You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Here's why Steem's witnesses should start paying SBD interest - today
I'd consider a few things:
Monthly rate adjustment may only add confusion and uncertainty. I think it would be better to have a stable rate for, say, 6 months.
Testing period should be at least one year, allowing for at least 1 rate adjustment if necessary.
SBD interest should be distributed to only savings, not liquid SBD.
Though I'm maintaining voting services, I don't think "damaging" voting services with SBD interest will necessarily undermine STEEM as a whole. So, I'd definitely say it's worth a try.
Just my two cents. Thanks!
A stable value can only be achieved if all witnesses set the same percentage in their props. This is unrealistic and not necessary.
The blockchain has mechanisms for this and determines the median, as it does for the STEEM price. It would not be unusual if the witnesses consider a different percentage to be appropriate.
However, the witnesses must check the interest rate regularly.
As far as I can tell, investors hate uncertainty. In my opinion the rate should be stable enough so that people can at least roughly estimate ROI. I'm not saying "stable-coin" grade stability. I just think the rate should be discussed among the top witnesses to maintain a degree of stability.
Thanks for the feedback!
In general, I agree, but at the beginning I think that smaller and more frequent adjustments are called for - since the initial rate is likely to be suboptimal. In the original post, I thought about suggesting a year-long experiment with quarterly adjustments, but that seemed kind-of slow at the beginning. I'd rather see small and frequent tweaks than big jumps at long intervals. Once it settles down, quarterly or semi-annually would probably be plenty.
In the end, it's really more like herding cats anyway. Witnesses are free to adjust their rates when and how they choose, and voters can decide which rates get into the top-20, so having a consistent schedule is just sort-of aspirational. In a competitive system, I wouldn't really expect it to happen on a regular schedule at all. It's all up to the stakeholders.
I agree that this would be ideal, but I think it requires a code update. If we wait for that, we're stalled indefinitely. So, in the spirit of "Don't let the better be the enemy of the good", I think we should start with what we have and maybe update the code later - when we have more of a blockchain development capability.
It might even be that voting services will find alternate business models (i.e. purchase votes with SBD, TRX, BTC, etc...; or even something like @thoth.test) that are just as profitable. Selling votes for external cryptocurrencies would bring external value into the system, so it might even help the voting services, the clients, and the ecosystem as a whole. The only way to know is to give it a shot...
I think frequent change may prevent investments. I'd prefer predictable sub-optimal value than frequently changing one. Anyway I agree that it's worth a try.