It is being debated how rewards should be modified in order to pull steem out of the doldrums.
IF you just got here, this has been an ongoing debate among those that know the math, from the very beginning.
I came in at the tail end of the 100+% interest.
Let me tell you, that was easy money!
It left folks confused, though.
They couldn't wrap their heads around taking a zero off their totals every 6, or something, years.
I agree that changing to what we have has been a benefit to steem.
Most folks just aren't ready to see the elegance of the math, until somebody holds their hand and explains it to them, multiple times, that even though they don't understand, it's going to be ok.
Inflation serves to keep the active accounts active, without activity, of some sort, your investment is losing money.
Which brings us to the reward curve.
The current proposal from on high is this one.
https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/improving-the-economics-of-steem-a-community-proposal
I'm ok with the return to non-linear rewards, maybe it will help find 'good' content.
The reason I would like to see the n2 make a return is because investors need a reason to hold more stake in one account.
The collusive voting rings are known now, they are not secrets for long.
If we use the curve offered in that proposal, what incentives does holding more stake have?
It's just more of the same, except the small fry get screwed even harder.
That was tried, and rejected, prior to steem going public.
At this point, if stinc is for it, I am against it.
Stinc is for this change.
My proposal Is that the n2 be brought back with a 500mv cap on influence.
Steem's distribution model, ergo the ninjamine, is a problem when stake weighted voting.
Why would anybody contribute to this ecosystem if all the money gets concentrated to a few early adopter hands?
Hands that then turn around, explain the math, and screw us just because they can?
They already have more than they could ever need, but they need more, just because that is how crapitalism is played.
No doubt we got some of the best crapitalusts the world has to offer.
They mimic the ones that got to the top with other tech.
I was sold on crypto as something different, not just more of the same crap with different masters.
As long as steem embraces the old paradigm, it will not flourish under the new, imo.
We have to offer a better choice than what is currently available.
If nobody has any stake, why would they want to buy more?
To make the early adopters ever richer?
Obviously, that is not selling very well even among the current buyers.
We had a chance to ride the early Korean wave, but stink whiffed it.
The extreme variation of the ninjaminers from the crowd makes the math unattractive to new, small investors.
The extreme disparity extends to stake, and not just influence.
There is too much stake in too few hands.
IF those large stakeholders decide to dump, there is not enough liquidity in our ecosystem for that to not tank the price.
So, what do we do to fix it?
I found some time to read some others' opinions out there and find that I can relax, several of them are seeing the same issues, and solutions, that I am.
Not necessarily enough to overcome the influence of the ninjamine, but certainly enough to not be ignored in the absence of inequality.
I understand why steem launched with the ninjamine.
The blockchain had to be protected from outside attack.
When I got here steem's market cap was 15m usd.
That is not a lot of money.
However, those days are gone.
Steem is here to stay, if we can get the 'early protectors' turned abusers (from bad coding choices) to start working to help steem flourish.
The steem, and steemit, accounts could be locked in some manner that takes their dumping away as an option.
I am not sure, at this point, that burning the coins is the solution to that.
I would propose that, if the 500mv(slowly rising) cap is not hard coded to steemd, then those two accounts should be used to downvote collusive, or individual, voting that exceeds 500mv in influence.
This could also be coded as a top payout attainable by a post, any votes on a post that exceeds the cap are not counted against voting mana, nor included in rewards.
They could still add to vote totals, just not rewards.
I prefer that options remain, at least until steem is 10 years old, for that stake to be used for other things.
The blockchain should defend itself.
I'm told by a reputable source that stinc deciding who does, and doesn't, get rewards is an issue with making steem into a security.
There are many factors to be considered.
Comment, if you like.
