Some investments, like bonds, dividend-paying shares are providing interests, dividends, some sort of payout, and this makes them mostly more valuable. The periodic incomes are attracting people, for example, the ones in retirement living from their savings. Others are looking for growth shares, where the price growth is important, instead. But the growth here is also in connection with the future earnings and dividends the growth company will make in the future.

The value of negative yields

Interests, dividends, other calculable yields are important, even though not the only one or dominant factor in the investment world. Other investments have a negative yield, actually, but that doesn’t mean they have no value. A typical example is crude oil: this and many more commodities don’t have a payout, they even “need to be fed”.

That means, the storage, insurance, transport of this materials is costly, and the price is also reflecting that. The futures price is mostly (not always) superior to the spot or cash price, and longer futures are more expensive than closer ones. That is the “contango”, bad for long buyers, but favorable for short sellers. (More about this here)

The real top of bitcoin price

Has Bitcoin any yielding? I don’t think so, although the forks of Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Gold (BTG) last year may have caused a similar effect. On the top, on December 17 of 2017, one Bitcoin (older than August 2017) was worth approximately 21 759 dollars: 19 601 one BTC + 1859 one BCH + 299 of BTG. (Prices of Coinmarketcap.com) Nice old times.

(This is similar when a company on the stock market pays a dividend without cash, with its own shares (bonus shares). The number of shares is increasing, the share capital is diluted, but no cash or real assets are moving. There are other advantages and disadvantages, like taxation or psychological effects, see here.)

Alternative Bitcoin price?

Sure, we could discuss long hours if this forks created any new value and if we can speak about yields, payouts here, or not. The question is, did these forks lowered the Bitcoin price? Could Bitcoin’s price be higher without this forks happened? But normally Bitcoin and many other cryptocurrencies don’t make any regular payout.

Others, like Steem, do make. Actually, according to Frequently Asked Questions on Steemit, it has an “inflation” of approximately 8.5 percent per annum. Economically speaking, this is a relatively level: most advanced economies have an inflation of 1-3 percent p. a. nowadays. But in Steem economy, this is financing the reward pool, the witnesses, and also paying an interest-like fee to all other Steem holders.

Smaller interest than inflation

The latter is would be 1.275 (8.5x0,15) percent per annum – if all Steem would be powered up.

Starting with the network's 16th hard fork in December 2016, Steem began creating new tokens at a yearly inflation rate of 9.5%. The inflation rate decreases at a rate of 0.01% every 250,000 blocks, or about 0.5% per year. The inflation will continue decreasing at this pace until the overall inflation rate reaches 0.95%. This will take about 20.5 years from the time hard fork 16 went into effect. How are the new tokens distributed? (…)
75% go to the reward pool, which is split between authors and curators.
15% of the new tokens are awarded to holders of Steem Power.
The remaining 10% pays for the witnesses to power the blockchain.
Steemit FAQ

Looking for equilibrium

So, approximately 8,5 percent of new Steem is issued this year, circa 8,0 next year. What effect could it have? Markets are based on the principle of demand and supply, equilibrium of selling power and buying power. The Steem inflation is modifying the number of the Steem coins circulating, that means, the supply. Whilst the demand stays unchanged.

Theoretically, if the Steem amount sold increases, let’s suppose, 8 percent, but the amount of buying power remains unchanged, the market rebalances on a price level eight percent lower. Theoretically, I say, if no other conditions are changing. That means, the Steem inflation sure implies some sort of pressure on the price – in the longer term. But that is not obviously always the case in the practice.

Power up or power down

Because more Steem doesn’t always mean more selling pressure. The greater part of the new Steem is paid in form of Steem Power (Available supply: 280,0 Millions Steem, Liquid Steem: 81,5 Millions by the statistics of @penguinpablo.) Which doesn’t increase the Steem on the market, at least, not automatically and not in short term. People have to make the decision to power down, slowly in 13 weeks, and not only power down, but also to sell their Steems.

Some people are powering down only to have money to buy votes, they are realizing some sort of reinvestment. Other people, like the witnesses or some programmers, website owners may be in need to cover certain expenses and sell some Steem to pay the bills. But maybe not all.

Conclusion

I would say, with the Steem inflation, the amount of potentially saleable Steem on the market increases, but maybe not at the same pace like the rate of inflation. Selling and buying Steem could depend in great part on the “market sentiment”, on the ideas of Steemians about the future of Steem and many other factors. Maybe even on the holiday season.

So, I think the human factor, the mood of potential sellers and buyers can be essential on the Steem market. Make us happy and optimistic, please! :)

(Cover photo: Pixabay.com)