Sorry, but I do not understand your com. Also there are a few things that you are saying which indicate you do not fully understand how the STEEM/SBD mechanics work. I suggest reading the whitepaper if you haven’t already.
There are a few comments where I responded to a few concerns which sound similar to what you are raising.
Thanks for your response, I think I rest my case on this matter I would continue to power down, there are a few thing that you are saying which indicate you do not fully understand how the Steem/SBD mechanics work. I suggest reading the whitepaper if you haven't already that's a good enough clue for me
Good luck guys....
I am trying to understand what your concern is, but I’m sorry your comment is not clear.
I think... and please Daudi correct me if I'm wrong. I think what he was trying to imply is that if we force SBD down, the speculators that we depend on (in his opinion) to prop of the price of Steem and SBD would lose interest on this blockchain.
Maybe, because the volume of steem is low already (most of steem is not liquid, its locked up) and without volume runs can't happen in a sustainable way.
So, maybe (i'm reading the comment again for the 10th time) the argument is that by keeping the SBD low volume as a debt token against Steem we are creating a "false" scarcity of some sorts, thus enabling possible pumps on a low market cap crypto (which of course is how it works).
Again, I say... If I'm wrong interpreting that comment, I'm sorry. It's not very clear.
I happen to understand very well the argument for a pegged asset and the value it could bring to the commerce aspect of the blockchain. However, I'm of the idea that having some liquid rewards be speculative could be enough incentive as to bring speculators (we need them, we don't sell ads) to participate of the space, thus giving us liquidity.
So, I happen to think. that what Polymath said above.
Which is something apparently you proposed yourself might be more in the middle for most, and won't make some Steemians run to the hills in fear.
Just my two cents... Hopefully I made sense.
Thanks for trying to clarify. It sounds like he is reading way too far into this change. It should have minimal influence over anything related to trading volume, and there is still plenty of room for speculation. It is a relatively minor tweak to correct a condition that seems to be against the best interests of stakeholders.
I appreciate the kind reply Tim, I for one think that as much as this is important, because it obviously is. The biggest shift on the platform needs to be cultural. But that is a conversation for another day, for another post.
I happen to think lots of the organic demand for steem might come from an app than anything else that we could tweak on the code.
Case in point Steem Monsters. I never played magic the gathering, but I happen to think that the Steem Monsters game is going to fix this lack of organic interest (from regular Joes actually investing) we require for runs to be sustainable and it will offer a viable model for mainstream adoption...
Time will tell, but 12k in sales in a week is pretty bullish to me.
In any case, thanks again
Cheers
this is really bad . but steemit is really not so much helpful