Details aren't fleshed out, it's just an idea for now.
Why do you think it's bad? What's the continued need for a steem pool when authors and curators receive SMT?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Details aren't fleshed out, it's just an idea for now.
Why do you think it's bad? What's the continued need for a steem pool when authors and curators receive SMT?
I think keeping Steem rewards is important precisely because it's the token with utility. It has intrinsic value, that SMTs probably won't. If content is important to the platform, I think content producers being rewarded in Steem makes sense. I think Steem, the chain, works better when Steem, the coin, is distributed more widely and evenly across more people. I think Steem in too few hands was really the problem that needed to be addressed, and EIP was the solution that let symptoms be addressed without addressing the root. Like you, I think downvotes and 50/50 are positives, but I think the curve is net negative and in the long run exacerbates the problem.
We'll see.
Posted using Partiko Android
What's the utility of a reward token? Where's the intrinsic value in that?
Content is important to attract people. SMT can be a way to bring content. If they wouldn't, we wouldn't need them.
The chain doesn't care how widely distributed the utility token (the one providing RC) is, as long as there's a way to provide the users with the RC they need to interact, which is what RC pools will be for.
The concentration in a few hands is a problem for reward distribution only, and that can be solved better with SMT than by hoping that steem distribution will become better in the future.
I also think that Steem being concentrated in fewer hands leads to governance problems, as the needs of the mass of users don't need to be considered when appealing to witness voters.
Posted using Partiko Android
I'm not sure the pool contributes to better distribution. Witness voting has always been decided by a few whales, nothing changed about that. When you're powered up it's not difficult to beat the inflation of STEEM with curation and author rewards, not even counting the witness rewards. I don't have the numbers, but I doubt the percentage of SP of the holding whales has dropped significantly. Real distribution happens on the market imo.
It has the potential to lead to better distribution, especially if we revert the curve or even invert it. It certainly works at least a little. There are plenty of authors who can't afford to buy in who nonetheless power up. So far it's not led to wide distribution, but there's a pathway. If we eliminate Steem rewards, we'll always be stuck with the distribution we have now. Gotta think long term, is there a path? I argue, prior to EIP, we were on a path forward, even though there were abuses along the way. The tools EIP provided gave more power to those who had it already. Now, in the hands of benevolent whales these can be used well, but it leaves us a fragile ecosystem, hoping changes that benefit them will benefit us all. I think the new curve is an obvious example of a rule change whose negative side effects are only hearsay for those who advocated for it. They know it's "worrisome" but though they see its impact, they don't feel personally or in their immediate circles and so don't get quite how powerfully it's negatively impacting a lot of good people.
A more widely, evenly distributed voting token would benefit us all. I don't think that's on the smt roadmap.
Posted using Partiko Android
Sorry, but your impression is wrong. Before the EIP the earning potential with SP was even higher than now.
The changes in the EIP did benefit all. It lowered earning potential over the whole board, leading to a better distribution of the pool. But it still doesn't forcibly expropriate holders. Which is good, that should not be a target, or holding wouldn't be desirable.
Wide distribution of the voting token is not valuable in itself. People who "can't afford" to put some money in and want all the tokens for free do not help the ecosystem at all. Sooner or later they sell, creating only downwards pressure. Faucets are good, but with too much given away through those there's no reason to buy any more. Long term that doesn't work.
Besides, authors who earn SMT will still be able to exchange them for STEEM to power up.
What is the continued need for steem if everything converts to smteees!
As gas tokens like eth?
No, thanks.
I get the poetic justice, though.
What's the need for steem now, besides being the source for RC?
Magic interwebz money?
I like spending sbd.
Steem, not so much.
No 30m usd pizza for me, thanks.
What happens to the folks that wanted to replace fiat?
Don't kill Batman!
First sentence it's money, third sentence you don't like to spend it. What is it now? ;)
To be money it first would have to be commonly accepted. Bitcoin has issues with that, it would be a lot more difficult for steem to get there. As a utility token fueling the blockchain it could have a real use case though, which could give it value. It already has that actually, but the high inflation gets in the way of the value rising.
The effect would be to rather dramatically reduce the supply of new Steem, not just immediately but long into the future. If Steem Power is the fuel for Resource Credits, what happens if transactions on the Steem blockchain grow by several orders of magnitude?
The needed RC for a transaction are (simplified)
available_sp / available_blockchain_resourcesThe available resources are constant and not dependend on the SP. Less supply means you need more SP to get your share of the resources, which results in more demand for STEEM.
Which results in a very nice income stream for hodlers of SP.
:D