"Bitshares and Steemit both run on blockchains. If the insiders were printing tokens for themselves outside of the distribution plan stated in the whitepaper and other documentation, that would clearly be fraud. That is what Vays is intoning."
You do understand how PoS works, yes? I don't take Vays' critique to imply that there's any fraud involved, just that the PoS systems employed are a toxic system of rewarding those who have the most. It's challenging for me to see PoS (or DPoS) as something much different than that (reward those with the most, aka capitalism), tho one can make a similar argument re: PoW. However, I infer Tone's point as thus: PoS does allow for early whales to accrue and sequester an amount of commodity which seems toxic to the community. Perhaps as these ecosystems evolve, there will come a time where a blockchain doesn't allow for such hoarding, something like a countdown timer - where your unspent balance is reduced over time, a sort of incentive to spend and not save. aka - boost your economy.
"Perhaps as these ecosystems evolve, there will come a time where a blockchain doesn't allow for such hoarding, something like a countdown timer - where your unspent balance is reduced over time, a sort of incentive to spend and not save. aka - boost your economy."
Umm, what? Will someone please explain to me what is wrong with "hoarding"? It is called savings. If I earn money it is my right to save it, spend it, whatever. It is not your right or anyone else's to force someone to spend their money. You do realize you are advocating what central banks are doing by creating negative interest rates and punishing savers and investors and trying to force them to spend their money.
Perhaps we have a fundamental difference of what an 'economy' is? I tend to envision an economy is where goods and services are freely exchanged and traded, not a place where resources are hoarded (to the detriment of the whole.) There is no forcing to spend in my illustration. You're welcome to save and hoard, but to maximize your buying power, you'd want to actually contribute to the economy, versus extract from it.
saving money is not a detriment to anyone else. this is ridiculous. Freely exchanged and traded is by free will. Yes, by definition, you wish to force people to spend. At any rate, your model is the same flawed model we are operating under now. i.e. spending is good so we need to create a credit bubble to give people ever more money to spend to "help the economy"
The "stick" approach, where your buying power gets reduced overtime, is clearly a non-starter. I regret framing the idea that way, the "carrot" seems a much better way: Provide an incentive to spend the credits sooner rather than later. Say by a diminishing reward/bonus for doing so. Saving is fine, you can still accrue interest at market rates, but if you spend newly received inputs, you get a bonus for doing so, that bonus would rapidly reduce.
I get your point, @asabovesobelow, though it is probably most applicable to Bitshares and the early PoS projects that preceeded it. But, it appears you do not understand Steem.
"Perhaps as these ecosystems evolve, there will come a time where a blockchain doesn't allow for such hoarding, something like a countdown timer - where your unspent balance is reduced over time, a sort of incentive to spend and not save. "
That is exactly what Steem does. The high inflation rate dilutes long-term holders over time by paying out new Steem tokens to the content creators and curators. Yes, some of the new tokens are paid back to the SteemPower holders, but not at a high enough rate to prevent diluting their stake. If you hold SteemPower you are still getting diluted, though at a slower rate than holders of Steem and SMD.
Please correct me if I am wrong, folks, but holding high SteemPower does not confer the power to get more tokens at a rate faster than the dilution. Yes, you can vote on the miners, but nobody in Steem holds anywhere close to 51% of the tokens. SteemPower doesn't boost your own posts, does it? It boosts your votes on other people's posts.
Also, if that was Vays concern, then it is quite clear that the rules of the EOS token sale were designed to distribute the token as widely and fairly as possible, preventing early hoarding by insiders or whales.
Bitcoin mining has the same problem, nowadays, were it takes capital intensive specialist hardware to mine. This goes against what Satoshi was trying to achieve.
Vays could have educated himself on this stuff. To accuse Larimer of "shady" intent shows that he hasn't been reading what Larimer has actually written.