Quick note on burnpost
Since the SBD peg is close to being restored, @burnpost will no longer set a beneficary of @null. Instead, rewards will be paid to @burnpost and handled by the bot (or in some exceptional cases manually) in accordance with the rules.
In particular, if SBD is trading for more than $1, any SBD rewards received will be used to buy STEEM for eventual burning, which results in a larger burn relative to the rewards paid out. For example, if SBD is trading at $2 and STEEM is trading at 0.20 then immediate burn (or convert and burn) of 1 SBD would result in 5 STEEM being burned from the total supply, but using the 1 SBD to buy STEEM will result in 10 STEEM being burned. The latter also helps stabilize the price of SBD toward $1 by selling it on the liquid market, as well as contributing buying pressure to STEEM.
Other posters who wish to take advantage of this may set their beneficary to @burnpost instead of @null and any rewards received there will be treated accordingly. Likewise for donations.
100% beneficiary to @burnpost
This is interesting, i have an understanding however what do you mean by beneficiary? Does that happen if i simply put burnpost in my tags? Im a little confused sorry.
The beneficiary receives part or all of the rewards from a post. If you are using the steemit.com UI you can find it behind the "Advanced settings" link when making a new post.
I am happy that the goal was reached for putting SBD to 1 dollar again but was the burning of steem was the cause because there are still a lot of steem token out there relative to the burned steems? @smooth
I do think that the BTC price movement was the cause.
Who can say what makes markets do what they do? Ask 3 people, or even 3 experts, and you are sure to get at least 3 different answers.
All I know is that there would have been a whole lot more STEEM being sold otherwise, which can't be good.
Spot on sir.
Cmon man...
$37, trending....
Just give it a rest with this Burnpost thing. I mean youre seeing right now exactly why this is all pointless. Market swings, Steem and SBD move with it...
Remove this thing from the trending page.
Take it up with the voters.
I'm quite sure there is a lot of stake held by people who don't share your opinion on the value of the Trending page. I know I don't.
As for the market swings, I suggest you take a closer look. Steem has barely moved in terms of rankings. Yeah, the price has moved up a bit with the market but this does nothing to demonstrate that Steem's economics aren't seriously broken.
Looking for more milking posts instead of improvements to the economics on the Trending page, or receiving a larger portion of the reward pool, is being part of the problem, not the solution.
Or to put it another way, if you want to see better stuff on the Trending page, get people to post better stuff that is compelling and really adds value to Steem. I will be the first to vote for it, as I often do. @burnpost is "none of the above". It is there by default, not because it is our first choice (speaking for voters, which I can't really do, but I think my views are accurate).
Oh, so you're taking that stance:
"It's not me, it's the voters. I'm just a vessel of demand and bare no responsibility ."
You know that's not how it works. Even a bad idea will get traction if the "right person" is behind it. In this case you. And you cant wash your hands of it all. Youre the one running it.
We did move from 90 to 75 which is a noticeable jump. That being saidnSteem economics are broken. We all know that. But you dont patch a leaking ship with duct tape.
This is not how you fix it. The splution is tackling the underlying issue of SBD, maybe look at how how ETH stablecoins are doing it.
" if you want to see better stuff on the Trending page, get people to post better stuff"
Thats really a cop out statement. The actions of whales on this platform in large part determine the content created.
Telling me to get people to post more quality content is nonsensical for a number of reasons.
It is absolutely the voters, and I'm one of the voters too. (Though I do vote late to reduce trending. I also haven't voted for this rules update at all.)
I absolutely believe, 100%, that there should be a none-of-the-above option when it comes to reward voting.
Who is responsible for how much voting support none-of-the-above gets? Both voters and posters.
I fail to see how you can conclude otherwise.
You won't convince me that none-of-the-above doesn't have a role to play. I simply don't agree that arbitrarily low-value content should be paid, by default, because nothing better is available. That's a cop out on behalf of posters who want to get paid without really contributing anything.
And, truthfully, your gripe doesn't seem to be with the concept of none-of-the-above at all, but with how highly it is voted (i.e. ends up on trending). So, again, take this up with the voters and/or posters who aren't posting compelling content that ends up higher on Trending, pushing burnposts down. I have voted for such content in the past and I expect to do so in the future. Nothing would make me happier than to see more of it.
BTW, SBD is a secondary consideration when it comes to burnpost and virtually not a consideration at all when SBD is below $1, which has been the case for the past year. The primary purpose and function of burnpost is none-of-the-above. The various rules for how to deal with SBD being received are there to maximize value for Steem stakeholders and avoid negatively impacting the peg, but again, that doesn't even come into play when SBD is below $1 and SBD isn't being paid out in rewards, both of which have been the case for the past year.
for me it looks like it should be fixed in code and not try to repair it this way.
I think SBD should be a DAI copy and removed from rewarding. its way more scaleable and usefull then.
At as a Bonus it would not effect Inflation. So the system is secure.
Maybe so, but realistically it would likely be years (at a bare minimum a year) before that sort of code change is made on Steem given current development processes, resources, and roadmap. Meanwhile, we have to make the most of the system we have.
IMO the most realistic change we can make near term which makes SBD function more closely to DAI is to enable STEEM contributions to the SPS, but even that probably won't happen either for several months at a minimum.
I dont know how much time and money it needs to change this kind of code. I dont have the skills to do this. But i think someone maybe in the community have the skills.
SPS i think would be nice to fund something like this.
I agree with you, I also think it would take a very long time.
The most point i dont like on SBD is, the influence on inflation. I thing this can be kill Steem in a unlucky ( middrange) Bullrun.
I don't see that at all. In a bull run, inflation is actually reduced by the presence of SBD. The tougher situation is in a bear market.
This is true of DAI as well, because ETH (and other assets with MCD, but that's small so far) will be liquidated from CDPs and reintroduced into the market. That's effectively higher inflation. We just haven't see how things play out when DAI is large yet.
I think if a Bull run goes arround 6-12 month it is possible we have a lot of SBD. If the price should go under 1$ again, then it can be reinforce negatively. With more SBD it can be really damage Steem.
With a 20$ Steem SBD gets prited like crazy. And im sure this can be kill Steem.
With DAi i think the Design makes sense. It is big time scaleable.
It also would support SMTs ( with a real 1$ pair), add liquidity to internal marked and gives exchanges another 1$ pair there can use ( and im sure there will love to use, if steem grows).
Next point is the DAI SBD version can be used to get a Steem Paypal Version ( super long term vision). Social Media and payment Systen that is fast and decentralisiert.
With a Steem DAI version we would have the advantage with easy Wallets and easy Front Ends that everyone can use.
For the masses it would be awesome to have a really 1$ pegged asset.
The rewarding with SBD is IMO retarded and a big Design misstake. Its not Scaleable and can in worst case print a lot of Steem.
Maybe im wrong, but it can be worth to think about.
The way I see it rewarding from inflation is questionable and in a bull run can end up printing a lot of Steem being paid out with very little benefit. During the last bull run we had people getting paid $1000 for absolute nonsense which added almost nothing to Steem longer term. But I don't see a big difference between rewarding with SBD or rewarding with STEEM. I'm leaning toward the view that SMTs and apps should set their own rewards on the basis of actual revenue such as advertising, premium sales, membership fees, etc. Inflation turns into a big money grab at the expense of investors who then have little reason to invest.
Also, I see very similar potential problems with DAI on ETH in the case of big moves. Right now there is ETH with $25 billion market cap and $100 million of DAI, so DAI is really small by comparison, <1%. But what happens if DAI grows to say $1 billion and ETH drops in value by 90% or more (as all cryptos have done at some point, some more than once). I think you get the same sort of imbalances we see can happen with STEEM and SBD.
But if Etherum drops it is worth to look out the DAI because it has more Vaule then a $. That is the beauty of the Design and makes it stable.
OFC if Etherium losses 90% of Value would be suck, but it would grow again, because you need Etherium for DAI ( for the mechanism).
It is not like SBD, that come from nothing ( debts).
Nope please give it a deeper look. Only current SBD is retarded because it can be Dynamic tranfered to Steem and is the same System. DAI and ETH are 2 Systems that work together. They can only very little influence each other in a bad way.
The next point is you cant scale the current SBD as a Payment resource.
It is broken. And every real investor doesn't want a dynamic transfer in Steem. The current SBD should be deleted or repaired.
Long Term is this after account creation and some other problem the biggest weakness of steem.
There is no reason, necessarily, that DAI would be worth more than 1$ just because ETH drops. In fact it may be worth less than $1 not only because of supply and demand factors but because of the increased risk that it becomes undercollateralized.
You could absolutely have market conditions where people want no part of DAI or ETH, and then it becomes an imbalance (if the amount of DAI is large).
It is very similar to what happens with SBD.
Also, SBD isn't created out of nothing. It is converted from STEEM in the reward pool. It is the STEEM in the reward pool that is created out of nothing (inflation).
hyperinflate a coin then come up with 'burning' as the ultimate solution ... if i ever start caring again someone's gonna have to explain that ... not particularly talking to you ... it seems to be a global virus on Crypton
Congratulations @smooth! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
Congratulations @smooth! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!