You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: BidBots, Abuse & Curation: Addressing the Elephant in the Chain, Gazing Into The Abyss.
The source for the 6$ statement is this: https://steemit.com/steemit/@steemitblog/steemit-update-hf21-testnet-sps-eip-rewards-api-smts
That being said it is true that these issues are mathematically complex and so we are in the process of onboarding a Math advisor to Jaguar Force in order to understand and cover these issues in a more rigorous manner.
I cannot find the statement anywhere. Maybe I am missing it. Could you cite the paragraph?
Posted using Partiko Android
Link corrected.
" As shown in the charts, 2e12 approaches our current linear rewards at roughly 16 STEEM, which is why we feel it will provide a meaningful and balanced change to Steem’s economic distribution."
The labeling on that graph is a bit unclear but I think it measures the reward in relation to the current reward curve. The property that something will become more rewarding in relation to the current reward function does not imply anything since the new economic system will be different.
Posted using Partiko Android
See the comments in that post, smooth, ats-david and josephsavage appear to be interpreting it in the same way, as in: The rewards curve goes linear for posts around $6 and above.
I don't see them saying that they will use the 2e12 curve:
They say they think 2e12 is good. But, it doesn't seem like a done deal. They do say that they really want this type of reward function. But the constants will determine when the new function is worse or better than the current linear function.
Yes the information provided is as usual ambiguous, but by saying "which is why we feel it will provide a meaningful and balanced change to Steem’s economic distribution." we feel it is being implied that is the curve that is included in the proposal and even in the testnet, and although It is not a done deal as you say, it seems to be the curve to be implemented if the HF21 passes.