I agree with you about maxing curation and jerking the reward pool, not to mention how these posts look to outsiders/newcomers, and I suspect this is mainly about making money (for most participants) under HF21 newsteem rules. I personally don't know what the math says about it.
But I have to say that xpilar and friends are actually doing much good on the blockchain, for example helping Mission Agua Possible and other very worthy causes that are struggling to make progress. So it's certainly not all black and white but a more complex gray area.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
maybe @thecryptodrive might describe how it all works
@captainklaus @drutter @xpilar I will reply to you all in one message, so @sbdpotato has two sources of funding, the post rewards and the sps proposal, it only just recently went into funded status. The debt ratio in the posts is based off the api provided by witness @cervantes and is the most accurate, all debt ratio calculations will be lagging 3.5 days in arrears due to the conversion period. we are still far off getting rid of enough SBD, according to @smooth we need to get rid of another 900K SBD to restore the peg as of today's price drop.
@sbdpotato can convert this much likely in 6 months with SPS proposal funding alone, additional post rewards funding helps shorten that period. I know it is a balancing act and authors want as much as they can get for themselves out of the rewards pool but at the end of the day when the price of SBD rises, STEEM will generally follow and everyone, authors and whales alike will benefit.
We just need to put up with some temporary discomfort on the trending page, I don't think it looks bad to the outsiders because it shows outside investors we are actively trying to fix our economics and the community is behind it.
Regarding buying SBD on exchanges, that is not as easily coded and having everything happen internally is more transparent and visible. I certainly won't have any community funds flow through my personal exchange accounts, I run this project pro-bono for the good of the community, I'm one of the only ones looking to fix our economics and mostly just get complaints. A few posts on trending to fix SBD in a few months is a fair price to pay.
I hope this satisfies the queries.
I have no doubt some of these things are done in good faith, by people who care about STEEM. I am simply trying to state my opinion, which is that you are not seeing the bigger picture and the collateral. There are things beyond numbers.
I am suspicious if the (quite large) grey area is argued with 'much likely in 6 months', 'we just need to put up with' and better solutions not being 'that easily coded'.
I think this ignores how fragile STEEM is, how important it is to motivate users and retain newcomers.
And I am of the opinion that these rewards should go to creators who are at the base (and shouldn't be at the bottom) of this economy, and surely need some motivation.
I am also sure that, while these initiatives come across as something to do for the good of STEEM, most of the people wouldn't vote if they didn't reap huge rewards!
Good solutions are usually also elegant solutions. This definately is not.
I will not continue to argue, me and many others made their point. And you continue as you like, this is the freedom we enjoy here, and at least we had a discussion.
over & out ;)
As I replied above, the claim of maxing curation is just a misconception. But I do agree with you that it isn't a question of black or white and reasonable people can disagree on what is best for the platform (and I very much respect when people are able to recognize gray areas).
Disagreement is entirely fair, and that's why we have: a) the ability of anyone to post whatever they think helps the platform, and b) the ability of anyone to vote up or down on such posts.