The most often referenced number is 1%, and I do not consider that to be a token amount, it is a 10% reduction when the starting total is only 10%. In fact I have long term concerns about the sustainability of witness funding given the declining inflation schedule, so I do think that cutting it even further is dangerous.
But really the main reasons I don't think it should be done are:
- It confuses two different things: a) core blockchain maintenance, which is an essential function to keep the blockchain working at all, and b) investor funds which are spent (via inflation) to try to promote Steem, grow Steem, and generally make Steem successful, which is the underlying purpose of paying content rewards (it isn't simply out of charity or entitlement).
- The purpose of the reallocation is not punitive or even any sort of sacrifice. There is no sense in which "sharing the burden" or "fairness" rightly applies here. It is a decision to spend some of the ongoing budget differently and hopefully accomplishing more going forward, including for the benefit of content creators.
I just have to disagree. And not with any of the facts you have eloquently referenced. It is over the sourcing coming entirely from the content part. There are many and perhaps valid points you have outlined above but it just smacks of witnesses looking out for themselves.
It looks arbitrary to me and it also looks as if it was decided amongst a biased group. Of course the witnesses wouldn't vote for any kind of cut to their allocation. Were there many non witnesses in that discussion, relative to the whole I mean?
There are always options. what about the ten percent coming from the rewards pool before it is split between witnesses, content etc?
You speak on behalf of securing the chain and the witnesses themselves. I have very valid fears that anything that further discourages content creators will ultimately see the demise of the platform and not in the long term. The situation is already dire.
And I am genuinely not saying this from a worried I will lose out perspective. We need the SPS. I hope it helps us move forward but I disagree with the sourcing of that ten percent.
I can't speak for everyone. Sure it is possible there are some with that view. But, truly, you are as far as I know making this accusation with no evidence at all, and simply on the basis of how it feels to you. Is that fair?
Anyway, it is stakeholders who are in charge, not witnesses. If stakeholders think that this isn't going to improve their bottom line or just isn't the right approach, witnesses who support it can and will be voted out and we go back to the drawing board on something that stakeholders will support (or alternately perhaps do nothing at all and keep things as they are). Witnesses are really just the messengers, not the ultimate deciders. (Some, perhaps most, are of course also major stakeholders, so their views carry additional weight and authority on that basis.)
This is exactly the same as the 1% (10% cut) from witnesses already discussed.
So you think that instead of shifting 10% from the content pool, if we instead shifted 9% from the content pool and 1% from witnesses, this dire outcome would be averted? We're discussing here, an increase in the resulting content pool from 65% to 66% of total inflation. That is literally a 1.5% increase in each payout, all else (Steem price, etc.) being equal. You think that will save the (Steem) world? Consider me quite skeptical about this.
On top of all the other points I mentioned, the bottom line is that nearly all of the budget is now going to the main content pool. Shifting of any percentage from the content pool has the smallest relative effect, and has a much bigger effect elsewhere. The 1% we are quibbling over is about a 1.5% change in the content pool, and would be a 10% reduction to witness rewards. You do the math on where that makes the most difference and carries the most risk. I have already stated my view.
I understand where you are coming from emotionally and philosophically in terms of "fair" and "sharing the pain" and all that, but ultimately the substance of the argument doesn't hold up.
You say it doesn't hold up but you don't seem to be able to grasp the point of view of the average user of this platform. You can argue ( hopefully not heated) at much as you like with the numbers and how little or how much difference or makes but the perception to the average user is that this is unfair
That is my point that that anything further to discourage content creators is not good. We can talk about safeguarding the security of the chain till we are blue in the face but if there is no content beyond the guff we are seeing there won't be a chain to safeguard.
This portioning as I stated looks to your average user to be unfair. That's my point. The average user has been ignored and maligned to date and this looks to compound that further.
And this
The winesses decided this.
Wouldn't the freedom/pumpkin vote negate your average non whale users even if they acted en masse? I would like to see the numbers on that.
I don't think the stakeholders ultimately do decide unless you bring it back to stake and that is wholly different kettle of fish because if the freedom/Pumpkin stake
By whom? I certainly don't malign the average user and I would like to think I don't ignore either, though certainly it isn't possible to pay individual attention to all of thousands or tens of thousands (or possibly more) average users.
No, witnesses have provided input to the developers to help decide what is included in the proposed release. Witnesses (and stakeholders) have not yet decided whether it will be approved/activated. If not then it will be back to the drawing board to come up with something else, or perhaps nothing will change.
In point of fact we don't even know if freedom/pumpkin supports this, because no one to my knowledge has discussed it with anyone known to be that person/account. It may be that freedom/pumpkin changes witness votes to oppose the fork.
BTW, there is no vote negation. Yes larger voters have greater weight, but all votes count. P/F only controls several percent of the total and can easily be overruled by the sum of many other votes, both large and small. Don't buy the idea that any vote is too small to count. If anything that rhetoric is a trick to discourage small stakeholders from participating which only further reduces their influence.
I certainly don't mean you when I say the average user has been ignored and maligned. I was referring to a generality that I have read on many an occasion where authors have been blamed for selling and putting downward pressure on the steem price. None of what I am saying is an attack on you for whom I have a great respect for. Those same writings where authors are generalised often seem to consider them almost a nuisance.
I tend not to believe the whole freedom/pumpkin ownership is a mystery but that's an entirely separate issue.
I am only going by my take on the below text.
Is the wording incorrect or ambiguous? Or did Steemit Inc decide off their own bat where the ten percent is coming from? It reads as if the witnesses proposed it. Which is the basis of my original point.
You are of course entitled to disagree and argue against it. But it remains. I do thank you of course for your alternate views on this but in this occasion I am unswayed.
I'd say ambiguous. Somewhat a desire to dodge responsibility perhaps, but that's also somewhat fair because as I stated earlier, the true decision makers are the stakeholders via witnesses as I will describe again below.
They asked for input and witnesses gave their views. The way the process works is:
It is also worth noting that the process has a relatively high hurdle in terms of voting to make a change. At least 17 of the top 20 witnesses (which are voted in at the time of a fork, not necessarily the same ones as now) need to approve the fork. So stakeholders who want to stop a fork need only replace 3 or 4 witnesses (I don't recall which) with new ones who agree.
Well who then?
I don't consider this maligning. It may be a true statement about the economics and market. This does not mean that any individual author is doing anything wrong, or even that all are. But this is may be more about how efficiently rewards are used to create value than the fact of them being paid at all. That doesn't make the problem go away though, and authors as much as anyone suffer from it (lower price -> lower rewards).
IMO people working on EIP, SPS, witnesses, and developers are all making a sincere efforts to improve Steem. If you think anyone is acting against the best interests of Steem overall you are entitled that view and IMO should absolutely call it out. I don't buy the view that adjusting rewards and mechanisms, even in a way that may (though I remain unconvinced) be negative for authors, is bad for Steem. Steem is more than just authors, but authors are surely part of Steem and worthy of respect, just not absolute deference to maximizing direct author rewards to the point of failing to make Steem the best it can be.
I do not think this. I think change is positive and has to be done. My original point is the apportionment of the funding.
I am not going to call out individuals but it is the perception of many day to day users that creators are ignored or considered almost a nuisance. You may consider this anecdotal, but as one of those creators in communication with many other creators, that is a perception that is held.
So this advisory discussion involved the witnesses proposing not to shoulder any of the burden of the 10%..?
The true decision may ultimately be the stakeholders but if an unpopular change gets in you know how long it may take to get it out.
There is a release undergoing testing. Which means the code base barring any major defects is almost complete.
It's too late at this point. This is reactive. I say be proactive and air concerns before it gets to this stage. The later a change is required in the dev cycle the more expensive that change become to implement.
Hence me airing my concern.