You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 3Speak Videos Funding STEEM DAO!
I mean this is nice and all but rewards sent to @steem.dao are printing more SBD. Not sure if this is a good idea as the peg is broken right now and rewards on @threespeak videos are pretty huge. In my opinion beneficiary to @sbdpotato makes more sense right now. Just a thought.
And this was done, with our funds, without our consent, starting a couple weeks ago. Not cool.
This is something to think about!
Higher SBD price is helping steem.dao as well.
Personally I support @sbdpotato but I would be reluctant to load a lot more rewards on there until there is clarity about what will happen to the fund if and when the SBD peg is restored.
As far as printing SBD to the DAO it isn't ideal necessarily ideal and does affect the blockchain SBD haircut rule, but unless those SBD are actually paid out, or appear likely to be, at least it doesn't affect the market price. Stakeholders can vote to limit SBD payouts from the DAO below the maximum (as has been the case), to burn them, or even to fund something like @sbdpotato (which I would be more likely to support as a DAO vote if the disposition of the @sbdpotato fund were clarified), or @burnpost (which helps address overvalued SBD in a manner similar to @sbdpotato's effort to help with undervalued SBD).
More existing SBD means each of them backed by less STEEM. Even if the SBD isn't being paid out they still affect market price. Reducing SBD supply is why @sbdpotato is a thing in the first place and this is counterproductive to that, now along with countering SBD printing from inflation @sbdpotato also needs to counter SBD printing from @threespeak videos.
If not set to @sbdpotato, the video rewards beneficiary is better off sent to @null in my opinion.
Proposal to directly burn SBD from @steem.dao is great way to reduce SBD supply but if it's funded it will interfere with other funded proposal (if my understanding on how the DAO work is correct). Getting it funded in the first place is also very unlikely.
That is a good point, although the magnitude is unclear. I would say that SBD which is paid out and circulates has a much greater impact, but I can't quantify this or prove it. In any case, the numbers are currently very small. See below.
Only to the extent that:
Currently the maximum DAO payout rate is about 1700 SBD per day and active payouts is only 230 SBD per day. So clearly there is ample opportunity to reduce the size of the DAO fund with burn without affecting other payouts, if desired.
Currently the DAO fund is about 170K SBD out of 7.3M SBD total, so the DAO is really negligible when it comes to the backing ratio. In the future that might not be true, in which case I would expect increased interest in some DAO fund burns, or funding things like @sbdpotato from the DAO.
I agree with everything you said here.
Ultimately the decision is in the hands of @threespeak. Hopefully this comment chain will give them some grounds for considerations.
Looks like Dan is sending some of his beneficiaries to @sbdpotato as well: https://steemit.com/promo-steem/@theycallmedan/proof-of-purchase
So that may help offset the SBD supply increase (especially since @sbdpotato uses the rewards to reduce SBD supply repeatedly, while a beneficiary directly to the DAO only increases SBD supply once).