Steem experiment: Burn post #528

3개월 전

Burn post for December 22.

All rewards received by @burnpost are eventually burned. More info.

To provide additional support, vote for the @burnpost comment(s) below.

To view proof of burn, visit https://steemd.com/@burnpost

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 STEEM!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
ADVERTISEMENT
Sort Order:  trending

How did burnpost function, and what's the main intent of burnpost

·

It sends all the rewards it gets to @null. @null is an account which no one owns, once it receives steem they get burned.

Burned means they can no longer be sold. This reduces the supply of steem.

So, it increases the price of steem.

·
·

Awesome...thanks for this simple explanation

·
·

Thanks for clarifying things for me.

·
·

The last line is speculative. There are many factors contributing to price changes so I don't think a blanket statement can be made. I would instead say that it could increase the price of Steem, or from another perspective, reduce the decline in the price of Steem.

IMO, it depends whether the rewards (payouts) would otherwise contribute successfully to increasing the value of Steem, or if they are more often being extracted by self-voting, vote-trading, vote buying, etc. which enriches individuals at the expense of Steem stakeholders/investors.

I'm happy to, and do, vote for payouts which I see as contributing to increasing the value of Steem. The rest I consider to be somewhere between wasteful and scams which are actively harmful to Steem, and therefore often prefer to see more burning.

·
·
·

Yes, of course a positive ROI can be obtained from inflation (hence the SPS). I was talking from a supply/demand point of view.

Market cap remains the same so less coins means higher price. Sure this doesn’t happen right away, as markets are not perfectly efficient. But steem does become more scarce, or in this case inflation is reduced.

·
·
·
·

Market cap remains the same only if demand does not increase. If payouts are made to (sufficiently) value-adding posts then it should increase demand more than enough to offset the dilutive effect of more coins. Voting for burnpost is expressing a view that the weighted average of other posts is not value adding.

I was mostly agreeing with you BTW. I do personally vote for burnpost so my opinion is that fewer coins -> higher price under current conditions, but I just wanted to acknowledge this is opinion not objective fact.

·
·
·
·
·

I agree with you too, however you can never be 100% sure that demand will increase when upvoting someone. Even if he has the best of intentions and we truly believe in him and his plan to create value, we can still be wrong.

What we have to do is consider what happens when demand remains the same, because we don't how demand will vary. It is possible for Steem to become worse from a fundamental point of view but for demand to increase because the market has constantly proven to be irrational.

That's why I think that burning is the only 'objective' way to increase the price. Other methods can be argued and disagreed on, for example, not everyone votes for the same proposals on the SPS.

·
·
·

Thanks... that's your own opinion but someone has really explain this to me in simple sentence

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Yeah...thanks 😁

·

Thanks for your response.