However, there is a flaw in that strategy. Ideally, burning should be done after fairly wide adoption as a price pump, not in the early stages. Considering that there are a little over 11000 people with 500+ SP in their accounts, this project is a bad idea. I thought it was for the SBD peg, no?

Everyone upvoting these posts are actually hurting authors while increasing their own share of the network. It has been my understanding that it was somehow maintaining the SBD peg, but if it is not, I would have to say, respectfully, that I find this to be unethical. And I would encourage you to end this operation.

For major participants to actively be taking rewards out of the system that could go to legitimate content producers while gaining curation rewards for themselves is a problem. For witnesses it could even be a legal liability, because it is a manipulation of the economy within Steem.

@hobo.media was upvoting it as well, so please don't take that as any kind of threat. I am just suggesting that this project close down because I cannot see how this is appropriate for any reason short of it somehow being a protection to the SBD peg. If it improves systemic health that is one thing, but holder happiness is subtly different from systemic health.

If your concern is keeping inflation down, might I suggest another tactic? Perhaps you can make a list of authors that would be willing to create long-form content, each post being completely unique and sacrifice the rewards for visibility. I would be willing to write 1 post per week through @hobo.info with a minimum of 500 words, all unique content relating to the HoboDAO project for the free visibility and set the author rewards to @null. I'm sure you could find many authors that are willing to sacrifice rewards for visibility of their projects/blogs. This could be a wholesome approach to your objective of shrinking the inflation rate.