Certainly, you're not saying that this change will have no effect whatsoever. If you were saying that, then this change should not be done.
We think the number of times this ratio has presented itself lately, it has worked against the peg. I haven't seen any numbers to support this assertion. One could show that the supply was affected adversely. That's academic and I'm not talking about that. I'm wondering if there is any way to show that SBD buying power was affected adversely by black-swan protection code. I don't think that can be demonstrated. There's too much volatility.
So, in reality, this change is to affect a perceived issue. And that's what I haven't been convinced about.
All I was saying is that the broken peg is a much bigger issue, and this one change alone isn't going to fix it.
The real protection against the "black swan" event is the 10% 'haircut' which is unaffected by this change.
Rather than argue for the change though, I will argue against the converse. In a case like we have today, why is it good to be giving authors a portion of their rewards as STEEM? Wouldn't it be better if they were receiving SBD instead?
I've spoken to authors who joined during a "liquidity crisis" when they got all three currencies in their payout at once. They liked getting the STEEM so they could immediately power up. Of course, they would have gotten a better deal if they were paid in SBD and traded it for STEEM. But that was more complication than they wanted to deal with and when the liquidity crisis was over, they felt a little inconvenienced.
So yes, in terms of price action, the SBD payout would have been "better" economically. But in terms of convenience, it was worse, to them.
Terms like "better" need context.
Hehe, true.
^ subjective value opinion, but to me that is a better option than convenience :)
Anyone who doesn't live in a country that sensibly allows tax-free trading between currencies should appreciate liquid steem over sbd if they immediately power up with it.