Btw, your math is off. I can't figure out what youre doing, beccause its so convoluted. But its off. HEre is the correct way to figure debasement.
since 90% of new SP goes to increase SP balances, nd the other 10% goes ot fund newly created vests, we can just u the total supply doubles, with all of the new steem from the doubling delivered to the vesting fund.
so where X is the % SP we hold initially, the new total amount of SP will be
X+100
However, in addition to the SP supply doubling, the amount of total vests has increased by 10%. so we are going to devide the new vesting fund by 1.1, to account for that. (which is about the same as multiplying by .91)
.91(x+100)-100=P
this is the percent increase in our vest value in steem.
p+100/2 is our new percentage of total steem
so for 100% steem power
out SP increases in steem value 82%, and our total share of the money supply decreases from 100% to 91%...
the breakeven starting point for SP is around 81.818181%
the debasement of "liquid" steem is easy. Its simply the inverse of 1+ the percentage increase in the money supply (expressed in decimal). So if the money supply increases by 100%, its the inverse of 2=.5 if the money supply increases by 10% its the inverse of 1.1, or .90909090909
Disagree.
If you do not understand some math, then it is illogical to claim it is incorrect.
I believe your unnecessary involvement of vests is convoluted.
Disagree.
Incorrect. Only 95% of the new supply created is assigned to SP. The other 5% is assigned to SD (aka SBD).
You appear to be highly confused. The SP doesn't necessarily double. It depends on the ratio of SP to non-SP, since their sum is the money supply and 95% of the money supply is created as SP.
I won't bother to unravel the rest of your confusion. Please try to take the time to understand my math. I will try to explain it more in Part 2. I think you unnecessarily complicate your understanding by trying to think in terms of vests, which afaics is entirely unnecessary as illustrated in my math.
I do understand the math. The correct math. Yours is incorrect. because you explain it so poorly, with a bunch of scammy sounding double talk, i can't figure out precisely where youre going wrong, but its somewhere. *
You are correct that the SP doesnt necessarily double. If you read the statement you quoted, i do not claim it doubles. It would only exactly double when X (the percentage of steem held in SP) is 100.
Your thesis is easily disproven by an analysis of the actual numbers on steemd.
*EDIT i figured out where see my other comments.
I wrote if you don't understand my math, then it is illogical to claim it is incorrect. Until you can be specific on the mistake in my math, then you are just speculating (which is not math).
I didn't go to your blogs and insult you claiming your math is wrong and being unable to proof mathematically and show where the mistake is.
If you will (especially amicably) clearly explain for everyone, then that will be helpful and appreciated. But lazy accusations create animosity.
@sigmajin at this point you are creating useless noise. See the bolded italic text in my other reply. I am not going to reply further on your attempts to obfuscate by throwing undefined terminology and walls on irrelevant minutia verbiage all over the map. My model is per the white paper. And it is correct.