I believe the foundation is holding 50-60 million total, not sure on how many tens of millions the FUD whale is in possession of. Enough he was able to block the DAO for awhile anyway.
End of the day, the tokens don't belong to the exchanges no matter how this is examined.
I agree. Let ALL accounts holding other users Blurt hostage have the tokens burnt. Allow not one of these criminals to profit from their actions. Treat them all with the same disdain.
Bernie Madoff was ordered to pay 200 billion in restitution. He was targeted. You can't make him pay that money unless all investment advisors and brokers also are stripped of their money. To only target him because he was a criminal is specific targeting which we can't have.
A small percentage of folks use guns in the commission of crimes. We can't hold those folks responsible for their actions. That would be targeting. ALL gun owners should be the price and loose their ability to possess firearms or we would be targeting those who were the problem which would be wrong.
Some people invade other peoples land and are targeted with violence to repel them. To single those invader people out is targeting and instead all people should be killed.
Do you see the flaw in what you propose from my application of it above?
You can target specific characteristics, and that is the desirable method. There has been a criminal action taken by the exchanges in question, and they and they alone should pay the price, which is nothing as they weren't meant to become enriched for being thieves to begin with.
Discernment is based upon a specific targeting, that is crucial to proper function and correctness.
@rycharde PT just reminded me the rewards pool is elastic, most of the exchange funds are liquid yeah? So if burned the powered up ration will improve and might counter the rewards pool reduction which is APR based on total supply. Thoughts?
since the elastic "reward-pool" is proportional to the ratio of "powered-up" and "not-powered-up" tokens - burning the "not-powered-up" tokens would move this ratio in the direction of increasing the percentage of "powered-up" tokens
and this would increase the total payout award for upvotes per cycle
which would increase AVAILABLE SUPPLY in ACTIVE ACCOUNTS
Sort of, first inflation would decrease because total supply decreases post burn, since the 9% APR is of the total supply.
But since there will be less liquid to powered up blurt ratio the reward pool will operate at a higher output and help bring levels to the same daily rate as before the burn, we can also tweak APR upwards if needed to get back to current daily rate of payout.
If by wash you mean maintaining the rewards pool status quo then yeah it’s a wash, we will try our best to tweak things to keep current or better levels for social and witness rewards.
That they have a controlling amount of stake. As such if they decide to pull a Justin Sun they could.
And to reiterate, it isn't their stake as it wasn't intended to stay within their custody.
Yes this x 100 it is hostaged user funds
isn't that mitigated somewhat by the removal of the 30X witness votes ?
also, don't the current active whales control more than 75 million tokens collectively (or at least half of that) ?
Yes, that does mitigate that a lot.
I believe the foundation is holding 50-60 million total, not sure on how many tens of millions the FUD whale is in possession of. Enough he was able to block the DAO for awhile anyway.
End of the day, the tokens don't belong to the exchanges no matter how this is examined.
picking specific accounts for specific actions is against the entire concept of crypto
if you want to implement a "fix"
it must apply equally to everyone
I agree. Let ALL accounts holding other users Blurt hostage have the tokens burnt. Allow not one of these criminals to profit from their actions. Treat them all with the same disdain.
do whatever you want, but you can't target specific accounts
Bernie Madoff was ordered to pay 200 billion in restitution. He was targeted. You can't make him pay that money unless all investment advisors and brokers also are stripped of their money. To only target him because he was a criminal is specific targeting which we can't have.
A small percentage of folks use guns in the commission of crimes. We can't hold those folks responsible for their actions. That would be targeting. ALL gun owners should be the price and loose their ability to possess firearms or we would be targeting those who were the problem which would be wrong.
Some people invade other peoples land and are targeted with violence to repel them. To single those invader people out is targeting and instead all people should be killed.
Do you see the flaw in what you propose from my application of it above?
You can target specific characteristics, and that is the desirable method. There has been a criminal action taken by the exchanges in question, and they and they alone should pay the price, which is nothing as they weren't meant to become enriched for being thieves to begin with.
Discernment is based upon a specific targeting, that is crucial to proper function and correctness.
you're missing the point
the banks didn't convict bernie madoff
the SEC did
your crypto account is like a bank (but way better)
the blurt witnesses are running a network
not a police department
the telephone company doesn't convict people for bank fraud
"More than 40,000,000 BLURT are powering the @BlurtBooster account"
@rycharde PT just reminded me the rewards pool is elastic, most of the exchange funds are liquid yeah? So if burned the powered up ration will improve and might counter the rewards pool reduction which is APR based on total supply. Thoughts?
ok, i see what you're saying
since the elastic "reward-pool" is proportional to the ratio of "powered-up" and "not-powered-up" tokens - burning the "not-powered-up" tokens would move this ratio in the direction of increasing the percentage of "powered-up" tokens
and this would increase the total payout award for upvotes per cycle
which would increase AVAILABLE SUPPLY in ACTIVE ACCOUNTS
basically, it would increase INFLATION
Sort of, first inflation would decrease because total supply decreases post burn, since the 9% APR is of the total supply.
But since there will be less liquid to powered up blurt ratio the reward pool will operate at a higher output and help bring levels to the same daily rate as before the burn, we can also tweak APR upwards if needed to get back to current daily rate of payout.
so, it's a wash ?
If by wash you mean maintaining the rewards pool status quo then yeah it’s a wash, we will try our best to tweak things to keep current or better levels for social and witness rewards.
stability is key