RE: My take on HF21
Thanks for your thoughtful engagement, we need people like you to be party to such proposals early on and bring up concerns such us micro interactions and how the convergent linear curve threatens that. Community voices like yours aren’t heard as much as they should be which is why in a separate post I have proposed a @tokenbb forum for things like hardfork discussions rather than them happening in slack channels which are not accessible to most.
I also like the simplicity of linear as mentioned by @revisesociology and convergent will make it harder for apps to calculate returns etc that users will receive. I also agree that 50/50 kills certain business models and it is part of the proposal I don’t really like. I also agree that whales don’t have time to curate and likely won’t change their behaviour, they will just code a bot that picks up when a post is starting to get traction and then gang vote with their trail.
The problem is these reward splits are being discussed in the context of steemit.com and little thought given to the fact that the landscape has evolved and there are many other apps in the ecosystem now that use rewards in different ways and now will be disrupted and have to retool, slowing down development on new things.
I however don’t agree that witness pay should be impacted solely, witnesses need incentives to run good servers and have backup servers etc, to be on call 24/7 incase the chain halts due to a malformed json error like happened once before, witnesses were running on 3 hours or less sleep on that day and one even drove back home from hospital to attend to his servers, we also have lots of discussions on important matters such as this. Lowering pay to witnesses is the same as lowering pay to bitcoin miners, soon after no one would want to mine and process transactions. I also don’t agree that witnesses will get preference on the SPS proposals, some might but the community is bigger now and many big stakeholders and alliances exist that can sway the proposals towards their members, the PAL community for example or the Steem Business Alliance to name a few that could have strong enough membership.
Agreed on your witness counterpoints. I really wasn’t clear enough, but I agree the SPS should not fund solely from Witness pay, but that it should be a contributor in the mix, as well as SP interest, to have a much lesser impact on the rewards portion.
I’ll be interested to see how the SPS plays out exactly, but top witnesses by nature only hold their position by gathering voting support, so through their existing contact network and infrastructure alone they’ll be in a much stronger position to leverage the SPS from the outset.
I’m very interested in the forum. I did see your post and thank you for taking that initiative!
Thanks for the discussion @bryan-imhoff, I am with you 100% that the SPS should be funded from all sources, the split I proposed is fairly equal across all, basically reducing all by 10% and rounding to the nearest round number so we don't deal with decimals. If the forum goes ahead I hope to have you engaging on it.