[Proposal] Add Inflation Funding Source to the Steem Proposal System
Update: The proposal was not accepted but I will provide the code anyway because it doesn't suit me for shit now.
- Version with inflation from content rewards each block
- Version with the above + automatic conversion of all funds sent to @steem.dao for use in proposals
What is the Steem Proposal System (SPS)
Now that you have read the link above (you have right?) you likely have a better understanding of what the SPS is and its function. In that post (that you definitely read) there was mentioned having a portion of the existing Steem inflation tokens assigned to the SPS fund, aka worker fund.
The post plays with the idea of around 1% of the total Steem inflation, which is not a bad starting point, in my opinion. Without a source of funding to the worker fund, there will be no point in the system because nothing will be able to actually be funded. SteemIt has made a tentative offer of seeding the initial worker fund with 200K STEEM. While this is a nice start, it will quickly be depleted and we will be back at square one.
The Issue
Due to the fact that time is of the essence at the moment, as far as getting code merged into Steem for the next hardfork, it is ideal to not have to go through multiple hardforks for a single project. Every hardfork requires witnesses, RPC nodes, and exchange nodes to update their software. The SPS system is already merged into the master branch at https://github.com/steemit/steem and is being prepared for launch.
In its current state, the SPS system does not have any source of funding from the Steem network. It is entirely reliant upon SBD transfers (donations) sent to the worker fund account.
My Proposal
I have already written the necessary code to allow the SPS worker fund to be funded from the existing Steem inflation. I can provide this code immediately upon established agreement between myself and SteemIt.
I am quoting a total of 15,000 STEEM for the funding code and my ongoing support throughout the process until the additions are deemed stable by SteemIt. This 15,000 STEEM can come directly from the proposed 200K STEEM initial funding, leaving 185K STEEM for initial funding.
The worker fund will grow at a rate of roughly 2.48M STEEM worth of SBD for the first year. This rate will change as the supply increases and the rate of inflation decreases.
Potential Risks
The SPS worker fund operates entirely on SBD. This is to preserve the value of the tokens received through proposals and help remove some of the volatility using STEEM would have. One problem with this model is that if we are to use Steem inflation, we will need to convert the generated STEEM to SBD on a per block interval for the worker fund.
This can potentially increase the SBD supply and have some effects on the SBD print rate for authors. However, a simple solution for this would be for someone to create a worker proposal with @null as the receiver for however much SBD needs to be burned from the fund to adjust the SBD supply.
Discussions
Please keep the discussions below civil and on-topic. Let's try and get some real progress achieved here for this SPS and hopefully we can get a thriving new economic model around Steem development that could likely entice many new developers to join the ecosystem.
I believe the SPS (Steem Worker Proposal System) will offer the ability to take on some of the much needed updates here, through the community itself.
It’s no secret that many here feel there is a need for better UI/UX, Development, Marketing, Outreach, Onboarding, Retention etc. This all theoretically could be taken care of through the worker proposal system, with the community being able to decide what receives the funding.
This would also solve the problem of beneficial projects from the community not being able to get support, as anyone could put in a proposal and if the community sees it as beneficial, it could receive funding.
This sort of worker proposal system has been used with success on other blockchains and I believe it could very much allow us, the community, to fix some of the glaring issues here.
But it needs sustainable funding.
The largest part of the inflation pool is diverted to the authors here, and therefore it’s the most logical place to redirect a small percentage from, imo.
As someone who only earns STEEM through posting, I understand how many content creators may feel that this would negatively effect their short term rewards, but seeing all the facts as well as potential increase of overall STEEM value from having a worker proposal system like this, I honestly think we would all benefit and therefore our rewards would be higher.
As the Steem ecosystem improves, we all earn more.
This is my personal opinion on this, and I think Steem needs this, truely... or we will continue having gaps that hold us back as a whole.
It’s a way for us as a community to take ownership and pull together to push Steem to where it should be, and therefore stop depending on Steemit Inc. so much. This means that we as a community have to pull together to fund it too though, and as part of this community I believe this could be a way forward.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Very well put. I also believe a percentage of the content rewards (authors & curators) should be diverted to the worker fund. I would go so far as to say some of the vesting rewards could be diverted as well, but starting with 10% from content rewards seems the logical first step.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks. Yeah, I agree that a discussion of allocating from multiple places does make sense and would help balance everything out while providing funding for something that would be beneficial for all.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great move @netuoso!
I am in full support of such a system and I am glad that you are working on solutions that Steem desperately needs.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for the comment @reggaemuffin. Hopefully SteemIt picks this up before the SPS launch.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Can't it do an equal trim across the board as that way it will be seen as much more acceptable by most people.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It is trivial to adjust the source of the income. This post is hopefully to establish a line of communication with @steemitdev @ned @justinw and whoever else can get this proposal approved.
Once an agreement is reached they can have the code and it can be prepared to whatever the consensus is at the time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is what I assumed but it is good to make it explicit because it is what is going to get push backed on by the community, most of who don't know much of what the SPS and all they hear is loss of reward.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Count me out unless it applies to all stakehodlers equally.
If it only takes rewards from witnesses and sp holders it sets up authors as a privileged class, and I don't think they should ride for free on the back of the hardworking, and risk taking, underclasses.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The current proposal, in fact, would take 10% from content rewards. It would not affect witnesses or SP holders.
Kind of the reverse of what you say though
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Uh huh,...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for taking the bull by the horns on this, Net. I appreciate and understand why your proposal on this is so fast, and why it would be so important to deliver prior to the hardfork. For myself, personally, some use of inflation is critical to the success of the SPS. I think it really matters that you've stepped up to say, "This needs to be done to prevent another costly hardfork and start with the right foundation." It's ballsy and I appreciate you're toeing the line between doing it for the good of Steem but also making sure that work is valued.
Right now, while I feel like Blocktrades has delivered quickly and accurately based on the nebulous feedback for the SPS, I'm still a bit concerned that we as a whole didn't do a great job on the specs for that delivery. Your need to move fast based on their need to move fast based on the community's perceived need to move fast is going to leave us with some real gaps in implementation if we don't really look at what sorts of things could happen in an ecosystem where stake has often chosen to harm itself for quick profit despite long term damage and shitty outcomes.
If nothing else, I think it's fair to say that I know the code that we'll get will be solid, and look forward to testing the snot out of it all, but I am majorly concerned that we don't have a way to test the voting community and that that could get messy fast. I know I'm going to get crucified for this but I'm not sure how I will feel about supporting this hardfork yet; with all that said it definitely won't be because of your work or the work of the blocktrades team, and I still think that this could be a turning point for our ecosystem. Thanks for the balls on this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
FWIW, the testing of the actual SPS in its entirety should not be related to me or this proposal.
I can verify my code alterations completely independent of the actual SPS system, as the code is ultimately sending funds to a user account in the form of SBD.
But I agree, it would be great to have more clarity about what level of testing and verification has been performed to date on the SPS system.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Totally agree. A lot of my comment is really that the stuff that makes me on the fence about the HF is far and away separate from the actual codebase itself. I think that simply because your companion code is something that makes the overall SPS more viable, that apart from straight code testing we have to spend a bit of time thinking about how the way things work in our current ecosystem and how it could fuck up all the good things that come with this before we decide to drop it and then find out accidentally after funding something shitty or disbursing everything to the wind because whoopsie doodles didn't think of that. Steem has proved time and again that people are both formulaic and incredibly hard to predict and while we can't mitigate all of that at code level, I mostly hope we can say, "if x happens, then y becomes an option".
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The hardfork isn't worth implementing without this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is excellent proposal. It should be taken up. A small contribution from everybody will help us keep developing the right tools that are needed.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Would Steemit, Inc. committing more resolve this issue for the time being? The company still has tens of millions of STEEM. It occurs to me that speeding up development would increase the price of the token, so it would be a win-win for everybody if Steemit, Inc. committed more (it will result in their tokens being worth more). It will also help with better distribution/decentralization.
So I don't see what the issue is.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You mean for the worker fund? That is possible they could provide more, but you must keep in mind the obstacles a business must go through in regards to legal and the board of directors.
It would be a lovely world if SteemIt decides to fund the SPS indefinitely, but there is no way that is scalable or sustainable in the long run.
The system already generates the tokens. It only makes sense for some of them to go to actual proposals of merit.
If the SPS gets funding, I would make a proposal to allow the reward pool to be funded with a STEEM transfer, then a user could make a proposal to received SBD, convert or sell it, and send the STEEM to the reward pool.
Many options available to us, but they will be hard to achieve without ongoing funding.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I imagine it would make sense if they provide a continuous and reasonable flow of financing for the worker fund rather than a big pile of STEEM all at once. This might be much easier in regards to legal concerns and board of directors.
It would not be sustainable or scalable in the long term, right. But for the short term, it seems like the best solution to me. It will put the ecosystem in a better position to support itself. After this, Steemit, Inc. can discontinue the funding.
I think you know the extensively discussed issues. There is a lack of agreement on redirecting rewards away from authors or curators or witnesses. Or on increasing the inflation. I wonder why you think (if I understand you right) that it would be more advantageous to go down that path, for the short term, rather than ask Steemit, Inc. to provide funding for some period of time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Because they have been asked and it’s clear they are only committing to the 200k STEEM. So, if the Steem worker proposal system is something we see being as beneficial, we, the community, have to find a way to sustainably fund it. The rewards aka “inflation” pool was designed to fund contributions to the platform that add value, it makes sense to allocate some of it to a worker system that essential could add quite a bit of value.
Depending on Steemit Inc. is not an option, so we need another one.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That is unfortunate the proposal was rejected. Without a constant funding source, I am not sure what this hardcore will ultimately accomplish. It needs to be properly funded one way or another.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @netuoso! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit