Reducing author rewards by ~20% seems significant. Couldn't this be spread out amongst the various categories?
Since a large portion of the curation and interest rewards go to large-stakeholders (I'm assuming it does... I haven't checked) and the fact that the witness percentage goes to a MUCH smaller pool of individuals, my gut is saying that the more equitable way to find the ~11% share for the SPS would be something more in line with:
- Reduce Author percentage from 52% to 48%;
- Reduce Witness percentage from 11% to 10%;
- Reduce Curation percentage from 16.4% to 14%;
- Reduce Interest percentage from 16.6% to 14%;
Considering that Witnesses and Large stakeholders have the most to gain from improvements to the backend, shouldn't they be investing into the SPS? Taking all of it from the author reward pool seems to be more like 'taxing' the userbase. But I could be way off here.
Either way, I think the SPS is a good idea. But I feel like the request for payment is being directed to the wrong pool of people.
It reminds me a bit of "DCC"s (Development Cost Charges) related to subdivision and municipal infrastructure development that we deal with at work.
Land developers make money by creating houses and communities, but it also requires the City owned infrastructure (water, sewer, etc...) to be developed to service the communities they'd like to build. Since there is a large profit incentive for developers to create these communities, portions of the munipal infrastructure (SPS) is funded by those who benefit the most (large SP holders, witnesses, etc), because it's unfair to place 100% of the funding burden on the tax-base.
Just a thought.
EDIT:
To clarify -- I understand that the ~11% of rewards is for funding the SPS once developed and ready. I think the point still stands, since the projects that will be funded by the SPS are still ultimately building value in to the entire ecosystem (and predominantly, large stakeholders will benefit) -- the SPS pool should be funded, at least in part, by those that have the most to gain.
Taking purely from the author side of things is crazy. There is a 100% pool to pull from, spread out the costs to everyone.
Why decrease rewards at all? Rewards exist to provide incentive to create value that inures to Steem. Decrease rewards, decrease the value of Steem.
SPS will fund development, and that development will be intended to increase the price of Steem, creating capital gains and increasing the value of stake. Funding for SPS should be drawn from stake directly, rather than decreasing incentive to create value in Steem, and this hit's all stakeholders equally, from redfish to whales. It also potentiates capital gains for all equally according to the stake that capital gains will impact.
Retention is a horror show presently, and decreasing author rewards by almost 10%... I don't even... Well, any decrease in author rewards will decrease retention more, and we are not growing now. Many witnesses are barely breaking even, or not at all, now. Witnesses will flee in droves if we drop their rewards almost 5%, leaving the blockchain much less secure. Decreasing witness rewards is the last thing we want to do.
I disagree that SPS should be funded by decreasing rewards at all, but what you propose is at least better than the scorched Earth 20% proposed above.
Let's just eliminate curation rewards completely. It's just rent seeking anyway, and has no relation to content quality. In fact there is an inverse relationship between increased curation rewards and increased content quality. The more profitable curation is, the more is delegated to bidbots, and the more curation is just ROI without any consideration for content quality.
Eliminate curation rewards completely, and the only reason people would vote would be to reward quality content.
I could live with that.
Yes I like this a lot better!
I think some thought should be put towards whatever the split is -- I was just tossing some numbers out there as a starting point. I would imagine that there's some kind of comfortable and sustainable middle ground that everyone could agree on.
Whether or not it ends up being addressed is another story. I wouldn't hold my breath -- at the end of the day, stake tends to win here. And those with stake tend to do what they can to protect and increase their stake.
Everyone always wants to take from someone else's pie, I like that you would have everyone give a piece of their pie to the betterment of steem blockchain.
Agreed!
Could be a great option! Hope that they will put this on the table too!