This is Why I Don't Use BRAVE Browser
HF-21: The Question of Untouchability of Witness Share from Reward Pool
HF-21 Testnet
These are very exciting times for Steem blockchain. With the release of Testnet for Hard Fork - 21, all the discussions surrounding SPS (Steem Proposal System), EIP (Economic Improvement Proposal) including curation curve, author-curator reward split, dedicated downvote pool etc. are nearing conclusion and are reaching an implementation stage.
Controlling spam and abuse
Last Hard Fork Velocity (HF-20) was successful in reducing comment spam to a large extent with introduction of RC & Mana requirements for every transaction / activity. This Hard Fork is expected to reduce the spam and abuse further, esp. the abuse of trending feed and excessive use of voting bidbots by creation of a separate downvote pool that won't cost us any Mana or voting power. Curation reward curve is also being changed to convergent linear - a mix of earlier super-linear (n^3) and currently linear (n^2) curve.
Author-Curator reward split is being proposed to change from the current 75%-25% to 50%-50%. This will also discourage the spam or low quality content creators to post unnecessary content and encourage them to put their efforts in curation instead. Obviously, there should be more content-consumers to appreciate the quality content being posted than just content-creators! Opportunity to generate passive curation income may also lure in some serious investors to Steem ecosystem.
Although all these are very experimental and will take us some time to see how it works and what other problems it brings, the best part of this Hard Fork is SPS.
SPS - Steem Proposal System (aka Steem DAO)
Yes, with SPS in place, anyone from community can suggest or propose any viable idea in the interest of Steem blockchain and if it's voted up by the community, it will be granted necessary funds for its execution. This is going to decentralize the development process and will take the blockchain in the direction what community thinks is best for it.
Let's say e.g. we all need Keychain browser extension for desktops to release a mobile compatible version. But its developers don't have sufficient resources or motivation for the same. But if adequate funds are allocated to this project through approval by SPS, it can see the light of the day soon.
Many such small and large projects need to be undertaken to expedite the development on Steem blockchain. So this HF-21 proposes to allocate 10% of the reward pool for SPS on a regular basis as a sustainable funding source towards it.
Funding of SPS:
Won't Witnesses benefit from SPS?
Well, it all sounds good. Of course, without a sustainable funding stream, SPS becomes meaningless. But the problem is that this 10% reward share isn't being taken out of the entire inflation pool but only from the 75% reward pool share that belongs to Authors and Curators. Now, I don't get the logic for it!
Current reward pool distribution created from Steem inflation is distributed as:
Authors & Curators: 75%
Witnesses: 10%
Interest: 15%
Proposed distribution is:
Authors & Curators: 65%
Steem Proposal System (SPS): 10%
Witnesses: 10%
Interest: 15%
I wonder why only Authors' & Curators' component is being sacrificed in favour of SPS!
Is any benefit derived from SPS going to affect only Authors & Curators?
Why existing Witness component has been left untouched?
I know, Witnesses have been going through a tough time due to low market price of STEEM but so are Authors & Curators too.
In fact, with the recent development from STINC, the release of MIRA has drastically brought down the cost of running a node. According to @steemitblog post:
Thanks to MIRA, we have been able to reduce the amount of RAM being used in our Steem node by 50% and nVME usage by 100%!
So why can't Witnesses part with their share of reward pool proportionately?
It reminds me of the classic case of salary hike of Members of Parliament in India. Although they are all elected representatives, whenever a bill to revise the salary and pension of MPs is presented, it is passed unanimously without any debate on it. Their entire salary and emoluments including basic salary, daily allowance, constituency allowance, office expenses, other allowances and facilities are increased as much as 3 to 4 times in one go. And this is done quite frequently. E.g. in a 5 year period from 2010 to 2015, the Salary, Allowance and Pension Act, 1954 had been amended as many as 27 times. Similarly the US Congress and German Bundestag determine their own salaries.
But this is Steem with a DPoS mechanism and not a democratic country where elections are held only once in 4 or 5 year period. Here on Steem, we can vote and unvote any of our Witness within 3 seconds.
So why is that we all are supporting zero reward pool cut from the existing share of Witnesses?
- Is there some argument in favour of them?
Do explain (or point) it to me too!
Thanks!
