Steem Experiment: @whatsup Burn Steem Post #1
* free stock picture slightly edited.
@smooth has a successful campaign going to burn Steem. Only the price of SBD is above the peg, so he actually isn't burning anything. You can see his post here, and the rules here. These posts are doing quite well and starting to get to the trending page.
What he IS doing is locking up Steem and making a promise to not reintroduce that Steem into the economy. My interpretation is he is taking Steem off of the market, and locking it up in an attempt to combat inflation and 'Abuse'. By selling the SBD for Steem he may also be helping to hold the price of SBD down while creating demand for Steem. One issue I have with this plan is the Steem pulled out of the reward pool and locked away is harmful to actual end-users that are not scamming/abusive.
I have an alternative plan.
I also sell SBD and buy Steem and am actively growing my account, or locking up the Steem. In addition, I buy votes, spreading the SBD around in our own economy. I support Authors, Content Creators, New Platforms and the Steem Economy. I manually curate with both flags and upvotes and I comment and engage.
I suggest you upvote my posts instead.
A loved Steem is a happy Steem. Instead of sitting in an account lonely and waiting to be exchanged and burnt, each Steem that ends up in my hands will be loved, cherished and held. The SteemPower will be used to engage in the community and earn more Steem to lock-up. Meanwhile, I will be helping interesting content to get an upvote and flagging some Spam and Abuse each day. I am providing these important services already, so if you are going to throw you vote somewhere, I suggest to give it to me instead. (Disclaimer - It doesn't have to be me, it can be any active user who manually curates, flags and holds.)
In Conclusion:
I have respect for @smooth and he knows more about crypto than I do. He has always been blunt, honest and intelligent in any exchange I've had with him. In my opinion his intentions are upfront and good. I would just rather see the effort and energy go into building a demand for Steem rather than burning it. I hold no bad feelings regarding his efforts and support his right to use his voice and his stake exactly how he wants to.
I am also unvoting any witnesses that are upvoting those posts. Let's build an economy with value and create a healthy distribution instead of burning Steem.
Edited to add smooth's most recent rules and an update.
https://steemit.com/steem/@smooth/burn-post-experiment-one-week-review-and-rules-update
@whatsup,
Better add another decimal place and burn (current steem supply/10) and raise the current block time by 10
SP will be added to that plan too! I don't know how to implement! But this is the only solution that I can figure out!
Cheers~
Buying votes is mostly enriching a few whales, but there are some schemes that promise to support the community more. @isotonic is a good example. I'd like to see the vote sellers setting limits so we don't see $100 votes flooding the trending page with low quality content.
I'll keep selling more of my SBD, but I'm also looking out for stuff to buy with it.
Without the bid bots, the trending page would be smooth and Haejin.
I support using your vote for any cause which builds the economy of Steem!
There are many bidbot owners that are not whales, although they are growing they are the new upper middle class and more involved and active in the current economy. They in turn are spreading Steem around to those who wouldn't have been able to pry it out of the hands of the original and mostly inactive mining whales. I realize there are pros and cons.
I'd to see more flagging of Haejin to reduce his rewards. Smooth could make his posts decline rewards, but have a comment people can vote on to burn the rewards on. There are bots we can support to do that. As it stands it's hard for any posts with real community support to get high on the trending page and that's a shame. I don't have the answers for this, but I think it harms Steemit.
I think the flagging of Haejin should stop. He drives a lot of traffic to steemit and I think he makes less than most whales if you go by page views. The page views are gone now though. :( I think instead of flagging Haejin people should use their vote power to support newbies.
My issues with him are his greed and his bullying. He's not a good member of the community. He rarely gives votes to others, but he's free with his flags. He doesn't deserve his rewards
Someone else mentioned that it would be cool if when payment is declined it actually burns the rewards. I like that concept, but we don't have it.
Until the average users begins to use flags we will see spam, abuse, and bad actors.
There will always be a few, but part of the problem IMO is everyone wants someone else to do the dirty work of cleaning the site as we go.
I think upvoting myself is a better usage of my voting power than flagging someone.
Well I don't need to vote on your comments then :)
We need to invest in dealing with abuse. This will pay off in the long term. My influence is not great, but I'll keep on doing what I can.
Me too. I agree. I also want to figure out how to reward other end-users who are flagging/cleaning as they go.
I disagree. I think steemit users should focus on saving the newbies instead of tagging possibly the most popular user on steemit and someone who could help make us all richer.
Well, I said unvote me mostly joking! I also specified that giving that same vote to anyone who is actually curating and reading would have the same impact. :)
That can be done at the blockchain level by specifying the @null account as a 100% beneficiary, but there is no UI support for that.
Do you think that would be better? I could see a case made that doing it that way could be seen as trying to hide the rewards, since there is no way for voters to easily view high-paying comments (if we had a global "Trending Comments" page that might be different).
I do understand that people want to see 'quality content' on Trending, but at the same time it also serves to make visible where a large portion of the reward money is going, even when it is going to posts which serve as fundraisers and aren't necessarily entertaining. I would think that stakeholders having a clear view of reward allocation would be considered important.
I'm interested in other views though.
Trending is pretty useless these days as it's mostly promoted posts using paid votes. Trending comments might be interesting. I know there are people milking the system my self voting junk comments to stay under the radar.
If you are referring to @burnpost, declining rewards would entirely defeat the purpose. If you are referring to my other posts, I generally burn the rewards, which I prefer to declining for the same reason I'm supporting @burnpost (and explained in the posts on my blog). I don't expect everyone to agree with my point of view.
The burnpost posts could say 'vote up the top comment' or something so the effect would be the same. Just my opinion :)
Until the STEEM is burned, it is being used to downvote some of the cases of abuse. This is helping to fight against users who are receiving rewards without adding value. Even though it will eventually be burned, I feel that it is a beneficial use of the rewards pool in the current environment.
@timcliff,
I thought about this last night and today, and decided I was wrong. While I still do not support the burnpost, my witness vote is based on all the things you do well. One disagreement doesn't justify not appreciating the good you bring.
It was kind of controlling and petty. I know my vote doesn't make the difference, but in holding myself accountable I wanted to apologize, I'm sorry.
I am not pround of that moment. :)
No worries at all. It is actually something that more people should be doing more often. Witnesses should be held accountable to their decisions. I’m glad that you are taking a wider view than just the one particular issue, but I definitely understand where you are coming from, and wouldn’t have “held it against you” if it was a deal breaker for your vote.
Anytime something like this comes up, I think long and hard on why I am making the decision I am. Sometimes I realize that what I’m doing is wrong and reverse my position on the issue. Other times the best I can do is explain why I’m doing, and hope the other person understands.
I’m glad I was able to keep your vote. It is one of the ones I consider very important :)
Give it to me!!! :) lol
Understood and I respect both your opinion and Smooth's. I just disagree.
New STEEM into the ecosystem just dilutes the value of the existing STEEM. By locking it up, @smooth is reducing that dilution, which protects the value of our holdings and also increases the value of rewards that other authors receive in SP relative to SBD (which can be quickly dumped). The point of the 50/50 split was to invest authors in the long -term health of the Steem block-chain, and that incentive is badly broken when SBDs are worth $3+.
Also, as another commenter already noted, the "burned" SP is presently being delegated to spam-fighting efforts.
Finally, it's not either/or. We can vote to protect our stake's value, and also vote to support authors who we think add value to the ecosystem.
I may rethink my votes if the SBD peg ever gets restored, but under present circumstances, I support @smooth's strategy.
If the SBD peg is restored, then the approach taken by @burnpost will adjust accordingly.I did receive a suggestion to not burn the SP immediately since it could continue to be used for anti-abuse and potentially helping the SBD should fall out of alignment again, and I'm considering that, but for now the rule is immediate power down and burn if/when SBD peg is restored.
To be clear, I absolutely do not doubt your motives or intent.
Yeah, I get why some feel it is justified. I've had mixed feelings for a while.
Maybe if we had a better distribution the economy of steem wouldn't be so funky. I support as I stated smooth's right to decide to handle things in this way.
I would just rather try to change how the platform is functioning by rewarding good behavior and punishing bad actors. I am interested in a broader distribution by any means. I don't think buyers are going to be a problem for long.
I still don't get why we need Steem and SBDs when 1 currency will do.
And why create it to burn it, just don't make it in the first place...
If we only had steem and rewards were only in steem we'd be screwed with a 7 percent inflation rate. I think if sbd goes down to $1 we will also be in trouble.
lol, I hear ya. I think the idea was that SBDs were going to be a stable token to use as a currency and Steem was more to power up accounts, trade and store value. As you can plainly see they forgot to factor in that not everyone reads the white paper and the peg only works up, not down. :) Traders and the Markets do whatever they want. :) hahaha.
Part of the fun of an experiment.
This plan wasn't very well thought out.
Short term reward manipulation aside this plan is actually going to increase the problem it is attempting to address even though that problem might not even exist to begin with.
For some reason the premise here is that rewards are too high in value and that this is incentivizing abuse. On face value that premise is absurd and no analysis supporting it has been shown but I will continue to use the premise to highlight how bad the plan is.
The solution to reduce the immediate payouts is to lower the current amount of funds going out and also burns them thereby taking them out of circulation and limiting the supply.
You are now burning supply which will increase prices as long as demand remains steady. If the prices go up then the value of rewards goes up and you've accomplished absolutely nothing. The incentive to abuse remains according to the premise.
You are in effect trying to hobble the market differentiating value proposition that you see as incentivizing abuse but is also the biggest reason for success, new user signups, user engagement and market demand. It is what incentivizes the whole platform.
This is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Haha, I don't think you understood the post, nor got the humor involved.
Interesting concept... Seems like locking it up as Steem Power is good enough seeing that it gets it off the market... Is @smooth showing the TXID for their coin burns?
I believe he will. In order to not inflate the price of SBD he has to wait until SBD is at the peg or below, to burn anything. At this point he is selling it and powering up the account.
They are added as a reply to each top level @burnpost post, posted soon after they pay out (a week after the original post). Look here: https://steemit.com/@burnpost/comments
As @whatsup stated in the other reply, under the stated rules, the coins are powered up for now, designated for burning later (with the SP used only for anti-spam downvoting until then). The funds will never reenter circulation.
His experiment has no impact on the global steem market, it's a very small fraction of the total supply. I have also seen many people who oppose him.
For me the important thing is that this decentralized platform allows you to do what you want with your sbd and steem.
huh Interesting that you are deciding to do this now because I discovered smooth's project yesterday and had a nice conversation with him on the comments.
It certainly sounds smarter to use the steem to support projects and authors rather than just burning it away or locking it up forever.
I mentioned to sneak a while back that I thought posts that decline rewards should have the effect of burning those rewards (rather than excluding them from the post).
While he found the idea interesting, he felt it was trumped by the need to distribute Steem as widely as possible.
Will be interesting to see how this experiment pans out...