RE: Just a Thought - Nothing "At" Stake

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Just a Thought - Nothing "At" Stake

edicted (72)in #steem • 7 years ago

Yeah delegation pools are a pretty big deal and HF20 makes a lot less sense without them. The big worry is that the demand for RCs will be high and people will start selling them. This won't be a problem until we hit another out of control bull run so I'm not too worried.

At the same time dapps aren't going to want to charge for RCs because they'll want more users on their app instead. If will be interesting to see where all this supply/demand takes the platform.

7 years ago in #steem by edicted (72)

Sort:

tarazkp (80) 7 years ago (edited)

I think that the selling of RCs is going to be a good thing as it could be another way to distribute SMTs by rewarding investors. Plus, the price will go up the higher the demand which will drive more powering up and take steem (currently 58 million) off exchanges pushing Steem price up. People will want to cash Steem which takes RCs off the market and that price goes up. Do I power up and sell RCs or sell high priced steem once? Sellers will have a harder choice to make, especially as the selling of RCs doesn't affect vote power.

$0.03

1 vote

[-]

edicted (72) 7 years ago

I think it's ironic that @greer184 talked trash about HF20 and RCs while at the same time proposing there is nothing at stake...

Am I taking crazy pills here? A user pays a little money for RCs and uses those RCs to post to the blockchain. Isn't that exactly what's being proposed in the Original Post?

RE: No, because RCs regenerate.

RE: Steem regenerates with inflation. It's just "slower". Which is also not true if there is a high enough demand for RCs.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

greer184 (59) 7 years ago

Things that RCs still need to answer:

How do RCs generate that demand in the first place? What kickstarts the demand cycle everyone was so hyped about a few months ago?
RCs limits can apparently be changed when they do not function correctly, what's stopping us from adjusting these limits in the future?
Do the current limits make sense given the current blockchain? Should we spam to test it out?
Nothing is at stake for larger users as they have have excess RCs they can sell. You could argue that such a system is fair if it were rolled out with the protocol initially but it clearly favors larger users (which isn't a surprise since they determine witnesses for the most part).

How burning stake addresses these issues:

creates immediate demand and slows down inflation
would require consensus and a HF to alter, is simpler to explain, and easier to visualize / theorize about
combined with bidding + byte market, burning has a natural equilibrium that matches that of the blockchain, it isn't artificially calculated
everyone pays the same, even the larger users (egalitarian, encourages decentralization)
CONS: not freemium, maybe user unfriendly

I think a lot of this has to do with the regeneration of RCs. If RCs didn't automagically regenerate and were staked and only given back after meeting specific requirements, then it might work as intended, but in the meanwhile, the only people RCs look to help are large stakeholders granted Steem has a future.

$0.00