The reward pool will be 10% lower to fund the SPS.
If this is what is actually being proposed, then I would reject this hard fork. There is other existing inflation from which funding can be reallocated for the SPS.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
But reward pool is the most natural source of it. Currently to fund a project you need to make posts that gets you rewards, that's pretty gives much same effect but it takes from a source that's abused the most.
I would much rather redirect some of the inflation from "SP interest" and then eliminate the rest of it rather than pull it all from content rewards. There's more than enough tokens there to cover SPS funding and "SP interest" is an absolute joke, both conceptually and economically.
We can reduce overall inflation (positive for perception and price action), fund the SPS (positive for development), and not adversely affect the content rewards pool (positive/neutral for creators and curators) all at the same time. Why would we not do that?
This was heavily discussed, investors have much more at stake than authors, so it makes sense not to touch that.
Edit : I realize that I should write a much longer comment explaining my views but I don't have the time right now.
The “interest” is stupid and makes zero economic sense when paid with inflation. If “investors” and the witnesses deciding on these protocol changes can’t figure that out, then they’re idiots.
As discussed elsewhere it has the effect of allocating the other (real) inflation between powered-up and non-powered-up investors such that powered up investors pay a bit less and non-powered up investors pay a bit more.
It has an economic effect. We could argue whether that effect is desirable or not. I would probably be in favor of simply eliminating it, but not in shifting it out to 'real' inflation, which would have the effect of increasing the latter.
I would be OK with eliminating it entirely and scrapping the SPS altogether. But I’m pretty sure we’re getting the SPS. Since that’s going to happen, I would like to see 2/3 of the 15% “interest” eliminated and the remaining 1/3 (5% of the total inflation) allocated to the SPS rather than coming from content rewards.
It’s just a preference and I understand the arguments for directing inflation to stakeholders, but it’s still a really dumb idea that should have never been coded...just as the 100% annual inflation should have never been a thing. It would likely be more advantageous for stakeholders to have a lower annual inflation rate than to gain some small amount of “interest” that puts downward pressure on prices, especially when demand seems to be quite low.
Sending the inflation to development projects or to other stakeholders really doesn’t affect the perception of the chain/token value much. And seeing that many of our larger stakeholders are powering down (and usually selling) anyway - including STINC, still our largest stakeholder that’s receiving the largest portion of the inflation - that inflation is heading to the open markets anyway.
So yeah - get rid of most of it and redirect what’s left. Or just get rid of it altogether and forget about the SPS. Either option works for me. I don’t think we need less content rewards. Less author rewards, sure. But not less for curation too, since that’s pretty much the only reason to hold STEEM as SP. I’d rather not see less incentive to buy and power up.
Additional SP utility other than curation rewards would be nice to see as well.
Well this is a reason for eliminating it as I said I'm probably in favor of that.
However, if it is coded as (made up numbers here) 5% interest going to stakeholders and that results in a 5% price drop, the net is neutral (i.e. no 'real' inflation). You can't then 'shift' that 5% to some other purpose (or even 1/3 of it) and start generating it as real inflation without that being a 5% increase in real inflation (not in fact a shift). So no I don't think it makes sense to do any 'shifting' of this. Eliminate, yes, probably.
Those are the sorts of things that at least might be built using SPS, which is an obvious benefit of adjusting how some of the reward funds are paid out.
I view SPS and content rewards as doing the exact same thing in a different way: Submit a transaction to the blockchain which asks stakeholders to vote to approve paying you (indeed many posts and some comments have also been used to pay for projects/proposals of the sort that SPS is intended to fund). Honestly I think SPS and posts/comments should just draw from the very same pool, but since it isn't coded that way and we need a fixed split for now, I view the sensible discussion as how much of that pool goes to post/comment payouts and how much to SPS payouts.
Redirecting from SP interest ends up increasing overall effective inflation. In reality, the only effect of SP interest is to allocate the other inflation costs between powered-up and non-powered-up investors.
It's kind of unfortunate that SP interest aka vesting rewards constantly ends up being described as a portion of inflation (including in the steemitblog post pie charts) because its function is really quite differently from the others.
I also agree with gtg that the content pool and SPS pool are natural equivalents. They both involve making a tranasction to the blockchain asking stakeholders to vote to pay you. The only difference is the particulars of the voting and payout rules. You could actually look at SPS proposals as being a type of post.