Hi @kofun thanks for your post, it was really well thought out and detailed. I have actually slowed down the onboarding of curation accounts and have had thoughts about reducing all to 500K BP as you mentioned. I also thank you for requesting more of the detailed expenditure posts and will try do those after the Probit and Stex listings, my focus has been exchanges at present.

This is good. While other people seem content with taking aspects of how Steem operated and applying it to BLURT, I think being transparent is the key to all of that. There is nothing wrong with being financially motivated -- that's how the world works -- but communicating that to investors is how you build a strong relationship with the existing ones, and new ones to come. The long game will pay dividends.

Regarding the retention of curation by the foundation, the reason there is we have already given the curators a money printing machine, by giving them the curation as well would further create downward price pressure, in the hands of the foundation it can be used to fund exchange listings, market making, development and many other things and we are careful not to dump on the market, we generally place sell walls at higher prices than the current ask prices.

The amount of coins coming into circulation is programmatically determined by the emission schedule. Inflation is going to happen regardless, but in this case, you assume that there will be a negative effect on price as more of it will be diverted to people with the intention to sell, and do so not in the fashion you described the foundation would sell.

A couple of things to note here:

1. Coins needing to be sold by foundation to fund things are better met with bids, sooner rather than later. Delayed deployment of resources (in this case, putting resting orders instead of market orders) mean that it takes an unknown amount of time to realise objectives with the capital. Capital not deployed for things like exchange listings, development etc. mean progress is delayed. The coins eventually will be bought anyway, but the time frame gives investors no assurance, the only difference to the foundation is how much more (or less) needs to be sold to reach the fund raising objectives. But then again, having tens of millions of coins has it perks in that you don't have to worry so much about that. Also, you can place sell orders further down the asks to get the orders matched quicker without speculating on 30% price rises.

2. Market making is first and foremost, providing liquidity. The MM gets compensated by making the difference in the spread between the bid and asks. There is a liquidity crunch right now because a very significant amount of blurt is locked up by exchanges (binance, huobi, bithumb, bittrex, upbit) and it is unknown if they will be releasing those funds. So aside from the big question mark of whether those coins should be considered lost, there is simply not enough sellers to instigate big price rises. I look at the books as an investor, and see next to no liquidity, I'm certainly not going to bid up the prices if all it does is make me pay a 50% price premium before I pick up any real amount of coin.

Demand will determine how much can be sold with minimal slippage which is why I think, more emphasis should be put on appeasing investors who will ultimately be how anyone realises any value with the blurt they earn / hold.

I haven't done the sums, but I may decide to look into it, but I believe the accounts the foundation run make up more than 50% of the active voting BP. You speak of funds being better in the hands of the foundation, when you already hold a vast majority balance. You don't need to also dilute the influence of people buying in with outside money, by such a large amount to reach the same objectives.

Right now, it looks like two things to an outside investor.

1. Massive money printing operation by the "Shart" or whatever Jacob calls it, allowing the foundation to grow it's balance of BP very very substantially whilst..
2. Giving a select group of people over reaching privileges that would be perceived as nepotism and favouritism.

I appreciate your acknowledgement and consideration of reducing curation accounts to 500k. I believe just as the foundation refuses to sell below a certain price, the amount of active BP deployed should also not exceed a certain threshold (No more than say 30% of the active BP). This would definitely strike a better balance between the different participants on the chain (authors and investors)!