You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Symbiont{s} | ECOBURN | SBD Price Regulation Experiment

Currently, the SBD price is getting closer to the $1 peg; however, market depth remains very low, which makes it susceptible to significant fluctuations. Historical data indicate that market uncertainty within certain ranges invariably undermines arbitrage opportunities and discourages participation. This phenomenon helps explain why the SBD price has consistently remained within a narrowband around its peg regardless of the haircut value.

As the saying goes, code is law. We agree that all mechanisms should operate under a decentralized governance system. What happened with the accounts you mentioned clearly demonstrates that social or community-based agreements do not possess true immutability and can easily drift away from their original purpose. We actually had the opportunity and were able to nullify some negative effects after the Hive split, but it is clearly a path that we should never take again in the first place.

We are in a position where any misuse would result in a much larger loss than if we simply pocketed the fund. While we are not expecting significant support, our goal is to limit funding to a theoretical level calculated to absorb enough value to positively influence the price over a period of 3.5 days. Any excess funds would be burned.

Sort:  

Update in favor of the loop approach after the end of the brun proposal.

https://www.steemit.com/proposal/@remlaps-lite/may-global-supply-and-inflation-review-for-proposal-117-last-update-before-the-proposal-closes-1-8m-sbd-reduction-little-change

Conclusion

The key lesson, to me, is that when STEEM is below the haircut price, reducing inflation probably matters less than reducing the haircut price. So, what are the key lessons from proposal #117 (to date)? Maybe one lesson is that Steem has its own version of Don't fight the fed.. We tried to adjust the blockchain's inflation rate by burning STEEM, instead of SBDs, but it turned out that market dynamics soaked up most of the inflation progress we could have made that way.

The key lesson, to me, is that when STEEM is below the haircut price, reducing inflation probably matters less than reducing the haircut price. This is because the gap between the current STEEM price and the haircut price drives the amount of rewards that are paid per post. With the "peg ratio" set at 0.465, posts are getting almost 50% of the rewards that they'd get above the haircut price (in terms of STEEM). If that ratio had been allowed to fall to 0.375, authors and curators would be getting about 20% less rewards for their blockchain activities.

Considering the last point, maybe the thing the witnesses should think about next is a proposal that takes SBDs from the SPS and cycles them in a loop doing: convert to STEEM (lowers haircut price) -> buy SBDs -> convert to STEEM -> and so on, until the haircut price drops below the price of STEEM. Then when the peg ratio eventually climbs above 1 (assuming it does), return the SBDs to the SPS.

Once upon a time, the community tried something like this with voluntary contributions and the @sbdpotato account but in the years after SF22.2, that didn't work out very well. Back then, we didn't make use of the multisig capability that the witnesses are using now, though.

Or, maybe we should all just shift our focus over to cultivating and supporting post promotion.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.04
TRX 0.33
JST 0.096
BTC 61916.70
ETH 1737.12
USDT 1.00
SBD 0.39