How about starting with a low level of inflation being moved? It’s already designed the right way and seems like to pass and be effective
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
How about starting with a low level of inflation being moved? It’s already designed the right way and seems like to pass and be effective
How about we start with witness rewards from the top 20? Or would that seem premature with further consideration, as well as detrimental to you personally?
How about we consider other sources besides the rewards pool which provides incentive to benefit Steem? After all, inflation hasn't been used to fund development before, so why should we suddenly change the extant funding mechanism for one never tried without considering alternatives?
Why don't we pull inflation from multiple sources?
Why don't we consider other sources than rewards? Consider: rewards are incentives for effecting benefits for Steem, things that tend to increase it's value. Why diminish them?
Development has not drawn from inflation to date. Instead Stinc has directly funded development by spending it's stake. This discussion of using inflation/rewards to fund development is NEW. That is not how development has been funded so far, at least not by those developing Steem itself.
Using rewards to fund development is not necessary. Rewards are critically important to create value of Steem. Consider that other sources besides rewards have always been the source of funding for development, and may remain the best options today.
To be clear: I have no real doubt that one or more sources of inflation will be used for funding.
But with available tools, it's hard to tell which sources the community wants to use, and in what proportion.
I don't want to be the one making the "final decision", which is what would have to happen with the available polling methods. Once the Steem.DAO is operational, it will make the decisions automatically, based on the votes.
How do we avoid manipulation by large whales? We already see some whales and large stakeholders display actions that benefit them at the detriment of the overall ecosystem
thats how it works, the more stake you have the more to say you have
Stake weighted voting has both pros and cons.
I reckon such will inevitably be attempted. There will be observable consequences to those initiatives. If decidedly negative consequences result, the markets will react accordingly.
Fools all too often do themselves harm. Fortunately, not all in the Steem community are fools, and folks intent on increasing their stakes will be extremely likely to oppose foolishness with diligence.
We have a fragile user base. Retention is awful now. If it gets worse because of profiteering, users will vanish, and Steem value will collapse. Lessons will be learned, hopefully before existential and terminal consequences eventuate.
The right proposals being funded, effected by appropriate personnel, and producing growth and gains in Steem value are the purpose of this initiative. If growth and gains are inadequate, or worse, stakeholders are going to act to intervene quickly - or lose their stakes.
That's what we got. Let's make sure we use what we got well.
Thanks!
All of the profiteering and wrecking of perception has happened big time year over year @valued-customer, but I am not here to whine about that, it's done and over with. We can learn from it or keep sticking the fork in the light socket and see what happens next or find some very truly revolutionary ideas that bring competitive advantage to a highly dynamic platform in comparison to so much else you see on the coinmarketcap top 100. I would go as far as re-vesting voting shares (somewhat/somehow) to allow for fresher voices to intermingle with those that have heavy stakes and encourage those that may not even be here yet and those that have been ignored during the wholesale departure due to prior failed planning.
While we can't go back in time and not do things that were done, none of the things done are cast in stone. As we gain better grasp of the issues and dynamics of Steem, we can do things that best grow it's value, including changing or undoing things that were done in the past.
I do advocate changing some things, but the changes I advocate are not supported by the folks whose profiteering drain on growth those changes would reduce. Odd that. Anyway, there is tension between investors, who seek to grow the value of the investment vehicle, Steem, and produce capital gains, and profiteers, who seek to extract value from the investment vehicle, Steem, and hoard it in their own accounts.
Since Steem wasn't founded by seasoned investors, but cryptokiddies, the investment cadre isn't particularly robust. Either profiteers will learn by their mistakes, or they will keep making them, and Steem will not increase in value as a result of sound investment improvements if they remain dominant.
Time will tell.