At the current market price, it would be just under one million a year for funding. If the price raises it even more funds to get things developed with. Yes, content creators and commenters will take a hit. But because of this, our dependence on the development of the chain goes down. So say steemit goes bankrupt we can still find developers to put the changes in that we need.
This is also a very good backup plan for us, without faster forks and development steem was going to die anyway.
Yes, this is true.
My point is not against the creation of the SPS. My point is the direction of the funding being solely from content creators.
The witnesses are stakeholders too, it is only fair that all stakeholders contribute. To leave all contributions coming from just one group is far from ideal.
I will reiterate. I am for the SPS. I am not for all of the funding coming solely from content creators. When you add the other changes into the mix it exacerbates the pain that will be felt from them.
Let us not forget that highly competitive days are coming. To discourage, even slightly those that could potentially draw audience to the platform is counter intuitive.
A la fina el SPS es dinero par los testigos ellos son los creadores de todas las iniciativas d acuulación de steem .
Por eso son testigos. Crean la trampita, acumulan y después compran el voto para estar en la mesa...
Confiemos más Blocktrades que le da igual Stem queEOS. Estas Grades ideas para estabilizar la moneda Steem con un fondo especial creo que es más un pago de soporte finaciero. Las grandes ideas que tiene de ellos deben ser poque les estan pagando como asesores...... era muy bonito el cuento aquel que steem liberaria el mercado a la final hay que someterse a la mano invisible de las Crytos.
No, es no correcto
You got to remember these witnesses are also content creators. So yes they won't be taxed for securing the chain. But they will be taxed for using the stake they own. Which is used to upvote content or sale votes.
Much of the funding will come from things like vote bots and self voting whales will feel this tax, more than most of the content creators or voters. The whales who own a large amount of the stake will feel this tax more than lower users since 10% of their fee's will out shadow the normal users. So whales also being witnesses are voting yes to a tax that doesn't benefit them as much.
There is more to this, that people are overlooking.
Not all of them are content creators. In fact, some of them are conspicuous by their absence on the chain. There is far more to being invested in Steem than running a cloud instance of a witness on Privex.
The many I know of actively curate content or make posts. Yes, some don't post as much but that's because they're developing. Though some are just draining the system and i can fully agree on that.
Most of the funding is going to come from bots and whales. Since they make up a large number of funds paid out. They're taking a hit in some way which many have multiple accounts. So they will be paying their fair share in some way. And at current market cap they don't really make a lot when the price is low.
This really should be seen as an investment in the system.
The SPS is an investment into the system.
Agreed. On that, I have never disagreed.
Funding - I categorically disagree that the funding should come entirely out of the content creator portion of inflation.
Last I checked the median payout was .01 SBD. SPS will lower that reward for producing content. It's retarded to further decrease incentive to become and stay a Steem user. Retention was already at ~7.5% YOY last I checked. Reducing potential rewards will not improve retention, and will shrink the market for Steem. You might note that reducing the market depresses the price.
This tax will create capital losses, not capital gains, making an existential problem worse.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
It isn't true it comes solely from content creators.
Apart from the fact that literally all rewards come from investors who are paying them (via inflation), not from people who receive them, it comes from the reward pool which pays both authors and curators (stakeholders). The latter will absorb either a 25% share or a 50% share of the SPS budget depending on whether you based it on the existing split or the post-HF21 split.
But, again, all rewards are paid by investors. Shifting around who receives them does not change that.
I think my point is quite clear. I am aware that it comes from both creators and curators.
To mince words semantically like this is merely disingenuous.
Edit, I don't mean that to sound as abrupt as it reads. I am trying to get my kids out to party :0)
Well forgive me but I do think think that it not shifting solely from creators/authors but also from curators is more than a semantic point.
Nevertheless turnabout being fair play, I do think the more important point in my reply is not about curators vs authors, but that in fact all rewards are coming from investors. Before the fork, all rewards come from investors, after the fork all rewards will still come from investors.
For investors to start spending some of that inflation budget via a proposal pool (where by the way, anyone is free to make proposals stating what they intend to do for Steem and how much they request to be paid to do it, even including for that matter, content creators) rather than continuing to spend all of it via the content pool is not changing where it comes from, it changes where (some of) it is going.
I doubt very much that there are too many investors happy with overall performance of Steem over the past few years, and the reward pool is the headline feature of Steem representing by far the largest portion of the inflation budget. If we aren't happy with how things are working, and many are understandably not, questioning whether it is doing its job, and then looking to spend some of that budget on other ways of adding value to Steem should hardly be viewed as radical.
When witness rewards were cut 80% a couple of years ago in order to focus the witness role on core blockchain maintenance and away from general project funding (with the 10% of inflation budget assigned in order to sufficiently fund that essential core blockchain role), that was done with the explanation that:
Well it has taken over two years to get here, but now were are finally at the point of doing #2.
IMO it is a completely reasonable, and even pretty modest, adjustment to make at this point. After some further experience, we can reassess.
All stakeholders will be contributing, because the funding will come from inflating stakeholders existing holdings, just as funding for everything else comes from that.
The question of allocating that inflation budget is not or should not be one of different groups each trying to grab the most they can for themselves at the expense of the others, it is or should be one of looking at how that budget can best be spent to give Steem the best chance of success.
I sincerely believe that the witness reward should not be reallocated here, not because I am a witness and am wanting the higher (or at least not lower) pay, but because witness pay already went through a process which cut it (by 80%) to the lowest possible level reasonably consistent with chain safety and security (and going forward even that assertion of safety is open to question in my view).
I also sincerely believe that the reallocation of a portion the payouts from the main content pool to a proposal pool is in the best interests of Steem. It also doesn't directly translate into a cut for content because some 'project' funding can and should move to the proposal pool, freeing up more of the main pool for content and general social uses. I for one will be looking to use some of my new downvotes against posts/comments which try to extract project-like funding from the main pool when they can and should submit their request to the proposal pool instead.