if he burns then the supply gets smaller, if he declines supply stays the same

This is especially useful in the case of SBD oversupply and converting the earnings to SBD before burning as I am doing here. Earnings from this post directly reduce the amount of SBD and return that value to the stakeholders by reducing supply.

The other advantage I see is those who vote this post will have their curation reward. This doesn't penalize those who use bots to give visibility to your post. For these reasons burning post rewards is preferable to refusing them in most case if not all cases. Maybe this should become a feature that could be automated.

I agree with you. What it comes down to is that anything where voters use their valuable vote power and don't get a share of curation rewards is effectively penalized/discouraged. Another example is voting post-payout. The developers see it differently though, and continue designing features which deny voters curation rewards (and therefore create these perverse incentives), such as the recent proposal for comment voting.

would be awesome if "deny rewards" meant - give curation to voters yet burn SBD. i hope one day it gets added (fixed)

Voting post-payout affecting voting power is plain weird I agree. No curation reward for comment is debatable. I'm not set yet.

I agree. Curation is free market. Capital will find its way out. If there is no room to stay, it leave.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.25
TRX 0.14
JST 0.033
BTC 51492.57
ETH 3040.67
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.17