I dare to disagree. I think witnesses should do whatever they can to keep the system balanced and in good order. In this specific case, because SBD is a debt based asset, a significant imbalance in it - as natural as it would be, being established by the markets - will dramatically affect the entire economics of Steemit and the value of STEEM.
As @deanlogic pointed out, it's ok to have a gazillion other assets on top of the blockchain, each with its own inflation and rewards pool, as long as they're not debt-based, like SBD. I would say the SBD design is a legacy flaw that must be carried over, somehow.
Maybe I’m Missing something, but I’m
Not sure how the witnesses could manipulate the price to counteract market movement. I understand it’s a debt based token but once it’s on the market how can they control the prices?
They can't control the price, they control the supply. A basic market rule says that if supply is big, price is small and viceversa (this is not always true, btw, but most of the time it is). That's the only way witnesses can "control" SBD. If you look at what I wrote it's about keeping the system balanced and in good order. Not about controlling it. Delegated Proof of Stake is a very peculiar governance system...