"So am I reading the gist of this right? You were given Dash funds for submitting a community proposal of promoting Dash and now you are doing the opposite on a different platform?"
Hah, yes, it would appear that is true. Of course, he did deliver what he was budgeted for with the Dash...it's not like he has a permanent non-compete with other cryptocurrencies.
I think it may also be worth noting, that (as I understand it) Jerry's departure from the dash community was not exactly disputed, so I don't believe anyone had complaints about said Dash budget by that point.
"I do not think changing the witness pay structure would really be wise"
What factors lead you to this conclusion, is it not still highly profitable at 50% block rewards?
For the top 20 absolutely, but it would make it less sustainable to have backup witnesses. We want 20 optimally, but we need to be able to sustain at least 50 or more.
A reduction would just cut off the number of backups more than it would affect the total income of the Top 20. But I have no real better solutions to offer up. Finance planning and modeling not really my area of expertise.
"For the top 20 absolutely, but it would make it less sustainable to have backup witnesses. "
Is that because the allure of the top positions would not motivate as many to do so, or is there another reason I am ignorant of? You'll note Jerry's article did not call for reducing block rewards for backup witnesses, only top 20.
"A reduction would just cut off the number of backups more than it would affect the total income of the Top 20."
Interesting. Perhaps an evaluation of how many worthy backups are available would be valuable, although we must already have at least 15 or so now.
Of course, the hope with all of these changes is that the resultant price increase in Steem would more than make-up the difference, which I think would be a good gamble even if we didn't have Dash's model to compare to.
Appreciate the discussion.
"Worthy backups" is an interesting term. Right now many are aiming for the top 20 in the hopes of riches.
Reducing that incentive can go two ways: one, it will eliminate the backup witnesses that are doing the bare minimum and have no genuine interest in supporting the Steem blockchain while begging for votes so they may profit (thereby empowering "worthy backups") or, two, it will discourage the witnesses that are genuinely interested (aka are "worthy backups") and are skilled at maintaining reliable servers but lack the finances.
I would think that the emphasis would be on option one. We launched our witness purely to support the blockchain and to build off it but I can't speak for others.
Assumption is that uplifting of STEEM's value will compensate the loss. 130x2 and 260x1 are the same, if it works.
The 50% reduction is only for the top 20 witnesses. The back ups remain the same
This is an important point that I think some of the comments have overlooked.
sir you are rock
250 steem per day is quite a bit especially when price goes up.