RE: Steem Experiment: @whatsup Burn Steem Post #1
New STEEM into the ecosystem just dilutes the value of the existing STEEM. By locking it up, @smooth is reducing that dilution, which protects the value of our holdings and also increases the value of rewards that other authors receive in SP relative to SBD (which can be quickly dumped). The point of the 50/50 split was to invest authors in the long -term health of the Steem block-chain, and that incentive is badly broken when SBDs are worth $3+.
Also, as another commenter already noted, the "burned" SP is presently being delegated to spam-fighting efforts.
Finally, it's not either/or. We can vote to protect our stake's value, and also vote to support authors who we think add value to the ecosystem.
I may rethink my votes if the SBD peg ever gets restored, but under present circumstances, I support @smooth's strategy.
If the SBD peg is restored, then the approach taken by @burnpost will adjust accordingly.I did receive a suggestion to not burn the SP immediately since it could continue to be used for anti-abuse and potentially helping the SBD should fall out of alignment again, and I'm considering that, but for now the rule is immediate power down and burn if/when SBD peg is restored.
To be clear, I absolutely do not doubt your motives or intent.
Yeah, I get why some feel it is justified. I've had mixed feelings for a while.
Maybe if we had a better distribution the economy of steem wouldn't be so funky. I support as I stated smooth's right to decide to handle things in this way.
I would just rather try to change how the platform is functioning by rewarding good behavior and punishing bad actors. I am interested in a broader distribution by any means. I don't think buyers are going to be a problem for long.