Before DAO 👉 https://steem.com/steem-whitepaper.pdf
– 75% go to the reward pool, which is split between authors and curators.
– 15% of the new tokens are awarded to holders of Steem Power.
– the remaining 10% pays for the witnesses.
HF21 (DAO) 👉 https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/hf21-sps-and-eip-explained
– 65% go to the reward pool, which is split between authors and curators.
– 15% of the new tokens are awarded to holders of Steem Power.
– 10% of the new tokens are awarded to the Steem Proposal System.
– the remaining 10% pays for the witnesses.
Let's be precise, not political ;) Unless of course the 10% has since been returned to the reward pool to be taken from the witnesses only, which would surprise me.
The idea presented was that witnesses will no longer be obliged to use their witness pay to fund blockchain development, or any other development oriented toward providing services for the community.
I get the idea, but I don't think it will work, because it never did before the DAO. This is just my point of view.
The Blurt DAO, if DIP passes, will not be scraped, the code will stay, but the inflation will be diverted. Future changes to the witness parameters will hopefully make it easier for witnesses to rearrange funding without having to organize a fork each time a change is needed.
Thanks for the precision
When tweaking the reward curve for witnesses, we need to ensure that the new curve is not going to minimize the difference to a point where making an effort to advance becomes useless or less rewarding.
Hence my condition of a maximum 1/3 change in the reward of the top 20, keeping of course a cap between the top 20 and the rest of the ranking, something I may not have specified in my comment and which misled you.
Thank you for your response and for your time in setting up, negotiating and implementing the roadmap for the various hardforks.
Hi, @nalexadre,
Just a small precision. Before HF 16. Steem had a massive inflation of 100%, which was later reduced to 9.5% in 2017. Hence, the huge percentage cut.
Overall, one thing we usually state is that most of the issues and discussion that happened on Blurt lately have already happened before on Steem, we are often in a déjà vu situation. Some changes suggestions above, for example, have been suggested by Dan Larimer himself 7 years ago:
But more often than everyone would like to admit, when discussion becomes political, which we personally do not like, the price to pay is high, and the risk of falling behind other technologies and chains becomes higher. We really hope that from now on, the community will focus more on what really matters. Because the way which Blurt can be improved are plenty. There is already a massive bank of ideas from the past 7 years that we can all learn from and use.
Thank you,
Thanks for the clarification
I agree, I think Blurt has also the potential to test new possibilities not envisaged on the others, removing the deja vu and allowing it to have its own direction. The witness voting system (by PB distribution) is I think a good example.