Im not sure what @theoretical said that disagreed with me. He did correct my statement that the backing steem is created ex nihilo (though its semantics.... i guess you could call creating it by mining ex nihilo... i call creating it by mining creating it by mining...) but he agreed with me that the steem to redeem SBD comes from the vesting fund.

His explanation merely restated what I had said... that the redemption of SBD comes from the vesting fund.. which was the entire topic of debate if you read through the thread.

THe whole thing that triggered it was that I had said that it makes more sense to evaluate SBD against the vesting fund (vice against the total supply) to determine the risk from debt exposure, since SBD are redeemed by there. There is nothing in his reply to contradict that. Aside from a basically semantic disagreement about what ex nihilo means, I challenge you @theoretical or anyone else to point out an error that he corrected.

I already wrote a pretty concise explanation of the vesting fund, vests and steem (which i linked and you think is too complicated) I don't know what else i can tell you. Its obvuous that youre one of those authors that gets upvoted as a matter of course because of your connections. That doesnt make you right, and it doesn't back your math (which is wrong).

For example, when you say a change from 5/100 to 95/200 is a 349% increase, that is wrong. And its wrong regardless of what dantheman, theoretical and complexring believe. Its wrong even though you got paid $2k to do math poorly. its just wrong. Instead of arguing with someone who clearly possesses a greater acuity of discernment than you do, you should just sit there and be wrong.

I've already gone head to head with complex on economic issues and the underlying math. And im confident that, in that area (if not in my understanding of how i works) I am at least his equal.

Just BTW, since you brought academic credentials into it, i have an MBA and a juris doctorate.

. @smooth had pointed out to me that the weighted average price of powering down is 1 year of risk, i.e. if the price declined by a constant rate during 104 weeks, the weighted average price would be the price at the 52nd week.

Well sure. Obv given a linear change the weighted average is going to be in the middle. The point is it could as easily go up as down. I think everyone understands that the price of steem 1 year from now is not a given. But the fact remains that if your SP balance is X, a powerdown to get X steem doesnt take a full one year. That the value of that X steem is unpredictable is a given, i think for most readers.