Someone like CTime could 'burn' tens of millions of tokens in a moment. Far more than all other accounts have burned, put together. If they really think "less BLURT means higher prices", then why don't they do it? I suppose it's because they don't feel they should have to shoulder the burden themselves, and that everyone should do it, thus encouraging the community to burn their own tokens. But if we want everyone to equally contribute to raising the price of BLURT tokens, by decreasing the amount in circulation, why don't we just cut back a little on the rate of inflation?
Thanks for your intelligent comment. I agree that increasing demand will have a far bigger impact on BLURT's health than decreasing supply. After all, there are cryptos out there with almost zero total supply, but completely worthless because they have no use and therefore no demand. Something has to be desirable as well as limited in order to have value. We could burn this platform down until there are only a handful of tokens remaining... doesn't mean those left holding them will be millionaires.
RE: "Burning" (Deleting) BLURT is a stupid fad
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"Burning" (Deleting) BLURT is a stupid fad
I agree—they could easily send their coins to null if they wanted to and publicize it as taking a stand. I'll attempt to refrain from assuming—speculating on their reasons for not doing so might foster unwarranted ill will. However, you do bring up a valid point.
That could be a worthwhile solution, but that will require a soft fork and consensus between witnesses. Ignoring the concerns regarding self-sending to null, I believe that taking the initiative by utilizing the blockchain's current features is probably a fair course of action. We KNOW how defensive some people may get over code changes. If people were seriously advocating for code changes, that would translate to higher instances of drama and distrust.
Idealistically, I would prefer to increase the interest rate of Blurt to have it be closer to around 4-6% a year to be just as competitive as Hive (3% + 20% HBD) and Steem (~2.9%). Blurt's 2.2% is low, in my opinion. As US savings rates are increasing and going to compete directly against Blurt, Hive, and other staking coins with low interest/rewards, Blurt will be less competitive over time.
Now, I don't believe the devs would ever change the policies to fit my idealistic opinion; it is still reasonable to ponder.
I agree with the rest. More tokens = more accessibility—more room to use the tokens as a tipping currency or possibly to purchase goods and services in a small community.
Ohhhhh, I was under the impression the interest rate could be adjusted by anyone with access to the admin control panel. Witness consensus might be too much to ask. I've already seen Mega basically pooping on the idea, so that's not promising (although he doesn't own/influence all the witnesses).
"Blurt's 2.2% is low, in my opinion."
Maybe it's fine where it is, then. Perhaps the reason BLURT's price is low isn't an overabundance of tokens, it's a lack of demand. I've long said that demand will rise (and any tokens sitting around for cheap on exchanges will be snapped up) once the crypto bull returns. That's supposedly 2024 and 2025, if the old pattern continues. We have a token, we have a community, we have a blog platform, and we have other infrastructure. I think there's a good chance we'll do well over the next year or two.