"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.