STEEM IDEA : ... Enforcing STEEM investment ...
A few months ago back when @ned and @dantheman were working on the KISS hardfork that would simplify the system so as to
minimize the potential for failure, maximize the potential for optimization, build a stronger case for fairness, and more effectively communicate the system’s value to new participants.
..somebody suggested something that initially threw me as defeating the whole idea of steemit.
My initial response was to reject this idea as I was emotionally attached to many of the economics to the system, especially those that protected users investments. However, it only took a few minutes to convince me that the ordinary social media user does not consider themselves an investor and one of the greatest hurdles I've had when telling people about steemit was explaining that I can only take out half the money I made. That's when eyebrows are raised and onboarding becomes a challenge.
The response to the idea was an even worse idea (in my opinion)
While this would be OK for those users who make $300+ per post, for the increasingly large amount of users who usually make between $0.14 - $3, it would take a LONG time to get to the required amount of SP (I believe it's over a thousand) to power down and actually witness these tokens as real spendable money.
Before I move on to propose a compromise, lets look at some of the arguments made by @demotruk, @smooth, @pfunk, @bitcoinparadise, @j3dy and @riverhead.
Benefits of Enforced Investment
As a stakeholder in the STEEM blockchain, anybody who makes any rewards has some say in where the next rewards are allocated. In addition, they also have a voice when voting for witnesses who have the power to approve or disapprove of changes to the blockchain among other responsibilities. This sounds like a great idea, until you consider the drastic disparity between accounts who trend every day twice a day, and account holders who would leap for joy about one $50 payout post in a month of lots of < $1.00 payouts.
Another benefit is that stakeholders investments are protected when users cannot sell 100% of their rewards at once, flooding the market with every payout . . . until you consider just how low the majority of these payouts are and just how small an impact they would make on the market.
So how about a compromise ?
Considering what small payouts new users make, and what a small impact those payouts have on their power on the platform, I suggest we set a ceiling for liquid rewards before the excess becomes vested. Of course I'm not suggesting putting a cap on how much liquid rewards can be earned since there are many fund-raising projects which require the money immediately to cover the costs of building. Instead, I would suggest a second ceiling, at which point the distribution returns to what it is now - 50% / 50%
For instance, given a ceiling of $25
- if a post paid out at less than this amount then the full amount would be in liquid SBD which could then be sold for STEEM and powered up, or it could be sold for bitcoin and cashed out.
(Or eventually we can just spend straight from the STEEM wallet for expenses!) - if a post paid out at more than that but less than $50 then the first $25 would be in liquid SBD while the excess would be in vested STEEM POWER.
- if a post paid out more than $50 then the 50/50 rules which currently apply would again be applied here, so that 50% or the rewards would be vested while the other 50% would be liquid.
Who decides the ceiling ?
Before the debate of what's too high and what's too low begins I'd like to suggest that ideally the ceiling wouldn't always be the same and it would depend on how the witnesses vote. If it could be applied so that each witness sets their own limit to how much users can make as liquid rewards alone, then the blockchain could always decipher the median of the 19 votes and go with it. That would allow for experimentation between witnesses to observe market reactions.
Consider it a consolation prize for the many users who try to make it on the platform only being disappointed by the rewards when the same overvalued posts trend so regularly.
To me not allowing a full instant cash out of all funds and receiving them as a 100% steem or sbd makes sense. You got to think of scaling applications and user bases before you think of these methods and considering most people make less then $25 a post this is just a way for people who are newer or receive lower payouts for many reasons to cash out quicker. Pretty sure the average is like $3.50-$6.00 a post.
The current method is fine in how it is yes the payout times are much longer but every post you can assume you will make more. Assuming you make good quality posts. New users or people who make certain content need to realize it takes time to earn more. The payouts are also a hell of a lot faster then they used to be for cashing out sp. I understand people want their money and they want it now but on scale with many more users there will be a flood on the market with avg or below average payouts.
The whole idea if you make more then others you should wait longer then other idea is what ever and can be seen as a penalty of being popular or writing very good content.
Either way as a application developer for the front-end for the blockchain ill just get paid sooner if this is to change this way id rather not have to wait on 14 weeks payouts as well. But like i said before i don't see this being a solution for scaling.
I don't think offering a tiny benefit to making smaller rewards means also penalising users who make greater rewards. Though god knows there is a sense of entitlement that seems to breed around here.
New users cashing out early is an important part of the process in converting crypto-skeptics to crypto-enthusiasts. Instant cash outs are necessary for that. We're seeing a lot of new users now, but I've seen a lot of users leave early on because they never made enough to actually bother figuring out how to sell it on an exchange and realise it is real money.
I Iike the compromise. As soon as my friends ask me if I can cash out it slowly leads to disinterest. They care about college, rent and bills. We need to hold them and then teach them to grow their power once they're in the fold.
It's not KISS, but I like it.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the second half of May 23. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $19.63 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: May 23 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
interesting idea. i also wonder sometimes if there is could be an option to receive power in other bitshares assets built on steem such as @zappl. i'd like to get my rewards in 50% steempower and 50% zappl.