You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HF21: SPS and EIP Explained
There is a return proposal (which gets votes like any other). Any proposals that get more votes than return get paid (until total funding runs out). Once the funding payout process reaches return, the remaining budget is put back in the pool and proposals below return are not funded.
The first thing I'm going to do immediately after activation is vote for return and I encourage others to do the same, then I will evaluate other proposals.
This is completely backwards. SPS proposals are (if I understand you correctly) funded by default, and only not funded if enough people vote against them.
Instead, only fund those that receive that baseline of votes.
This mechanism is intended to tax the creators of the ~10% share of the rewards pool they split between them, by default, and is the most regressive taxation example I am aware of in the history of the world, not just Steem. The ~90% of rewards that go to substantial stakeholders via stake weighting manipulations, curation rewards, and bidbot profits, aren't touched. Not even the tyrants waging the centuries of war in history left the nobility untaxed in that way.
You should learn from those examples. Kingdoms vanquished because the nobles refused to fund their defense shortly thereafter had no nobility. I once owned Cram's Unrivaled Atlas of the World from 1911. When that edition was published there were 1000 princes of Russia. After 1917 there were 0.
There is not even a mechanism for to 'vote against' a proposal so clearly you do not understand how SPS works.
That @blocktrades whose company developed the SPS code upvoted my comment ought to give you some clue that my answer was correct and you have no idea what you are talking about.
First, I wasn't discussing SPS itself, so don't confuse the issue. Further, as I was commenting exclusively on your explication of how that funding mechanism is controllable, the disparagement you apply to me actually reflects on your own explanation. This is what you said:
If 'return' isn't voting against a proposal, please explain what it actually is?
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
It is setting a threshold that any and all proposals need to meet to get funded. It is not voting against any particular proposal.
Okay, I believe I have grasped the idea now, and prefer it to what I thought you meant earlier. Still don't see any point to it. If the threshold to exceed return is less than votes necessary to provide funding, then I suppose that makes proposals more likely to be funded.
I'm not convinced that's a good thing. If a proposal can't be funded through ordinary organic votes, there's probably a good reason, and it shouldn't be funded. Making taxes more likely to be spent is a bad thing generally, and spending them on poor proposals isn't better.
Taxes are bad, always. I'm agin' 'em.
I'm specifically against this one for multiple reasons, the foremost being that it is horribly regressive, and is going to put downward pressure on author rewards in combination with the halving of author rewards included in the EIP. When the poll was taken on @blocktrades post, tax funding was rejected. I am not surprised to see it being proposed for inclusion in the HF even so. Every part of the EIP simply makes profiteering more profitable, and I expect to see you profiteering advocates moving on to your next target soon, as the userbase plummets, Steem price crashes, and market cap decreases substantially.
Maybe then the community remaining can undertake reasonable mechanisms to curtail profiteering and promote capital gains.
We'll see then. Well, you won't. You'll be gone with the rest of the profiteers, on to the next profit center.
Enjoy your journey.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
Return proposal goes to the reward pool?
It goes back to the SPS pool, which is separate from the reward pool that pays posts/comments.
Oh, so it's just saved for later?
Return proposal does that yes. A burn proposal is another alternative which permanently reduces inflation rather than making any payout or accumulating the funds for later.
Is there a proposal to send it to the reward pool (post reward pool) instead? Is there one to send it to witnesses or steem power holders?
That is not implemented (any of them) in the initial version of SPS for various reasons. It could be added later, including via a proposal to pay a developer to implement it.
Some of it could be done offchain, by someone proposing to accept funds from SPS and then forward them as promised. This requires trust, but if the intermediary stopped paying, the funding could easily be cut off by removing SPS votes (proposals can pay out gradually over time).