Think about it. If you're good at gaming the system then you want to change the rules of the game as frequently as possible because you can adapt faster and stay ahead of the masses who are slower to respond. It is a sound maximiser strategy.
Think about it. If you're good at gaming the system then you want to change the rules of the game as frequently as possible because you can adapt faster and stay ahead of the masses who are slower to respond. It is a sound maximiser strategy.
Very true, but in this case the system would be changed so there was nothing left to game. It doesn't really make sense in any context; it's just a bad idea.
Don't be so sure. Inflation still goes to witnesses, so gamers can focus on witness ranks. Then there is the "2nd layer" tokens to implement and reward content that way (Similar to how LEO has been implemented). Considering the old bid bots have been effectively ring fencing their own communities, token creation and gaming the platform via community tokens is an obvious next move.
Great points.
But let's not forget that those second-layer tokens have to exist before we even begin the discussion of removing the reward pool. And before that the technology to build the tokens has to be developed. HiveEngine is not an acceptable option; it's just a single centralized database. I guess that didn't stop anyone; counting those chickens before they hatch.
I tend to agree. I was not a fan of SteemEngine when it first came out, but I consider it now a bit like a "proof of concept". Yes it's centralised but it's allowing some innovations to prove that they can work. Hopefully one day we'll get SMTs, the worthwhile tokens will be able to migrate over and get implemented properly.