Ah okay. Thanks again for your reply!
I want the peg as the end state, but didn't think this reverse conversion would work.
The cited abuse path does make the assumptions you stated, so it is likely something you been have already thought about. And it sounds like you have measured the risk of this to some extent and the spread at least could mitigate this. Hell even a large spread would still make me want to do the reverse conversion in the beginning anyway if I had spare steem.
To be honest, if there are enough risk mitigation factors and fail-safes in place, I would not be opposed to this procedure, as a peg is a completely sensible thing to have.
However, do you think it makes sense to see how the market reacts to the current rate of printing? Because it does seem to be a relatively new phenomenon. (Although I suspect your position here is that this is already too long, the two months)
Not only the two months so far now, but this is the second occurrence of largely the same phenomenon. It happened last spring as well, and took about four months to resolve. So over the past 12 months, the peg has been working only 6 of those months. To me it is clear by now that this is not only not working well, but imposing real costs on Steem in terms of both distortion of the intended incentives (curation, vesting, self-voting) as well as missed opportunities to attract business and capital with a working stable value token.
Thanks for jumping in here @smooth with some thoughtful comments. This is a great little thread of discussion right here. I just need someone with more voting power than me to bump the original comment to the top for me.