Thank you, I appreciate that.
I believe SPS funding is being seen as a tax, and while I understand that, I feel it is a bit of a misunderstanding of the idea of the system itself. The shared pool is based on inflation and therefore everything that is spent from it is bringing down the value, unless whatever it funds adds value back to the ecosystem itself.
This inflation should then be allocated to what adds value and can return that value. Currently content rewards are receiving the highest allocation of this inflation. Is it returning the most value? Could it be beneficial to allocate some of that to a system that may bring in additional value?
As an example - if the SPS is used to fund a marketing plan that brings in additional investment and users, it has actively added value back to the ecosystem. Or if the SPS is used to develop a mobile app that somehow solves the onboarding and/or retention issues, it has added substantial value back to the ecosystem.
While I agree that a mechanism that somehow produces profits makes sense, essentially the idea is that this proposals that will be approved will add value back to the ecosystem over and above what was funded initially. If the proposal adds no value to the ecosystem, theoretically it would not be funded.
Also, there could be a proposal for a "burn" which would then just cut the inflation which increases price to so supply and demand. There are many different ways this could be used to put profits back in the system itself.
My opinion on the SPS is it gives the community the power to encourage these beneficial improvements and the shared funding to do it.
I do very much understand the concern though and as someone who only makes STEEM when I post.. I get how removing anything from the pool sounds terrifying.. but I also see how we need improvements here and I think if we had them the STEEM I currently hold would be worth way more. So I few it makes sense to use this shared inflation pool for just that.