We have seen the reward pool decline drastically in the past month as more and more of these curation initiatives have popped up, and this, despite the short term pumps on the price can have longer run issues as potential investors feel as though their investments are being diluted massively.
This is not true and a misperception. Please read this recent post.
Also, show me these investors. What do they look like? What would they do with their investment?
Let me reframe my statement.
The reward pool will reach an equilibrium where it fills and drains at the same rate regardless of the foundations curation activities.
How much of the active BP does the foundation currently take up?
If they take up a very significant majority, anything over 50%, are they not competing with the interests of subsequent, or other existing stakeholders who are active with their BP?
If so, then does it not follow that increasing influence from the foundation negates the interests of other stake holders?
How much influence would a stake holder holding 1M BP have if the foundation refrained from exercising their BP, vs the current situation.
The foundation is not the regent account, but the regent account has been designed to not affect circulating supply, inflation or the reward pool. That signals that the intention is to let community members fulfil the role. How can that happen when the community active BP pales in comparison to the active BP deployed by the foundation?
This is an interesting statement too because to me, it is the dichotomy of central intervention vs businessman knows best. I believe that over time, with the right levers to pull, the market will prevail at pricing and valuing content, much much better than a handful of people wielding the majority of active voting power.
You ask me about what "investors" .. well i'm right here. I'm one of them. I want to buy into something that shares common ideology with what I believe in. I want to know that there is a point to purchasing a significant stake of BLURT, and that it economically makes sense to me. I don't want to buy say a million blurt, only for 2 million addition BP to come online from the foundation, and god knows how much more after that. I think a lot of people who wishing to deploy larger sums will feel the same, and this is the point of my post.
Not true. The reward pool can go up as well as down depending on overall voting activity.
What does "come online" mean?
Again, what would you do with your 1 mil BLURT?
Come online means to become active.
The overall size of the reward pool doesn't concern me. It's the relative influence. Are you suggesting that should I purchase 1M BP, and the foundation deploys another 30M BP, that my relative influence (able to reward users won't be diminished substantially?)
Which brings me to my answer to your question - which by the way, feels like a jab at any investor (and that is slightly concerning)
What would I do with my stake?
I would build a dapp business and attempt to onboard/attract/retain users by using it to reward their contributions on that dapp. As a matter of fact, I already have an idea and a working mvp, but I am deciding which of the 3 chains to deploy it to.
How much influence my stake can wield matters to me, because my interests lie in being able to capture a share of users. If the amount that I can reward my users decreases due to the foundation monopolising the active voting BP, then it is less attractive to me.
Exactly! We're nearly at the core issue now.
But imagine 10 other investors, all like you, with 1 mil BLURT each; are you not all diluting each other's share of rewards or users?
And yet you are also all creating value, for yourselves and your users.
At the moment, the reward yield on staked BLURT is higher than the coin-minting rate, hence with judicious compounding one can actually gain a larger slice even as new investors join - or existing coins are vested.
If and when the economy is running at full capacity, that will fall, but I have never seen that on either Steem or Hive. One hopes that such a vibrant economy would result in a much higher coin price.
I don't think we're at disagreement here. But your example hammers at the crux of the issue.
10 other users with 1M each (purchased no less) would be far preferable to the foundation deploying 30M to a handful of people with near zero skin in the game.
Unlike those with BLURT/BP that they have not purchased, those who paid for their influence have skin in the game. And this is why I discussed the foundation curation accounts alongside the ad-hoc curation initiatives run by people who have publicly defended acting in what I consider a negative way (entitlement to two full votes on their own posts).
If people who have skin in the game can also damage their investment by acting overly selfish for short term gain, then surely those with even less skin in the game should be held accountable and scrutinised?
Another perspective worth considering:
If I have a working product, and my aim is to attract, onboard, and retain as many users as possible, then why wouldn't I approach the foundation for "support" instead of just buying the influence myself? Because that is the message that is being signalled right now.
Again, I have answered your questions, and you have answered none of mine.
How much active BP is there, and what percentage of that is the foundation?
Like I mentioned in my post, I am not against deploying foundation funds to encourage activity - quite the opposite - I simply want it to be a little bit at a time, and overall, not more than 50% of the active voting stake.
I cannot speak for the foundation, and I see they have already given some replies. I was really just interested in the economic assumptions. It helps me understand what features people expect and how best to create a more flexible and responsive economic system for Blurt.