RE: APR anyone?
It probably does need a bunch of edits after the last fork.
If the 2.9% is insignificant, why even stop printing SBD then? Right now SBD is at about 4.4% of the total "Virtual" Steem supply, so I don't know how we to get to 2.9% from there. Do you have something you can link me to to see? Looking at the FAQs (which I can see need some updates...) 75% of STEEM produced goes into the rewards pool. 75% of that goes to authors, and 25% to curators. Of the 75% that goes to authors, that could be split 50/50 SBD/SP, or 100% SP. If half of post rewards are powered up 100%, my calculations show that SBD accounts for 0.750.750.5*0.5 = 14% of the total $ value of STEEM produced at the time of post reward payout. When STEEM is up, like it was in December, we got lots of SBD, when it's down, like now, we get less SBD, but still more than 2.9% of the value of STEEM produce. Have I got that wrong too?
That literally makes no sense. It would block all conversions since the SBD price if kept at $1 would be well above the conversion target.
LOL! I'm going from the perspective that SBD primary designed and function to be a USD-SBD $1 peg, and so one of the many roles of a Wintess is to try and maintain a stable $1 peg as close as possible. It wouldn't block conversion from SBD to STEEM, but would potentially see an increased debt ratio at some point. Price feed biases are one of the tools mentioned to maintain the peg, and to make conversion still attractive at high debt ratios. I must be missing some link somewhere... or my explanation doesn't clearly convey what is in my head.
Reverse conversion.... is there such a thing, where where has it been hiding?
I'm enjoying this conversation. I'm here to learn, so if I'm wrong, at least I may learn something from this. Thanks for trying to explain things to me... as you roll your eyes again!! LOL!
Steem inflation is about 8.5% per year (declines by 0.5% per year). 75% of that goes to reward pool. Of that 75% goes to authors. Of that 50% (max) goes to SBD. This comes out to 2.39% per year (my citing of 2.9% earlier was a mistake) inflation emitted in the form of SBD.
This works out to 0.19% per month. If the debt ratio is 5% and we emit for a month and the STEEM price doesn't change then the debt ratio goes to 5.19%. Or 5% if we don't emit. Plus, in both cases, whatever change is attributable to the change in STEEM market cap. So the difference between emitting and not emitting is going to be very small, almost always much smaller than the change due to price, and often if not usually less than the change due to conversions. As to your question why bother stopping, I don't have an answer. Some people feel it makes things 'more safe' is the only answer I can give. But numerically, it really can't matter much.
When possible. When STEEM's value is too low it is no longer possible. As STEEM's price goes lower and lower this could quickly become absurd, where you convert 1 SBD into STEEM and you get 1 million STEEM back. There is no way that can work.
Of course it would. Let's say the SBD price were maintained at $1 but conversion would only pay you 50c worth of STEEM. Who in the hell would convert? There would be no shrinkage of the SBD supply (just as happens during a pump), which is certainly not desired when the SBD supply is viewed as too high. You certainly want to shrink it.
A bias could be used to shift the conversion target back to $1, but why would this make sense? It would completely erase the function of the 10% cap rule! If we're going to do that we might as well remove the rule.
There isn't. It is a proposal that has been discussed but no such feature exists. The only way to get new SBD into the system is to create them via rewards.
Ah! But that 2.39% translates to 28.1% of all newly created supply, so stopping it means you would be producing 28% more STEEM, and no SBD, which is fairly significant. Yes, the longer we go, the less overall significance it has, but considering the likelihood that more than half the STEEM supply is locked up in SP and not on the market, that 28% reduction in supply rate could have an effect if carried on for a prolonged period.
I get the conversion dilemma, so it's a case of reduce the debt ratio first, and then look at returning SBD to the peg.
The next item would then need to be how to prevent the debt ratio getting back up over 10% again, while maintaining a stable $1 SBD peg. If that can't be done, we may as well not have SBD at all. Get rid of it....Problem solved.
The denominator of the (debt or SBD) ratio refers to total market cap. The total amount of STEEM produced per year has no relevance. As I noted, in a month, the ratio of 5% either goes to 5.19% or stays at 5%. Or if you want to add the 0.19% to the denominator, sure, then the ratio goes to 4.99%. Still very litltle difference. If you want to let it play out for a year, then it either goes to 7.39% or stays at 5% (4.88% if the STEEM is added to the denominator). That starts to sound somewhat significant but remember this ignores all conversions, which in a well functioning system (no big pumps) would certainly be happening over the course of a year, and certainly there would almost always be huge price changes in a year.
Also, producing SBD does not mean producing less STEEM! The STEEM is still produced, just in the form of SBD (which, in general, is later converted into STEEM). It is the same as producing the STEEM but then temporarily locking it up.
No such luck.
There is no satisfactory way to get rid of it. You can't simply erase the tokens (obviously) and you can't eliminate the conversion option that current holders paid for without severe damage to any sort of social contract. You can't eliminate printing because that would give SBD holders a huge one way bet on a pump that is backstopped by (and therefore at the expense of) the rest of the Steem economy. Anyway, if it did pump then just not printing for no good reason is rather stupid because creating new overpriced-at-birth SBDs allows SP holders to extract revenue from SBD speculators.
We're stuck with it. We do the best we can to make it work as well as possible, but that isn't likely to be perfection, just a set of useful compromises (and IMO this is good enough to add a lot of value even being imperfect). Perhaps in the future there may be some sensible way to get rid of it, such as converting it to an SMT with a suitable dedicated reserve fund. This would require the SBD supply to become naturally very small, which might happen.
That is starting to make sense in some ways. So the longer the platform goes on, and the more STEEM and SBD is produced, the less power we (witnesses) have over the overall economy, and influencing anything via APR of feed biases?
I see where you're coming from with SBD. It's kinda broken being unable to fulfill its primary role consistently, but as you say, we're stuck with it anyways.
Thanks for taking the time to converse with me on this.
Concuerdo con eso último que escribiste..