"...no harm in building in inflation funding..."
On what do you base this assessment? I have discussed how inflation funding - which has not been done before for this purpose - will definitely harm Steem value, and the community.
You haven't yet mentioned those harmful consequences.
Please do give them consideration.
Funding for developing projects other than Steem itself, through posts and upvotes, which is completely voluntary and doesn't require a DAO, has also long been undertaken, and continues to this day.
Why not simply adopt that mechanism for Steem?
There are a lot of assumptions that are being passed over in comment on this issue, and this is preventing debate, which limits perception of options, and thus the solutions available to be implemented. I don't find this to be an optimal course of action when seeking to create optimal solutions.
'On Steemit's dime' means Steemit is directly spending it's stake, right? Why is this being changed? Why is this being spun as if it was impossible to simply add more large stakeholders contributing from their 'dimes'?
Funding has been done by directly spending Steem on it so far. The use of author rewards taken without being voluntarily contributed is both a new proposal, and one I show will have very harmful consequences to the value of Steem, by harming content creators.
It's basically offshoring development expense to marketing, and this is not a good time to further decrease marketing efforts, as the bear market is already doing that. Development is a core functionality of investing, as is marketing.
I do not recommend cannibalizing marketing to unload development costs from whales. Growing the market for Steem is what will create higher value for Steem, and rational investors want that to happen.
Profiteers only want to extract benefits while paying as little for them as possible. That will not increase the value of Steem.
We don't want to fund profiteering. We want to fund investment.
@valued-customer, are you affiliated to the Blocktrades company? My comment was directed at Dan @blocktrades for consideration, so not sure if you represent his/the company views or just your own. Ned has just responded and thinks this is a good idea to prevent further hardfork costs and there is further discussion in the Steem devs slack which Dan will be privy to.
Any other funding methods are likely to be tiny in comparison to a % of inflation funding, consider even @smooth's @burnpost project would not bring in nearly enough for such funding. @blocktrades himself also mentioned donation funding alone would pale in comparison to what Bitshares currently has in terms of emission funding. Should donations run dry there needs to be a backup plan that can be executed easily, dried up funds for WP = even more embarassing on a public scale.
Steemit is happy to pay for latent features to avoid further hardfork costs and will save the community and other stakeholders money in the future if extra features are built in at the start to be activated later via proposal consensus.
On what do you base this assumption?
I will point out again that funding via inflation is currently ongoing for other development than Steem itself. What additional extraction method besides voluntary upvotes (inflation) and donations (direct spending by stakeholders) do you expect will provide benefits without detriment, and why do you insist only on the former as a reasonable source?
I have asked @blocktrades to crowd source funding mechanisms, as the only mechanisms so far discussed are those already operating. If we're going to implement a novel mechanism to fund development, we'd be wise to have more than the assumption that extracting more funding from marketing to spend on development won't hurt.
It will. That is the only funding source that has been proposed by any substantial stakeholder, and I reckon the reason is that the extant funding source of Steem development is direct payment by substantial stakeholder (Stinc), and whales don't want to share in those costs.
You haven't addressed these issues yet, merely reiterating your support for decreasing the incentive to create content that is the marketing for Steem to a large degree, and supporting that position with an appeal to authority.
Please do.
You haven't addressed my question as to whether you represent blocktrades or if these views are your own?
"...other funding methods are likely to be tiny in comparison to a % of inflation funding..." - I base this on the @burnpost community initiative which could be a method of funding, but the revenue it brings won't be enough.
You are assuming I want to decrease the incentive to create content, my first preference would be to take from the interest pool, which is not well advertised to external investors and only resident stakeholders even know about it, and because the wallet doesn't even show an APR for it I myself don't even notice the benefits and forget I am receiving that, imo interest is of no benefit unless it is clear that users are receiving it, so I would rather use that inflation source than that of content creators, if there is pushback then the most equitable would be to reduce all inflation sources equally, but that is not for me to decide but rather a community consensus issue, just clarifying that your assumption of my preferences is incorrect.
Kindly clarify your association with Blocktrades, that is pertinent info to me.