Your post is much better. It explains SPS but still I think SPS needs to have a mechanism where it always produces something profitable.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Your post is much better. It explains SPS but still I think SPS needs to have a mechanism where it always produces something profitable.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
I believe SPS funding is being seen as a tax, and while I understand that, I feel it is a bit of a misunderstanding of the idea of the system itself. The shared pool is based on inflation and therefore everything that is spent from it is bringing down the value, unless whatever it funds adds value back to the ecosystem itself.
This inflation should then be allocated to what adds value and can return that value. Currently content rewards are receiving the highest allocation of this inflation. Is it returning the most value? Could it be beneficial to allocate some of that to a system that may bring in additional value?
As an example - if the SPS is used to fund a marketing plan that brings in additional investment and users, it has actively added value back to the ecosystem. Or if the SPS is used to develop a mobile app that somehow solves the onboarding and/or retention issues, it has added substantial value back to the ecosystem.
While I agree that a mechanism that somehow produces profits makes sense, essentially the idea is that this proposals that will be approved will add value back to the ecosystem over and above what was funded initially. If the proposal adds no value to the ecosystem, theoretically it would not be funded.
Also, there could be a proposal for a "burn" which would then just cut the inflation which increases price to so supply and demand. There are many different ways this could be used to put profits back in the system itself.
My opinion on the SPS is it gives the community the power to encourage these beneficial improvements and the shared funding to do it.
I do very much understand the concern though and as someone who only makes STEEM when I post.. I get how removing anything from the pool sounds terrifying.. but I also see how we need improvements here and I think if we had them the STEEM I currently hold would be worth way more. So I few it makes sense to use this shared inflation pool for just that.
What do you mean by profitable?
Exactly, the community needs to define what profitable should mean but if you're going to fund projects they need to be profitable in order to justify it. Otherwise what justifies it exactly? It's like a VC or shared fund run on votes but the whole ecosystem funds it so shouldn't it profit the whole ecosystem?
It is ultimately up to voters. I don't disagree with your assessment that it should profit the ecosystem and that will guide my voting (honestly I think we could use a lot more if this when it comes to content voting too). I can't speak for others.
I agree. I proposed an idea over a year ago now to add metrics for content producers so producers could track certain things. I mentioned follower metrics, I mentioned sentiment analytics, etc. If there is going to be some sort of ad revenue or if bringing traffic is something worth measuring, and if it is feasible to measure which posts are doing what, why not?
Content producers need to know the impact their content is having and when they produce good content how many views it brings to the Steem front end website for example. Someone could write an article or put out a video which brings lots and lots of people to join Steem or discover the Steemit website but they'd have no way to know which articles are bringing the best results. I'm all for changing that.
In fact, I think it would be cool if content producers could get bonus revenue based on how many views they bring. Example someone writes a particularly interesting article and it snowballs or goes viral? This in my opinion should provide passive income long term for the writer of the article as well as benefit the website hosting it. How do do that though? Some sort of token with a combined chrome/brave extension?