Hi, @nalexadre,

The discussion about the introduction of a system to fund development on Steem (DAO) was actually preceded by a considerable cut in witness pay on Steem, around 80% less. 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. The DAO was intended to be used instead to fund all development related things, in addition to other initiatives. Naturally, due to the competitive nature of witness ranking, witness made sure despite the introduction of DAO to provide infrastructure, services, and engage with the community as a way to differentiate themselves and attract more witness votes.

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.

Regarding the reward curve for witnesses. The ranking in itself should serve a role which is significant, but is not necessarily the case right now on Blurt. One thing that we lack on Blurt is competitiveness among witnesses. The design theory is that in their aim to rank higher, witnesses will multiply their efforts in various ways to attract votes from stakeholders. Once they reach the top 20 or a favorable position, they will have a considerable incentive to stay there. So it is a system that makes sure that top witnesses are always aware that they could lose the premium pay at any moment if they do not do a proper job. 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. If you pay the top 100 the same pay then no one will innovate because it is pointless, if you pay the top 20 50% of the reward share, then the 80 will provide a lot just to get there. On Blurt right now, we are in an entrancement situation where efforts made are not necessarily an influential factor. We hope that this will change once more faces join the blockchain.

Diverting the DAO does not seem like a good permanent solution, but we are reaching a point where stakeholders are willing to bet on this change. Maybe the community will learn through change and finally understand why the DAO was introduced in the first place. It can be time-consuming, but it is the most transparent way to go with it.

Thank you for the comprehensive response,