Dear @thecryptodrive

Indeed since Elizabeth took over things are getting better. I'm also more optimistic about the future of STEEM already (comparing to days when Ned was fully in charge).

Any idea is STINC is still being forced to sell their own STEEM supplies in order to cover operational expenses and how much do they sell monthly?

What if in response to Steemit's reduction in selling, the community responds by burning a percentage of their post rewards by setting a beneficiary percentage to @null

I absolutely appreciate idea of burning tokens, however I'm failing to understand how can it really help to maintain price of tokens if speed of burning tokens is still way smaller than speed of "printing" new ones (inflation).

Let's not forget that burning tokens isn't creating demand. Please don't take me wrong: I'm not complaining here. I'm just not sure why so many people see burning tokens as a way of pushing price upward. That could be only the case if supply isn't growing.

So the fact that we will burn part of inflation isn't really going to increase buying pressure. It may obviously partly reduce selling pressure, but only assiming that users who are burning those tokens would otherwise sell them (instead of staking). At the end of the day burning part of our rewards will affect price as much as staking it and powering up. It simply won't.

Correct me please if I'm wrong. I've been working on math and thinking of token economies for very long and my impression is that I'm right :)

ps.
How can we check what SPS has been proposed and approved/declined? Any idea?

Strong upvote on the way :) Catch!
Yours
Piotr