You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proposing A Worker Proposal System For Steem
Instead of increasing inflation what about reducing the interest slightly that is paid to the vested Steem daily? Wouldn't that keep the pool the same size and then have the funding come directly from the staked users who will benefit from the development?
@swiftbot tip 100
⚡$$$ Tipped @tarazkp
⚡100.00000000 SWIFT! If you don't know how I work, replyhelp! Currently the price ofSwiftCashin the market is$0.0019 USDperSWIFT. Current value of the tip is$0.1900 USD. To find out more aboutSwiftCash, please read our whitepaper!That still effectively increases inflation since inflation that goes back to existing stakeholders isn't really inflation, it is more like a stock split. (In this case it is also done with the intent of incentivizing people to power up for various reasons, but economic effect once they do is as I described.)
couldn't some of that stock split be reallocated though instead without changing the available reward pool at all? I am just thinking that (I agree reducing the reward pool is a better option than increasing) reducing rewards might become a point of contention with smaller users whereas using a small percentage of the 'stock split' means that it will be funded from already staked users, meaning the largest will effectively pay the most even though on the same percentage cut.
Not my area though obviously.
The bottom line is that shifting from vesting rewards to anywhere else increase inflation on Steem Power holders. On what some other commenter noted is already a high inflation system, this is not a good idea.
I'm actually not a huge fan of the whole vesting system and I'd like to see it scaled back (for example, power down being 7 days instead of 13 weeks). If vesting rewards are reduced (or eliminated) then to avoid increasing effective inflation that should just go away (reducing nominal inflation) rather than reallocating it (increasing effective inflation).
None of the other current uses of inflation have this property so they would be fair game to reallocate, from the perspective of not increasing effective inflation. Which should be reallocated is obviously a matter of debate, even if we agree on not increasing effective inflation on an already-high inflation coin.
Or as @blocktrades originally proposed in the post, inflation (effective and/or nominal) could indeed be increased, but I'm personally very much against this for both long term and short term reasons.
Thanks for taking the time.
Has there been any talk of decreasing the powerdown duration of 13 weeks? It should be 2 weeks tops, or at the most 4 weeks.
It has been discussed several times but there is no broad agreement on it. My own view is one week.
I think 1 week is a little short, but 2 weeks seems good. 13 weeks is just crazy.