RE: Initial Community Roadmap for the Blurt Blockchain

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Initial Community Roadmap for the Blurt Blockchain

in witness-category •  last year 

@megadrive, @ctime

Since Blurt's inflation rate was reset when he was created, we find ourselves with a rate that is far too high, but also much higher than Steem and Hive.

image

image

Currently, inflation declines at a rate of 0.01% every 250,000 blocks until it reaches 0.95% in approximately 20.5 years.

I'd be in favor of variable inflation, depending on the activity on the blockchain and framed by a floor and a ceiling to keep control of it, this would enable Blurt to remain attractive in periods of high activity and limit the negative effects in periods of low activity. A floor of 3% and a ceiling of 6% seem to me to be a good idea.

As explained in my last post, we produce 3,456,000 BLURT/month, 10% of which goes to the DAO, i.e. 345,600 BLURT/month, and the same for the witnesses, since they also account for 10% of the BLURT created. So taking 5% of the DAO and giving it to the witnesses amounts to increasing them by 50%. If the distribution between witnesses is not reviewed, then a witness in the top 20 who currently earns 15,000 BLURT/month would earn 22,500 BLURT/month.

Finally, I'd like to remind you that I'm in favor of a return proposal, which has a positive image and the same results, rather than burning. What's more, it keeps opportunities open.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Sort Order:  
  ·  last year  ·  

Interesting concept, however, I would leave it for the future. At the moment, let's do what we agreed to, hopefully these changes will be approved by witnesses


Posted from https://blurtlatam.intinte.org

  ·  last year  ·  

Switching to a variable rate based on blockchain activity requires development and probably further analysis to define the right floor and ceiling to put in place as well as the periodicity of rate adjustment and its proportion, so if the idea were to be approved I don't think it could be integrated before at least HF11 or even 12 (depending on the final schedule), so as not to delay the implementation of HF09 and 10.