You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Final Review of Steem Economic Changes
I would like to remind everyone that Ned and I will not be powering down during the first 3 months after the hard fork.
I would like to remind everyone that Ned and I will not be powering down during the first 3 months after the hard fork.
I haven't powered down yet, and will refrain to do so until STEEM succeeds.
What's your definition of success for this purpose?
If STEEM is used to solve some real world problem, in assertive way. Say if STEEM becomes de facto solution for problem Y in market X. Either, or both problem Y and market X need to be significant.
Example:
Someone builds a next gen marketplace on STEEM, and due to its "10x" benefits it becomes the new eBay, reaching out to millions of people (market X). Now the chain holds all of this massive intrinsic value.
Plus imagine what you can do with your votes if that time comes. Really make a change with giving value where you think is deserved!
Me either Dan, me either...
What % of inflation goes to authors and curators now?
It is comparatively tiny, around 6.5%. However, the economic models are so different that is not really comparable.
This is gonna be nuts! :D
@smooth wrote:
Afaics, the system is almost identical for authors and curators but very different for SP and non-SP holders...
Per my prior blog (c.f. also @arhag's comments) about the preexisting inflation math, existing SP holders were not debased (i.e. not diluted, effectively a stock split for them) when the ratio of SP to the total money supply including non-SP was ~87%. Above that ratio, SP holders were being debased and below that ratio they were experiencing a positive interest rate. For this new proposal, the stock split ratio can be approximated roughly as (which doesn't account for keeping the ratio constant or the fact that existing SP holders are diluted by new SP holders, but this is a small difference in most scenarios):
x × 0.15 × 0.095 = (1-x) × 0.095Which is again ~87% but that is 87% of ratio of non-SP to the total money supply, so ~13% if comparing the prior system. The other difference is that above and below that ~13% ratio, the effects are transposed, i.e. above is a positive interest rate for SP holders and below they are being debased but never more than 9.5%.
So if comparing the prior system to the proposed one, at the equivalent stock split ratio scenario, then SP holders are debased the same in both proposals and the author+curator rewards are also roughly the same at
0.75 × 9.5% = 7.1%. But it isn't likely that SP holders will only be ~13% of the money supply, although power down has been reduced to 13 weeks from 104. Thus the new proposal is likely to be much more dilutive. At the 95% ratio (what it was historically), SP holders are debased at roughly 8.8%. It is unlikely for the ratio to drop much unless the whales power down, but powering down wouldn't collapse the price if they aren't selling. So the real effect of this change is to debase the SP holders, so there really isn't any reason at all to power up. So we can expect everyone who can power down to do so, until the ratio reaches some level where the debasement rate on SP holders is much less than for non-SP holders. Although there might be a Prisoner's dilemma which every whale wants their SP to be powered up if the debasement is less. So the homeostasis is likely to be some where at a positive level of debasement for SP holders, but less than that of non-SP holders. Thus free market and kudos on a good design decision (actually is what I had planned to do, except I would not have dropped the 104 weeks to 13 weeks because it could create enormous selling pressure collapsing the price).The huge difference is that non-SP holders are only debased at 9.5% instead of in excess of 100% in the prior system.
The other huge difference longer-term is the debasement 9.5% APR decreases by 0.5% per year.
Agree but that wasn't the question that was asked. The question was asking about something relatively unimportant, to me, which was why I didn't actually do the math to answer it (nor did you) and just gave a rough guesstimate, but apparently not to the person asking it.
I think I will avoid this too. Solidarity and all that!
There is a new feature, you can now add a profile picture :-)
I'am sure that you have enough on both exchanges Polo and Trex ;). How low you can go. AGS greetings.
Thank you sir, good luck propagating platform adoption (upgrades / promotion) without too much need for heavy cashout sessions in the future.
Dantheman could I ask you where I can find what the reasoning is behind changing the 2 years to 13 weeks?
I don't see how Steemit can succeed if we are just hoping on the fact that whales/ dolphins are not powering down than the system can handle in 13 weeks.
We seen in the past that a relatively small group of whales powering down could plunge steems value, so I don't understand why the choice was made for 13 weeks?
Why don't we change the rate based on the health of the economy for instance.
At least until Steemit is fully grown. Now with the 13 weeks an unstable timebomb is created, that places all hope in the whales/ dolphins making sensible deicisions on powering down whilst right now nobody knows what the current system can handle in terms of steem flooding in.
There could be many better options than the 13 weeks and I haven't heard many solid arguments that seem to backup the 13 weeks.
I want to invest heavily in steem but this is a major breakpoint for me.
If anyone could point me in the right direction and put my nerves to ease I would be grateful!