD. Some people are just overpaying for it.Market will take care of things as long as NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) is upheld. Just change the way you look at the world. Price and value are different things. The worth of SBD is as still what it used to be. None of that has changed. The scenario isn't any different from USDT going for $1.01 

Of course unlike $1.01 USDT we had people overpaying more than even $15 for SBD. But it was the same scenario. As SBD has value in the ecosystem, it will maintain itself above 1 USD and both @haejin and @ew-and-patterns are expecting $30+ price (not value) for SBD. Then today I saw this article from @ew-and-patterns https://steemit.com/money/@ew-and-patterns/dan-larimer-interview-is-a-must-watch-i-resteemed-it-on-my-blog Please go visit the blog and maybe follow for some very useful articles in the future.

Another something to fix: Flags!

Well there is a massive lot of discussions, fighting and drama involved this and I'm not going to talk about them here. I'm no drama queen despite being very vocal about the matters. I'm a massive fan of simple elegance. It's one reason I love Dash. They keep all their systems simple, focused and backed by strong fundamentals. 

Let's see how you earn money on steemit. First there is this thing called a reward pool. Think of it like the block reward of BTC, Dash, BCH etc. STEEM has 9.5% annual inflation rate that is reduced by 0.5% each year. Currently the rewards fund has 702,670 STEEM to be distributed for the week. People make weighted upvotes and flags (downvotes) and after a week a post gets rewards in proportion to the net upvotes it has received.

Both upvotes and flags have the exact same impact. Their only difference is one allocates the reward pool by rewarding someone and the other allocates the reward pool by taking away someone's rewards. Please let this sink into your minds because this is important. >Lokking at the reward pool on a macro scale, upvoting peron X over person Y is very much similar to flagging person Y. 

Let me ask you to take a look at this: https://steemit.com/meme/@docdelux/how-dare-i-make-a-capitalist-meme

Above is the reason I'm so against casual flagging. We are reaching 50,000 active users on steemit. If someone has a huge amount of SP and decides to drop a flag worth $100 everyone would be earning $0.002 that's 1/5th of a penny. On the other hand if a whale use a $100 upvote everyone would be loosing $0.002 That's reward pool rape. A post earning $1000 means you are loosing a grand total of 2 cents. If a person made $1000 or even $100 that person would be motivated to post much better content to gain more and more upvotes. A person loosing $1000 in a flagging war will react the opposite way and post less quality content or leave altogether.

As a rule of thumb think Each $500 post makes me loose a cent I could be earning. Then ask yourself "Do I need to start a war because of this cent?"

Also there is one more question I need to ask you guys.

Does steemit has more Positive content than Negative content?

I don't want to talk some jargon about who deserves what. Just tell me what kind of consent are negative. Spamming is bad. Promoting terrorism is bad. Promoting piracy is bad. Plagiarism is bad. Spreading false information is bad. We can add few more to the list. I'm sure steemit has at the very least 10 times more positive content with any amount of value compared to the ones I mentioned.

So why does Flags are as same as upvotes in power? Human Actions cannot be controlled without tyranny. What can be and should be controlled are the incentive structures and we crealy have them somewhat misaligned. First I'll ask you to read this great post about the power of incentives that has been behind IMO the best "Digital Currency" project in the crypto-sphere: https://www.dashforcenews.com/6-ways-dash-uses-economics-solve-technical-problems/

 Too many moving parts means too much complexity means too many ways things could go south. Simpler systems are harder to exploit. Simpler systems are easy to implement, easy to use and easy to change without fear of apocalypse.

So what if flags cost 3% Voting Power or even 4% Voting Power. Let's see how the creators setup the incentives. Their logic was that flagging doesn't give you curation rewards. So people would be careful when flagging and they will have the incentive to use flags only against negative content that would harm the platform. 

But in reality minnows are too small to make much from curation and whales are too big and they don't even care about curation as they are already so rich. Ultimately this incentive structure would only effectively affect the dolphins. From my personal experiences on the platform I can say that this is actually working on the dolphins. 

Now let's look at 3% VP for flags. Not many would go around flagging left and right if they had to choose between 3 upvotes+positive interaction+curation rewards Vs 2 Flags+negativity. People will require of themselves a very good reason to use their VP on flags. So naturally the flags would concentrate on content than can easily be identified as "Bad for steemit" (Spam, plagiarized content, promoting terrorism, spreading false info etc.) 

If we make flags eat up 4% VP, users might even get pushed to organize multiple steemcleaners-esque groups/initiative to combat spam and other negative content. They will communicate their discoveries and work to keep steemit clean. As twice the flagging power is required to wipe out an upvote, people would try to convince other people to flag for the sake of the quality of the platform. This way we can make sure less flags are used because of hate and flagging wars and most of the flags are actually used on content with zero or even negative quality.

 Anybody who posses a gun can shoot anybody or anything according to the person who sell it. Ability doesn't mean it's a Right. If we walk this path we could simply be flagging each other in a flagging war which would be extremely counter productive.A gun is designed to be able to shoot and kill. But only in certain circumstances the firing of a gun is justified.  For an example you can walk into a school and shoot the kids down. The gun doesn't lock itself. It fires all the bullets. 

 Aggression is wrong.
Might doesn't make anything right.
Anything that doesn't violate NAP isn't wrong and shouldn't be acted against.
Force can only be countered with equal or greater force.
Anybody has the right to agrees against the first breach of NAP as long as the following aggressions doesn't far exceed the original aggression.
Right permits might.
Acting against a first breach of NAP isn't a crime although it could be morally impure/ a sin. 

 Justice is more or less pointless after the damage has been done. Prevention is better than cure. The greatest justice is prevention of crime. A crime is an aggression against a person's life, liberty, property. Law & Order should under no circumstance should punish the second aggressor for anything that doesn't go above neutralizing a threat to a non-aggressor's life, liberty, property.Justice is pointless if it's a stable that is closed after the horse has escaped. The point of Justice is allowing framework for the Non-Aggressors to become immune to aggression. 

These are the principles I stand by and I make my suggestions and take my stance based on this philosophy of NAP and prevention of Aggression. Just tech and some functions wouldn't work. There should be a "why?" based on an outlook into the future consequences of our present day actions. 

Here are some closing thoughts.