Which should I choose for post promotion -- Null beneficiary or SBD transfer?
Because we have seen a sudden uptick in interest for post promotion by burning tokens on the Steem blockchain, I thought I'd do a quick compare and contrast between two possible methods for post promotion. As described here, post promotion through token burning can now be accomplished in either of the following ways:
Pixabay license, Source
1.) Set @null as a 25% beneficiary at posting time and add the #burnsteem25 tag to the post.
2.) Send any amount of SBD to @null with @[user]/[permlink] in the memo field in order to get the post added or elevated in the /promoted feed. (that syntax must be followed exactly - no [] brackets, or the SBD will be lost! Also, only SBD can be sent. Transferred STEEM will also be lost.)
Assuming that curators will monitor both mechanisms, how does an author decide which approach to choose? The table below might offer some guidance. For the record, this is just my understanding and mistakes may be possible. Please let me know if anything needs to be fixed, or if I should add other points of comparison.
| Characteristic | #burnsteem25 | /promoted |
|---|---|---|
| Zero "out of wallet" requirement | X | - |
| "out of wallet" transfer required | - | X |
| Only set once at posting time | X | - |
| Set at any time before payout | - | X |
| Can apply to someone else's post | - | X |
| Can increase the promotion amount multiple times | - | X |
| Fixed cost | - | X |
| Variable cost (percentage) | X | - |
| Sort by new/trending/payout/mute | X | - |
| Possible to "bid" for and win top placement | - | X |
| Burns Steem/SBD/Vests (SP) | X | - |
| Burns SBD only | - | X |
| Reduce inflation | X | X |
| Possibility to reverse inflation | - | X |
That's a first pass at the comparison. What am I missing?
We have the STEEM DAO which is being funded by SBDs every single day. I think we should sell the SBDs in the DAO and use those funds to buy and burn STEEM. That would help push the price of STEEM higher and likely push SBDs closer to a dollar, though if we did it judiciously perhaps we could sell them without hurting the price of SBDs too badly. We have an unused asset in the form of all the SBDs sitting in the DAO, one that could also turn into a liability in the wrong hands... just a thought.
I agree that we should start deploying @steem.dao funding again, but I'm not a huge fan of burning it. Personally, I'd rather see the community put out an RFP for professional services by proven software houses, marketing agencies, and/or content producers and use the SPS to grow the ecosystem here.
As discussed in another post, I think that burning tokens in exchange for post promotion is sort of like buying a service from the blockchain, so it makes sense, and I think TRX offers compelling evidence that it supports the token value. Just burning the tokens in exchange for nothing strikes me more like cannibalizing the ecosystem.
Incidentally, I just noticed that a new proposal was added earlier this month. That's the first (credible) proposal that I'm aware of since HF23 happened in 2020.
In my entire history in STEEM and crypto more broadly, I have hardly ever seen any of these things create more value than they take... Therefore, I would only support burning of said tokens, not to support something that inevitably ends up taking more value than it creates. It's a nice idea in theory, but in practically almost always ends up being a net negative.
I sort of agree, but I haven't given up hope. That's why I specified a "proven" supplier. Before the fork, there were too many rewards going to fly by night operators who wound up delivering little or nothing (except a forked chain).
I probably wouldn't be opposed to shutting the whole thing down and doing some sort of managed burn as part of the shutdown.
Yep, exactly @remlaps-lite. Well said.
Here's what I would like to see...
I'd like to see the DAO shuttered completely and the inflation allocated to it returned to the authors/curators from which it came, and I'd like the funds currently sitting in the DAO used over time to buy/burn steem. Thus putting a bid under STEEM and also pushing SBDs back towards the one dollar peg...
To me this sounds like the best use of resources given the current environment.
My big question is, who would we trust with that amount of control while the funds are being burned? I guess it wouldn't be easy to automate a program like that.
I remember reading something about multi sig operations? We'd presumably have to get multiple clearances on each transaction along the way from multiple parties not related to one another?
Ah, yeah, that's a possibility that I hadn't considered. I'm not sure how well Steem's multisig capability has been tested, though. I'd like to see it proven for a while with smaller amounts before we trust it with that much value. Could be rock solid, but it's beyond my expertise to know.
Remember POW mining and @supercomputing?
Looks good - the only thing that I can think of is that the #burnsteem25 hashtag doesn't necessarily mean that the user has set @null as a beneficiary. A post on /promoted does guarantee that @null has received a transfer.
The "send SBD to null" mechanism is more built in to the system than watching a particular hashtag, so it's less likely to be forgotten or seen as something that's only related to the big curator accounts.
The price of steem and sbd has fallen in the course of days. So burning this coin will play a big role to push up the price. We should do everything to burn these coin.
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 0/7) Get profit votes with @tipU :)
I still don't understand. Does that mean that when we transfer more sbd to @null, it will increase our posts to appear in the top trending? Thanks.
Transferring SBD to @null with the post URL only effects the post's position on the /promoted page.
That page only includes posts that received @null promotion transfers, and they are sorted in order by amount received.
To the best of my knowledge, transferring SBD to @null doesn't effect a post's positioning in any other Trending feed.
Thanks for the detailed explanation