You seem to be implying I'm lying

You absolutely certain you don't have me confused with someone else?

May 14th, one of the first things I said after returning to slack chat:

I'm happy to test a workers proposal scheme. But I don't believe the funding should come from authors or witnesses if we have an other wise working system as that's where our central value proposition is. It's easy to want it take it from there now because this part is completely failing, but in a working system you want to leave as much of it there as possible. There's a much better alternative: (edited)
Currently we spend around 15% of the ~8% inflation or so on paying staking rewards directly. This amounts to around 1.2%p.a. Factoring in the that a lot of Steem is liquid and don't enjoy this, let's say SP stakers get 2-3% a year.

Given the volatility of the underlining asset (that has gone from 4c to $8 back down to 20c in 2 years) we can see movements of 100x+ p.a. That is 10,000%+. Even if those numbers are outliers, movements of 1000% are probably conservative (edited)
No rational investor will have their investment decision be materially affected by an extra 2-3% if the underlying asset is consistently varying at a thousand times that amount. It is less than a trivial incentive for an investor. Yet it is not a trivial cost to the system. 15% of inflation is expensive for us and it's doing nothing.

Search 'vesting interest' in general, slack chat, May 21st, I count several messages by me pushing strongly against the idea of SPS coming from author curation and suggesting it should come from vesting instead.

Who would be staunchly defending vesting interest? If we took half of that which is 7.5% of inflation and see how SPS runs with it along with the 200k Steem and post donations I think that's a good start. Witness pay and author curation have their staunch defenders for now, but I'd like to hear from those who firmly believe that the 1.2% inflation to pay 2% SP interest is a strong enough motivator to justify it's cost

Among many other messages. And it's very evident from the context of the conversation they weren't recently edited.

A few more in hp_eip channel on June 3rd showing up in search

However, I do strongly suggest reconsidering where the SPS funds come from, and recommend that most of it come from vesting interest rather than author/curation

There's one from me as far back as april 2017 questioning the soundness of vesting interest. As well as a post by me written around that time criticizing

is that correct? the effect of this is only a ~1.5% per annum interest on total steem power for all vested steem, is that really worth the 15% allocation of total distribution? Or am I missing something?

I don't think I've ever advocated SPS funding to come from author curation. At most I've reluctantly accepted it as a compromise as I'm getting most of the numbers I wanted for the EIP.