This is an interesting experiment, and I'm all for trying new and interesting things before making consensus changes on the blockchain via hardforks. That said, I'm not clear which problem it's really solving.
Is the problem that all rewards taken together are excessive or just specific rewards to specific people are excessive while most other content receives very little reward?
Often the complaints I hear are more about the existing steem distribution, not the size of the rewards pool. If too much inflation is a problem, that can be handled in a number of ways including reducing witness pay and decreasing the amount of steemit going out as rewards. The distribution complaint, however, deals with a small number of individuals getting a disproportionate amount of influence over how rewards are directed. That, many say, is the problem. Burning more of the rewards, IMO, does not change that problem (if it is a problem). The distribution ratios would still be the same.
The rewards pool is one of the main mechanisms for non-investors to achieve steem power over time. If we reduce that amount, then we reduce the opportunity for minnows to become dolphins or whales in the future through content creation. Those who have the least amount of influence to vote on this experiment (the minnows) might be the most negatively impacted by it. Unfortunately, they often understand the least about the platform as well.
If this did increase the value of STEEM holdings while also making the onramp harder for people to earn steem through blogging and curating (decreased rewards pool), couldn't that make the distribution of steem even worse than it is today? Those holding the most STEEM would have their positions even more entrenched in terms of investment capital required to equal their levels of influence on the platform.
"reducing witness pay"
Jerry was attacked for having the audacity to suggest a discussion on this, and flagged by the very OP of this post...and he was even receiving witness rewards.
"we reduce the opportunity for minnows to become dolphins or whales"
Have you considered that this may be the very goal?
https://steemit.com/steem/@lexiconical/code-is-law-only-when-i-want-otherwise-it-s-abuse-the-shaming-syndicate-of-steemit-our-own-brand-of-sjws-and-social-repression
This is doing that, but it is doing it in a flexible way (via voting) rather than requiring a hard fork for each possible change.
And yes that could affect the ability of minnows to earn more SP but is that really what is happening? A very large portion is being paid out to not only some specific high earners (the value contribution of which is highly controversial at best) but also to a large number of dishonest 'minnow' accounts that are actually bot herders. To the extent those recipients are not really contributing to the growth of Steem/it that is simply value that is syphoned off and not helping the platform in any way.
There is no suggestion here that all rewards should be burned, but currently due to the SBD overvaluation the entire reward pool is increased by about 3x (the exact number changes constantly with the SBD price, and has been as high as 5x or possibly more). All of that increase is in the form of liquid SBD rewards which are least effective in distributing stake and most effective in attracting and being easily cashed out by abusers. Instead, this series of posts proposes to redirect some of that windfall to boosting the STEEM price (via a buy-and-burn process) which not only benefits all stakeholders large and small but: a) helps shift more of the reward value back to the SP form which is more attractive to actual community contributors and more effective in distributing stake; b) helps bring SBD value back in line by ensuring that the paid out SBD goes directly to the market (and also to the extent that the STEEM price increases, generating more of it); and c) helps increase the resources available to the STEEM community going forward by making everyone's stake (including even the @steemit stake) worth more.
I don't expect all stakeholder voters to find these posts to be a good use of rewards but I do encourage all stakeholder voters to at least compare this use of rewards to some of the others out there currently costing us a lot of money, and if they find those others to be worse for the platform then to either downvote those or upvote these.
BTW, I would add that your views on how this may not be a good thing are well thought out and you are welcome to express that via not voting or downvoting. Your input into that decision making process is as valuable as any other.
The only purpose here is to give stakeholders an additional option on how best to use the reward budget, an option that can be adjusted on a daily basis as conditions change. One thing to consider: Do you believe it is likely that every single day there is enough value being contributed in the form of posts and comments to justify spending the entire budget on that? Or is in fact the case that some days, under some conditions, the entire budget is not well spent that way? While subjective, this is in effect a numerical question because every STEEM/SBD paid out in excess of value contributed to the platform by posters and commenters makes Steem worth less and puts it in a weaker position to face the challenges ahead.
I love that point. That, to me, makes this worth it and could be emphasized in future versions of this experiment. If someone is going to go through the trouble of spending voting strength on something like this, why not flag some abuse instead? The main thing, I think, is visibility on abuse. If that was more obvious, maybe more stake holders would choose to downvote. That's why I'm supporting the work that @patrice is doing via @spaminator and @mack-bot because they seem to be actually doing something about the problems beyond just taking rewards for complaining about them, like so many others.
I also really like your point about a daily perspective on the rewards pool for that day and whether or not it's in alignment with our subjective understanding of rewards. The problem is, for many, they view the trending page and think that's the rewards going out that day when it's so much more. It's posts all over the place from all different communities and perspectives including comments and (yes) spam and abuse. The account farming is a big problem, for sure, and we all can treat that more seriously, but, again, most don't really know what's going on because it's well hidden or at least not obvious.
Also a great point that someone could choose to downvote this if they think too much of the rewards pool would be burned. I've chosen (at this point) just to comment and not vote. Even if there may be issues with it, I like new ideas and the conversations they start about what we as a community think about rewards pools and how they are maintained and distributed.
The funny thing is, other cryptocurrency projects have few conflicts over stuff like this. Sure some may complain about this mining farm or that mining pool, but there's a general acceptance that if someone obtains mining equipment, they can do with it whatever they want within the limitations of the protocol to maximize their investment. Things are different here because we all have a different expectation about what the rewards pool is for and how it should be best used. The funny thing is, under the hood, the cryptocurrency itself continues to be secured by the witnesses and function well, regardless of what happens on steemit or with the rewards pool. I plan on doing a post soon about the important distinction between STEEM and Steemit the site.
Thanks again as always for the intelligent and respectful dialogue.
Oh, another point I forgot to make earlier, this may be a nice way to get your reputation pumped if a lot of big whales with high reputations agree with it. :)
I plan to move this to a dedicated account if the project continues to get enough support. So while the dedicated account may end up with a high rep, I doubt e.g. 'burnmaster' will ever benefit much from that rep!