scrobble.life
#steem

HF21: SPS and EIP Explained

SPS EIP Details.jpg

Hello Steemians, yesterday we announced the release of the code for Hardfork 21 so that public testing may commence. This release candidate includes the Steem Proposal System (a/k/a SteemDAO) along with a long-term funding solution, and the Economic Improvement Proposal (EIP). In this post we want to go into more detail about the code we submitted relating to these two features. These changes are quite technical, and we’re sure people will have even more questions. We invite you to include those questions in the comments section below so that we can answer them in future posts.

The SteemDAO/SPS

The SteemDAO was a concept proposed by @blocktrades to allow Steem users to publicly propose work they are willing to do in exchange for pay. Steem users can then vote on these proposals in almost the same way they vote for witnesses It uses stake-weighted votes, but voters can vote for as many proposals as they want.

Steemit paid $50k USD to @blocktrades for the development of the SteemDAO. Once approved, and after enough time has transpired so as to demonstrate the security and stability of the system (about 1-2 weeks of operation), Steemit will provide initial, one-time funding, by converting 200k STEEM to SBD which will allow the market to test this new feature.

Long-Term SteemDAO Funding

At the request of the Witnesses, we have included code in this release that would add a long term funding mechanism for the SteemDAO/SPS. If this hardfork is accepted by the Witnesses, 10% of overall inflation (pulled from the rewards pool) would be used to fund proposals made through the SteemDAO/SPS.

Decentralization & Sustainability

It is important for the long term sustainability and growth of the Steem ecosystem that there be a decentralized mechanism for incentivizing the development of projects that will add long term value to Steem. Those projects can take the form of development efforts, marketing efforts, or anything else. Steem’s Proof-of-Brain algorithm was not designed to incentivize projects with long gestation periods and which require significant upfront capital expenditures. This was why @blocktrades proposed adding the SPS/SteemDAO to Steem and why Steemit agreed to fund that development.

Funding Valuable Initiatives

While we have agreed to provide some funding to the SPS, our resources are inherently finite. That means that the SteemDAO would, by definition, be unsustainable if Steemit were the only funding mechanism. This was essentially the argument that the majority of Steem Witnesses made to us, and we agreed. @blocktrades has used their experience with previous chains and worker proposal systems to design a system that should be very good at allocating resources to projects that Steem stakeholders believe will add tremendous value to the Steem blockchain, thereby benefiting all Steem stakeholders. Think of the SteemDAO as a decentralized tanker of rocket fuel that can be used to pour fuel into high-potential projects so that they can take flight. But if the SteemDAO has no fuel in its tanks, it can’t do its job.

As far as why the funding for the SteemDAO is coming out of the Rewards Pool, that was ultimately a decision that was made by the Witnesses, and we agree that it is an acceptable solution to the problem. The Rewards Pool is not shrinking, it is being updated so that it can reward a wider variety of creators (including developers, marketing firms, influencers, etc.) so that even more value can be added to the ecosystem, which benefits everyone.

Economic Improvement Proposal

At the request of the Witnesses, we have included code in this release that would implement economic changes which alter the incentive mechanisms to be better aligned with rewarding high-quality content. Last month we publicly voiced our support for a proposal that had been presented by multiple members of the community and which aligned with certain suggestions we had made in the past relating to a convergent linear rewards curve.

Shortly after starting the conversation, the Witnesses came to a consensus in support of adding the improvements to the upcoming hardfork. For that reason we have added essentially 3 elements to the hardfork which we are referring to as the “EIP.”

  1. A convergent linear rewards curve
  2. A separate downvote mana pool
  3. Increasing the curation rewards to equal the author rewards

We believe that these three changes, when packaged together, will shift the behavior of Steem Power holders in a positive way. Under these changes self-voting and bidbot usage will become less profitable than curating good content. While on paper author rewards are reduced, and curation rewards increased, we believe these changes will make it easier for good content to be discovered and rewarded, simply because that type of positive curation behavior will become more profitable under the EIP.

The net effect over time will be that more rewards go to good authors. Users should also spend more time curating content rather than voting for themselves or delegating out their power to bidbots because it will be more profitable for them to do so.

Convergent Linear Rewards Curve

While we can’t know for certain how these changes will affect the system, we do know how the system is behaving now and there is consensus that the system is functioning sub-optimally. Our decision to use the constant 2e12 in the new rewards curve is based on the desire to not change the system too much (because we know that the system still functions), while trying to make modifications that reduce undesired behaviors. In other words, the 2e12 is more similar to the existing linear rewards curve than either 2e11 or 2e13. The relevant behaviors are at the ends of the curve. For the majority of the curve, the payouts are nearly identical to a linear rewards curve.

Separate Downvote Mana Pool

Under the EIP, you will be able to render a certain number of downvotes for free (i.e. without reducing your voting mana). The way this works is that the Steem blockchain protocol looks at 25% of your voting mana and calculates how many downvotes that would grant you. Under the current system, the moment you started downvoting your voting mana would go down. Under the proposed system, Steem would basically ignore those downvotes with respect to your voting mana.

Your voting mana won't diminish, which means you can use that mana to reward more content. Once you use up those downvotes, if you continue to render downvotes, those will once again consume voting mana. This is an important mechanism for regulating abusive downvoting, but by making a percentage of user’s downvotes free, this will lead to more users downvoting detrimental content.

Here are two pie charts which illustrate how Steem’s yearly inflation is distributed now, and how it will be distributed after the changes.

Before:

Screen Shot 2019-06-19 at 3.02.20 PM.png

After:

Screen Shot 2019-06-19 at 3.02.39 PM.png

The Witnesses

While we agree that all of the changes requested by the Witnesses represent a positive step for the Steem blockchain, it is ultimately up to them whether this hardfork is approved, and they serve at the discretion of you all: the Steem stakeholders. Steemit, Inc. and its representatives do not, and will not, leverage our stake to influence this decision. Therefore, if you feel that your Witnesses are not representing your interests then we urge you to exercise the rights granted to you by this decentralized platform to elect Witnesses that you believe will represent your interests.

That being said, with respect to Hardfork 21, we found that the Witnesses you have elected acted rationally and responsibly, working together to develop solutions and come to a consensus on changes to make Steem a better place for everyone, while setting the stage for Smart Media Tokens.

Prepare!

Don't forget, if these plans do move forward, you will soon be able to submit proposals to the Steem blockchain. So start getting them ready!

The Steemit Team

Comments · 53

  • @ainsleyjo1952(41)· 2560d

    I can see that I have a lot to learn here and wouldn't even know where to begin when it comes to discussing this. So, I will lurk. This is an excellent article but I have to admit to only barely understanding some parts of it now -- while other parts of it are within my range of understanding.

    All I know is that I still believe in and endorse what you're hoping to achieve here.

  • @grexx(41)· 2562d

    Waooooooooo Many changes, it is amazing

  • @goldmanmorgan(59)· 2614d

    just one more question @steemitblog , i NEVER downvote ... not once since i got here , do i get extra upvotes for free instead ?

    i think downvoting is detrimental btw, you'll never get big brands to sign up if they clash in flagwars with opposing brands ... my crazy opinion again ofcourse

  • @joeyarnoldvn(68)· 2616d

    I went to Steemit.com and registered for a 2nd Steem account for myself @oatmealjoey over a week ago and I'm still waiting for it to be approved. Will it be accepted or will I have to pay money for creating additional accounts for Steem?

  • @happyme(72)· 2617d

    It seems to me that Steemit Inc. should do NOTHING. Leave all development up to individuals. LOOK: we already HAVE new tokens-- done privately. We already HAVE communities -- done privately by using the tokens and token tags.

    Just leave things alone and someone will do what needs to be done to make Steem great again. It has already begun!

  • @shenkawys(45)· 2618d

    Follow me and i will return it

  • @originalworks(69)· 2619d

    This type of economy is very effectively used by many projects that are focused on development of their platforms. With the stagnation STEEM has experienced I believe this system could very well help re-vitalize the platform. Hoping that the tests go well and there are no major bugs, but otherwise this is very exciting.

    As far as content creator cuts, I believe that by focusing on improving the platform and bringing in more users, the content creators will actually end up earning more in the long term anyways.

    Really looking forward to this and I am glad that the team as well as witnesses are staying on top of their game. Good luck with the implementation.

  • @bluefinstudios(72)· 2619d
  • @ihkhandokar(25)· 2620d

    good

  • @dunsky(70)· 2620d

    Hey guys, I don't know where I should report it and if it could be solved or not. But in Russia and Turkey steemitimages server is blocked by IP because of one travel blog hosted on same IP wrote about Amsterdam coffeeshops. You can check it here. Now I can not see any images on Steem posts, not even any post previews without VPN.

    Maybe it is possible to change IP steemitimages IP address somehow to make it work again? I know there are not so many people using Steem in Russia & Turkey since you even don't care about recent bug on steemitwallet.com which is making unable to save changes for locale and other settings (page refresh resets site settings and I have to use steemiwallet in Russian by default). But anyways maybe you will fix at least this issue.

  • @ew-and-patterns(71)· 2620d

    Can you please bring back the charting updates towards reaching the goals of implementing communities and SMTs? Why has communication slowed down a lot again?

  • @mmmmkkkk311(64)· 2622d

    We should be able to downvote content anonymously, is it technically possible to hide/mask these transactions on blockchain?

  • @blockchainstudio(72)· 2622d

    Is 50:50 not fixed yet? One thing I really don't understand is that steemitblog's posts didn't include the exact ratio twice in a row. Are you also hesitant about this change?

    This kind of change should be done at the SMT level. I think the main purpose of this is to keep holders who're trying to leave. Eventually ad-revenue sharing with authors is a must. Currently, Steemit requests holders to pay authors, which has been proven to be not sustainable. That's why many holders are leaving and Steemit is trying to give a myopic incentive to them.

    ps. Due to several combined changes, you will not know which result is due to which change.

  • @steemingmark(56)· 2623d

    Because of the new wallet and password changes I think there Is a lot of dapps now that you can't login and use...

    Posted using Partiko Android

  • @mahtabalam(62)· 2624d

    I think steem will go 0.05$ after this hard fork. Stop doing hard fork. whenever you do hard fork steem goes down. This hard fork is useless. For the god sake please stop it.

  • @bigbot(59)· 2624d

    Could you please tell me why you delay SMT once again how long we wait for smt and check steem price in satoshi why you not control his price why steem value dropping continuously ?????????????????????

  • @jondoe(76)· 2624d

    Looks like the market really likes these proposed changes... Steem now 70th on Coinmarketcap. It's never been lower.

  • @sems42(50)· 2625d

    Minimal =) I want to make love to the use of shape and typography! Resteem for your post,,,

  • @ajayyy(65)· 2625d

    One good idea that keeps going around: Why not take from witness rewards and make the remaining witness rewards a proposal in the SPS system? Then the funding amount does NOT have to be fixed.

  • @valued-customer(75)· 2625d

    I strongly oppose all these proposals individually, and infinitely more strongly as one hard fork.

    Individually, each part of EIP will worsen the problem they are claimed to solve. Nothing more reminds me that Steem is a mechanism for governance, TBH. Doubling curation rewards will increase the incentive of profiteers to extract rewards from the pool, and depress the price of Steem. The rewards curve increases the amount of rewards extracted by larger stakes, again repressing the price of Steem. SPS is become a tax on rewards, additional to the inflation tax, and that 10% inuring to witnesses. The downvote pool will increase the ability of substantial stakeholders to flag lesser stakeholders by removing the expense of doing so, and this will make the extant censorship of content ineffably worse. Lesser stakeholders will remain subject to retaliation for downvoting, and the downvote pool does not change that one bit.

    None of these changes are being proposed and developed by people unaware of these issues. I no longer credit these failures to solve the problems claimed to be addressed to naivete, but instead to reveal the exact dynamic relationship between political rhetoric and governmental action. Profiteers are presently in possession of the majority of stake in Steem, and by extracting rewards by deployment of their stakes presently receive more than 90% of rewards. It is no mystery to me why EIP increases the profiteering potential of stake.

    However, I suspect that the investing dilletantes proposing, developing, and implementing EIP are miscalculating the harm it will do to Steem. I predict that within 3 months of EIP implementation Steem price will be a fraction of the present price, that user retention will plummet, Steem's market cap will drop at least 10 places on CMC, and that many substantial stakeholders will sell out, abandoning Steem for greener pastures for profiteering, and the powerdowns ongoing now are preparatory to that exodus.

    I strongly urge preparations to reverse HF21 be effected when these predicted affects on Steem become evident.

    Further, I propose that an alternative HF be prepared in the event these predictions are correct. Investors have been encouraged to purchase investment vehicles like stocks and Steem since prehistory by capital gains. Extracting the rewards that are claimed to be purposed to encourage quality content creation prevents capital gains. HF22 should be designed to limit rewards such that nominal returns cannot be extracted by substantial upvotes, and eliminate curation rewards entirely - or allow creators to set them at their sole option. The ability to downvote should be restored to a negative financial incentive, to make it expensive to censor users. Taking these actions will restore sound financial incentive for investors seeking capital gains, and encourage content creators to remain on Steem and make the best content they can.

    Please do both prepare to roll back HF21 if (when) it proves disastrous, and implement HF22 which will create strong capital gains instead. Do not implement SPS as a tax.

    You're going to kill Steem if you don't prepare to rescind counterproductive code asap. Don't kill Steem for short term profiteering.

  • @cre47iv3(70)· 2626d

    Hoping to new networks come then.

    Thanks for nothing. Always thinking how big guys can earn, and what whales call "good content" then just fuck everyone else.

    Steemit.inc descentralized corporativism.

  • @sumit1998(67)· 2626d

    I think there will be a poll section in steem blockchain so that these kind of implementation can we publicly discussed. So that in future if there is any change that we want to implement can we polled in the public.

  • @arcange(79)· 2626d

    Congratulations @steemitblog! Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:

    • Comments - Ranked 4 with 113 comments
  • @healthexpert(70)· 2626d

    @steemitblog why always you busy in decreasing the author reward who surf all their time and struggle here and increasing curation will be enjoy for whales and free powr holder from freedom what a common men will take decreasing reward will decrease user interest why witnesses impose HF21 when no one is happy with it ? This is non sense stop doing this we all leave Steem and power down forever

  • @lays(67)· 2626d

    @steemitblog did not you learnt from HF 20 destruction to the steem price Why are you decreasing the author reward and if you increase curation reward only bid bot owners who are getting free power from @freedom will enjoy what a normal author will get for hard work in writing long articles if HF 21 Gonna increase steem price then oKay otherwise in my view it will destroy steem more why people will power up when there is almost no reward for power holders

  • @dramatoken(62)· 2626d

    You've got DRAMA!

    To view or trade DRAMA go to steem-engine.com.

  • @theguruasia(69)· 2626d

    @steemitblog, Yeah I think this graphical description of upcoming changes probably work well!

    But I still doubt how that Downvote mana thing works, coz this can leads to more issues and people might rage quit by whales who misuse this power! So I call drama for that content! !dramatoken

    Cheers~

  • @isnochys(67)· 2626d
  • @cryptogee(76)· 2626d

    Increasing the curation rewards to equal the author rewards

    So clicking a button or setting an autovoter takes as much skill, sweat, and effort as creating a post?

    Ridiculous.

    Cg

  • @joythewanderer(81)· 2626d

    Our decision to use the constant 2e12 in the new rewards curve is based on the desire to not change the system too much (because we know that the system still functions)

    This sounds weak to me. Don’t get me wrong, probably everyone knows the economics now is broken, it’s nice to see changes for sure, but I don’t get why to choose this specific curve though.

  • @socky(73)· 2626d

    When do you plan to pursue STEEM listing on exchanges?

  • @cheva(74)· 2626d

    I think the EIP doesn't make sense. the most important now is to attract more new users into steem. This proposal doesn't seems newbies friendly. the author reward is too low, new comers can't benefit from the increase curation reward since they have little steem power. This only benefit the old big whale. And the only purpose of EIP is to discover 'good content'. but only the few large SP holders can do that. It's a paradox. Good content for someone, may means nothing for majority. And most importantly, steem is a currency not a blog platform. the value of a currency is coming from consensus of people. The more people join in the more value a currency have. "good content"obviously not a good thing to make consensus, since different people have different appetite. Wrap up. This proposal simply about how to distribution interest. our Chinese have a saying" make big cake first, then discuss how to divide the cake".Look at the price of steem. is the cake big enough to be divided? Hope this proposal to be rejected.

    Posted using Partiko Android

  • @abitcoinskeptic(75)· 2626d

    HF21 comes in like a wrecking ball. All these are okay on their own. However a 10% cut + 25% more for curation + 2e13 = around 2.19 times more sp required for a vote worth around 1sp to an author. In otherwords my vote is now worth ~ 46% unless I only vote on people already getting huge payouts or join a whale pool. I think we need to talk more about the combined effects and less about the individual changes that make sense in isolation.

  • @travelersmemoire(58)· 2626d

    Would it be possible to get a monthly, quarterly or yearly breakdown in regards to fund allocation? I know a lot of people are concerned with the SteemIt power down and I think a breakdown of where those funds go could greatly help alleviate people’s worries.

    Posted using Partiko iOS

  • @stablewon(65)· 2626d

    How does the ratio of author and curation compensation change?

  • @zanoni(66)· 2626d

    Hello, I'm not a tech freak, I'm an ordinary not even middle class user. You guys forget one thing :

    Content creators are everything for Steem and every dapp build on the system.

    To tax these users And cut rewards And to help that their content get more punished is the wrongest decision ever. Especially during a phase where the Steem price is down anyway.

    The best way to destroy a platform.

    To reward punishment will build a more worse climate on Steem as it is already. As I mentioned before already, I'm not a Dev, but there are for sure other possibilities to fix the system.

    You can build one dapp after the other, if you have no creators they all will be useless.

    Have a great day, good luck Tom

    Posted using Partiko Android

  • @netuoso(72)· 2626d

    Just wanted to clarify that the downvote pool is probably better referred to as a "downvote mana pool" not really "downvote rewards pool"

    There are no rewards for downvoting, it simply draws from a different mana pool, aka voting power.

    Otherwise great post @steemitblog

  • @freebornangel(72)· 2626d

    As far as why the funding for the SteemDAO is coming out of the Rewards Pool, that was ultimately a decision that was made by the Witnesses, and we agree that it is an acceptable solution to the problem.

    I'd find it more acceptable if my rewards weren't going down by ~66%, too.

    It is very telling about those in control of these things that rather than making steem all for one and one for all, instead push the costs off on others than themselves.

    This looks bad, but who are we kidding, ya'll haven't looked good for several years now.

    The Rewards Pool is not shrinking,

    10% of overall inflation (pulled from the rewards pool)

    Jebus, and ya'll wonder how you got such a stincy reputation?

    Seriously, you just caught yourself in a deceptive statement, less than 4 paragraphs later.

    Get a grip, stinc. Are you sure that this is the record you want recorded in the blockchain?

    At the request of the Witnesses, we have included code in this release that would implement economic changes which alter the incentive mechanisms to be better aligned with rewarding high-quality content.

    I liked the nsomething, but only with the 800mv influence cap. There isn't anything we can do that changes the corrosive influence of the ninjamine, except cap it. When do we stop letting those greedy whales farm us? It's not like this wasn't discussed 2+ years ago. Ya'll are just mad because short hair no longer distracts us from the glaring use case issues not being addressed by those with the power to change steem in order to continue allowing the abuse by the biggest accounts.

    But,...smteees!!™

    we do know how the system is behaving now and there is consensus that the system is functioning sub-optimally. Our decision to use the constant 2e12 in the new rewards curve is based on the desire to not change the system too much

    Yeah, those self voting and dumping might have to find real jobs if anything actually changed.

    we believe these changes will make it easier for good content to be discovered and rewarded,

    Not buying it, you knew beforehand what linear reward would do and forced them on us, anyway. I'm just hoping that the next fork doesn't take this long. We've wasted 2+ years confirming what was said about linear rewards before they were a thing.

    But what is new? Stinc only listens to those that agree with them. Just ask @curie.

    No speaky the corporatespeak?

    No curie vote for you!

    and they serve at the discretion of you all: the Steem stakeholders.

    Lol, well, at least a couple of us, anyways.

    Steemit, Inc. and its representatives do not, and will not, leverage our stake to influence this decision.

    How do we certify that statement as long as stake has been hidden to avoid embarrassing forks?

    But other than that, everything is just fine,...

    No, really, I like the downvote thing, so one out of three is not sooo bad.

  • @flemingfarm(81)· 2626d

    With this then all top 20 witnesses should cease all bidbots as they are gaming the system. They are double if not triple dipping through the failings of the Steem ecosystem that has allowed the manipulation. I am seriously concerned that the owners of said bots will just adjust their algorithm to the new cut and a few tweaks to curation algos will net them an equal cut to hf20. There had better be some damned good testing in the testnet this time to determine the efficacy when concerning the bots. Though I have large reservations about that since the top 20 are the testers, voters, and bot owners.

  • @meesterboom(81)· 2626d

    Personally, I just can't believe that none of the ten percent of the funding for the SPS is coming from the witness portion of inflation, which remains unchanged.

    Even a symbolic 1 or 2 % would have gone a long way to showing that we are all in this together.

    Instead, it all comes directly from content creators. When will it be understood that without content creators this platform will wither and die? Why should content creators alone bear the burden?

    Note, I think the SPS is a good thing. My issue is the funding. Just in case anyone goes all 'straw man.'

  • @bashadow(70)· 2626d

    Steemit paid $50k USD to @blocktrades for the development of the SteemDAO. Once approved, and after enough time has transpired so as to demonstrate the security and stability of the system (about 1-2 weeks of operation), Steemit will provide initial, one-time funding, by converting 200k STEEM to SBD which will allow the market to test this new feature.

    And if the security and stability fail what will happen then? Will the SBD be reconverted to Steem, or just thrown away?

    At the request of the Witnesses, we have included code in this release that would add a long term funding mechanism for the SteemDAO/SPS. If this hardfork is accepted by the Witnesses, 10% of overall inflation (pulled from the rewards pool) would be used to fund proposals made through the SteemDAO/SPS.

    And if the Security and stability do not pan out will this be immediately HardForked out or will the funds be diverted to something else?

    This was why @blocktrades proposed adding the SPS/SteemDAO to Steem and why Steemit agreed to fund that development.

    Steemit agreed, as has been pointed out over and over and over again when ever Steem and Steemit are bought up it is that they are different and not the same entity. Did Busy.org, partiko, eSteem, and the others agree to fund blocktrades? The witnesses protect the Blockchain Steem,that means all users of the blockchain, and all organizations on the blockchain come under their umbrella of protection. That includes busy.org, partiko, eSteem, and other forms and methods of accessing steem blockchain, not just steemit.

    This is a lot in one post, so since it is an explanation post can you elaborate on what will happen to SPS if blocktrades is unable to provide the needed security and stability?

  • @remlaps(66)· 2626d

    Will rewards drop to 0 again immediately after the hard fork? If so, how long is it expected to take to get back to equilibrium? Any other sorts of quirks expected during the transition period?

    I hope the top witnesses remember the lessons about code audits, testing, and contingency plans from HF20. We are counting on them to maintain stability for this blockchain.

    This will be a good time for the rest of us to compare our witness votes against results.

  • @toofasteddie(77)· 2626d

    I have launched a survey to know which or the witnesses are in favor and against the HF21... would be very useful for everybody to know it. https://steemit.com/palnet/@toofasteddie/questionforthetop20witnessesabouthf21-y4bpztx3in

  • @onthewayout(62)· 2626d

    What is the formula for the proposed reward curve?

  • @dana-edwards(75)· 2626d

    Content producers need to know that the tax is on them. The SPS is funded by a tax on content producers. This might be fine because the content being produced isn't high quality anymore but then it also risks reducing active users on the site to even lower numbers. Retention is important. Curation is passive rather than active and while I can agree with 50/50, I don't see why SPS should be necessary.

    How about create a profit and use that to fund pet projects via SPS? I know SMTs need to be funded, and communities, but I predict this along with the reward curve change could actually reduce the motivation of content producers.

    If the price of Steem actually were going in the other direction perhaps I could be more optimistic but these changes don't reflect the downward price movement (EIP). As a result, I don't think it's enough by itself. I think something more needs to be done although I'm not exactly sure what.

    Anyone have suggestions?

  • @kus-knee(74)· 2626d

    Regarding SPS why take away 10% of the reward pool in order to pay for things that are being built anyway? This building is being done organically and the builders are actually creating business models with outside income sources. This will take away incentive! In my worst English "if it ain't broke don't fix it!"

    Let's look now at the reward curve and why I hate the proposal. As a disclaimer I must first write that I have purchased about 25,000 SP at between $1 and $3!

    Why I Don't Like It:

    1.) If Steemit.com wants another reward model for bloggers they can use SMT's to do it. Don't mess with your unpaid builders!

    The Steem blockchain is NOT a blogging blockchain so they shouldn't base everything on that! That is NOT visionary!

    2.) Those of us that have built using the current reward system are going to get penalized. I reward all commenters on my posts with an upvote of at least 3% if I can't do that my community has less incentive. What about big investors that are trying to build a communtiy and reward them. Will they still invest? Probably not.

  • @uyobong(78)· 2626d

    I hope it turns out well for us. I hope Steem will scale back.

  • @dana-edwards(75)· 2626d

    At the request of the Witnesses, we have included code in this release that would add a long term funding mechanism for the SteemDAO/SPS. If this hardfork is accepted by the Witnesses, 10% of overall inflation (pulled from the rewards pool) would be used to fund proposals made through the SteemDAO/SPS.

    I don't agree with this robbing Peter to pay Paul method of "long term funding". It puts one faction of the community against another similar to what we see in typical bureaucracies. In essence for the blogger it's going to be perceived as an immoral tax.

    A better way to fund something like this would be to provide a real useful promotion mechanism where bloggers can pay for visibility and use that to fund SteemDAO. In essence instead of BidBots why not use on-chain marketing to fund something like this?

    This way actual activity and usage correlates with long term funding. Otherwise you're not likely to get anything which increases activity if the SteemDAO is funded no matter what by default. Also just like with political regimes once you start paying people in this way it's going to become increasingly more and more difficult to remove (lower the tax) in the future.

  • @vishalhkothari(57)· 2626d

    The road map of sustainability seems now more powerful and with the help of proposal system steem seems more reliable then ever before..

    Good work team 💪

    Congrats and Best wishes for HF21

  • @daltono(81)· 2626d

    Let’s see this I’m action! The anticipation is killing me on both a good and bad way.