That's an option, but realistically I think we'd have zero userbase if we tried that. I mean using steemit and getting an account is already hard enough, if we added on "by the way you need to pay to actually do anything on the platform" we'd be probably be laughed at more than people already do when they talk about STEEM outside of our echo chamber here. Resource credits makes sense to me as it put some kind of incentive in place to encourage people to actually own tokens, which previously there really wasn't much of one. If we look at @steemmonsters for example, it's clearly the most financially successful dApp on our platform and I think it's obvious that the burn mechanism plays a huge part in that. Every time someone combines a card there's one less in existence. Creating an optional and voluntary way for people to consume tokens (through something like post promotion) is something that we are fundamentally lacking. As is the only incentive to really own STEEM is to have resource credits for posting and voting/flagging, but the incentive behind that is to essentially earn STEEM or SBD, which to most people implies earning it to sell. Honestly I want to find more practical burn mechanisms for this platform.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The way that RCs work, they would eventually achieve the same effect. The only difference between burning a regenerative resource and burning a non-regenerative resource really comes down to:
From what you mentioned above, 3 would definitely be a concern for most users. But conversely, the RC model is biased unevenly against smaller staked users in that it is easier to expend regenerative resources when one owns more, whereas everyone would pay the same penalty where stake is put on the table. Again, I wouldn't expect such an idea to gain any popular support, but I think its better to think outside the box, then to do nothing at this point.