What's the better authority on value - the market or the whitepaper? Isn't it the market? If it's the market, than the whitepaper is a very weak argument, isn't it?
A stable pegged SBD asset might be an asset someday if we keep growing. But the growth is currently fueled by the high SBD. And let's be real, commerce on the blockchain is pretty much non-existent if you don't count the meta businesses and steem isn't really being adopted by exchanges the world over as is. Why would we implement something to stifle our growth, decrease our market cap and in the worst case scenario (which I think is very likely), create and artificial crash and destroy investor trust?
I think people should worry less about the intent of the creators of the blockchain and more about what the market has found value in.
Do you have evidence to back this up? As I mentioned in my post, STEEM went up 46x compared to SBD only going up 7x. The value displayed on a post payout is what matters to most people psychologically. That number goes up (i.e. the rewards pool goes up) when the value of STEEM goes up. I'd argue most new users don't even understand what a SBD is or how it's valued on an external market.
You did see in my post about how Tether grew to $1.5B in market value. Aren't we ignoring that market signal by not fixing our own peg and marketing it as a much more attractive option for exchanges and investors? Tether can't be trusted or audited. Ours can.
Seems to me, if people could make money converting STEEM to SBD, that would increase demand for STEEM and increase the market cap (STEEM) which actually impacts the rewards pool payout amounts according to how the blockchain functions.
Investors are investing in STEEM.
Speculators are speculating on SBD even as the supply is increasing and no one is converting SBD back to STEEM to decrease supply.
It's not about "the white paper" as much as it's about a broken functionality on the blockchain. Either it should be fixed or removed. If we remove it, then we lose a potentially huge opportunity in the pegged token market. I don't think ignoring that opportunity is good stewardship of this ecosystem.
Yep, Steem broke into never breached before price territories only after SBD exploded. The 46x vs 7x is correct only if you look at a time frame that doesn't make sense to look at in this context. Look at only the period for which SBD was pumping and see if that correlates to growth in Steem. You will not find Steem outgrowing SBD there by any means and there is nothing like a 46x growth for Steem there. To me this is either an irrelevant or a misleading figure to put into this discussion.
It takes only 7 days to understand that you are currently making significantly more than what the post displays. That is the psychological effect that makes people tell their friends to join. We are seeing unprecedented growth in new signups and activity. Do you dispute that? Isn't the data clear on that? Do you think we'll retain that if we create huge changes that destroy a lot of that value people are seeing? What would the psychological effect of not getting what you used to get up until recently because "the government of the blockchain" decided you don't deserve it anymore? You can bet all your Steem on a lot of churn if that happens.
That can be true only if they continue to trust the blockchain. I have no doubt that a portion of the investors will view the blockchain as untrustworthy after implementing such a huge change with the flip of a switch and would not care to get involved in neither Steem, nor SBD. And with money flowing out of the system because of that, would the conversions be enough to take care of the problem?
Broken is correct only if you care first and foremost about the vision in the whitepaper. The current setup is working to our advantage as of now and swooping in to destroy that makes no sense. Even if we assume that there is something broken, one should select a time to fix it that would not create other problems or mistrust in the blockchain itself. Things should be fixed in a way that doesn't