If you think that WP will bring more value of STEEM than the destroy, so the equation is: adding up 9% to 10% to the value of STEEM than increase (destroy) 1% to 2% of the inflation that won't hurt the final value of STEEM, isn't it?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think it will bring more value in the long-run as long as we do not forgo something else that is more important to the ecosystem. That's why I think witness and curation rewards should remain untouched.
Adding inflation could create a perception problem, which could be avoided by using author rewards. Besides if SPS (WP) adds more value to Steem, authors will be better off.
Another problem is author rewards are high compared to curation rewards. Taking from authors will close the gap.
¿In need of newer epiphanies @spectrumecons?
Not at the moment. The ideas in the post need to simmer for a while longer. As I suggested in the post, the ideas should be tested as an SMT. It would be difficult to predict exact changes in behaviour. Logic indicates it would be more favourable.
An easier to digest approach, as I discussed in earlier posts, would be to increase curation rewards to 75% plus downvote pool and curation payouts in SBD as well as SP.
How do you feel about the current author rewards?
Do you feel that the rewards you receive for your content are representative of the value that your content brings to the community?