I fully agree on this point. What @nalexadre notices also came to my mind while reading this post @megadrive. It's easy to give the 10% extra, but later it will be more difficult to remove this 10% from the witness. Perhaps, however, as @ctime advises, part of it should be allocated to reducing inflation by burning DAO tokens - in this way, 50% could always be more easily redirected both as funds for another purpose and as funds back to the DAO if the blockchain grows.
This is something to consider.
Hi, @khrom,
in the sense that you mean not to create new tokens for the dao pool?
Yes I’m with you on those points, what are your thoughts on directing to BP stakeholders who earn only 2.2% for powering up?
We need to compete with Hive’s 20% APR passive income on HBD.
it's a hard question. on the one hand, a higher APR encourages people to hold funds and could encourage some people to make purchases on stock exchanges just to keep these funds with us, but on the other hand, the phenomenon, from the user's point of view, in HBD is the fact that it is a stable stock, i.e. I invest PLN 1,000 today $ and tomorrow I still withdraw $1000 (+/- 10%). This convinces many people to invest in such a coin because they are afraid of fluctuations in regular coins. In the case of Blurt, unfortunately we would have to compete heavily with some coins because various coins offer the same as hbd and even better conditions with a similar risk to the Blurt investment.
However, it seems to me that going in the direction of playing "savings account" is not the way to go. Most such coins eventually become shell coins.
We should rather move towards giving our metal the characteristics of investment metals. Especially since we now have a high inflation environment in the world, close to recession, and we have even come close to stagflation. Moreover, the history of BTC has been showing for years that this path works best for coins.