It's a solvable problem if the organizer performs manual curation instead of a voting bot. What's not solvable is that the burn only concerns the author's reward and not the curation reward, which I don't think is fair.
Based on the data returned by the Dynamic Global Properties call, 4 BLURT (calculated on the difference in total supply between 2 blocks) are created for each block (1 block every 3 seconds), i.e. 3,456,000 BLURT/month (20 blocks per minute x 60 x 24 x 30) distributed as follows:
- 65% goes to the reward pool, which is divided between authors and curators.
- 15% of new tokens are allocated to BLURT Power holders.
- 10% of new tokens are allocated to the Blurt proposal system.
- The remaining 10% is used to pay witnesses.
Cui Bono?..who benefits ?
1/ Those who's accounts have a wealth transfer upwards via curation.
These tokens are 'awarded' for zero effort, just piggy backing off producers to increase their own wealth without any effort - the parasitical mindset.
This mindset is the norm when involved in the manipulation of financial instruments, not the exception.
(According to bitcoin.com, DPoS needs inputs (posts and comments) or the chain will, quite literally - stop working).
2/ It also prevents smaller accounts monetizing blurt tokens (because they've voluntarily burnt a big proportion of their own earnings for the the benefit of the big accounts...
If this initiative succeeds long term ( I highly doubt there IS a long term in regards to any DPoS platform), then the beneficiaries will be the large account holders who've persuaded the smaller account holders to destroy their own money for a higher upvote - by a bot. (i.e not content relevant, its all about laying data down for...who?)
If this is NOT about blurt succeeding long term (my opinion, is this and is not critical of ctime, et.al ) .... it's simply a financial algorithm/tool to profit from, while keeping up the pretense of it being a social media platform ( it isn't).
The less blurt can be used to exchange, the more chance of prices not dropping, the more opportunity for trading at extra profit....Which, if seen as a financial tool only - is a very clever move by 'them'...
I'm currently writing a series of posts concerning all aspects of this - the financial, the psychological, the philosophical. (and some other fun stuff)...
(Approx 3000 words already written - dunno how may more to come ..lol).
Take care, all this could bore your pants off and leave you naked and defenseless
...where u get the piccy of my car, when I was in london ?
Author doesn't have to buy BLURT to earn something, a curator like me must buy BLURT with his own money and only then can count on earnings from curation. Burning purchased BLURT from my point of view does not make any sense, it is better to burn dollars right away and not waste any time for buying and burning BLURT.
BLURT Needs Services Not Users
I'm still waiting for someone to build Public/Private messaging that uses up BLURT just like .001 BLURT transfers in the Wallet... This would go a long way to BURN BLURT through usage.
🥓
First and foremost, it's important to clarify that the proposed burning would affect the curation reward, not the purchased BLURT, which is untouched, so what you might think of as generated interest — let's keep the discussion precise
Furthermore, considering the concept that time is equivalent to money, creating a post involves a significant time investment. For instance, crafting my monthly analysis post on the Blurt blockchain consumes approximately 5 to 6 hours. This time could have been directed towards professional work that could be billed to clients. It's a tangible investment.
Moreover, a published post accumulates its own value through search engine indexing and the click-through rate it garners and thus contributes to the value of blockchain and the various frontends.
Burning a portion of the earnings from such a publication is, essentially, burning a part of that invested effort. Therefore, equalizing the burning of curation reward with the author's reward seems like a fair distribution of the contribution to this burning effort.
The positive aspect I find in your burning campaign is its potential to boost overall activity on the blockchain so this may have an impact on its attractiveness and interest, stimulating both the quantity and quality of posts and discussions (on Blurt and Socials).
Certainly, there will always be individuals attempting to exploit any system, and this campaign is not exempt. This is precisely why I advocate for manual curation, involving one or more curators, as it provides better control over the content quality.
What determines the price of something is certainly how much there is of it, but there's also what comes before that, i.e. its attractiveness, the interest it arouses, and whether there's a demand for it (which like many examples in the past can be created). If one of these values is close to 0, whatever the number for sale, it will have almost no value.