Quote from: smooth on November 18, 2016, 07:11:24 PM

Latest update on the economic model hard fork. I expect this to be enacted without additional significant changes (my opinion only).

https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/final-review-of-steem-economic-changes

I replied to you there to try to summarize the changes:

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/final-review-of-steem-economic-changes#@anonymint/re-smooth-re-stealthtrader-re-dantheman-re-steemitblog-final-review-of-steem-economic-changes-20161119t182850529z

Quote from: @smooth

Quote

Quote

75% of inflation goes to authors and curators

What % of inflation goes to authors and curators now?

It is comparatively tiny, around 6.5%. However, the economic models are so different that is not really comparable.

Afaics, the system is almost identical for authors and curators but very different for SP and non-SP holders...

Per my prior blog (c.f. also @arhag's comments) about the preexisting inflation math, existing SP holders were not debased (i.e. not diluted, effectively a stock split for them) when the ratio of SP to the total money supply including non-SP was ~87%. Above that ratio, SP holders were being debased and below that ratio they were experiencing a positive interest rate. For this new proposal, the stock split ratio can be approximated roughly as (which doesn't account for keeping the ratio constant or the fact that existing SP holders are diluted by new SP holders, but this is a small difference in most scenarios):

x × 0.15 × 0.095 = (1-x) × 0.095

Which is again ~87% but that is 87% of ratio of non-SP to the total money supply, so ~13% if comparing the prior system. The other difference is that above and below that ~13% ratio, the effects are transposed, i.e. above is a positive interest rate for SP holders and below they are being debased but never more than 9.5%.

So if comparing the prior system to the proposed one, at the equivalent stock split ratio scenario, then SP holders are debased the same in both proposals and the author+curator rewards are also roughly the same at 0.75 × 9.5% = 7.1%. But it isn't likely that SP holders will only be ~13% of the money supply, although power down has been reduced to 13 weeks from 104. Thus the new proposal is likely to be much more dilutive. At the 95% ratio (what it was historically), SP holders are debased at roughly 8.8%. It is unlikely for the ratio to drop much unless the whales power down, but powering down wouldn't collapse the price if they aren't selling. So the real effect of this change is to debase the SP holders, so there really isn't any reason at all to power up. So we can expect everyone who can power down to do so, until the ratio reaches some level where the debasement rate on SP holders is much less than for non-SP holders. Although there might be a Prisoner's dilemma which every whale wants their SP to be powered up if the debasement is less. So the homeostasis is likely to be some where at a positive level of debasement for SP holders, but less than that of non-SP holders. Thus free market and kudos on a good design decision (actually is what I had planned to do, except I would not have dropped the 104 weeks to 13 weeks because it could create enormous selling pressure collapsing the price).

The huge difference is that non-SP holders are only debased at 9.5% instead of in excess of 100% in the prior system.

The other huge difference longer-term is the debasement 9.5% APR decreases by 0.5% per year.

Note the likely reason for needing to drop the 104 weeks to 13 for power down, is because otherwise the existing SP holders have no way to lower the debasement rate of SP holders quickly by powering down. This is a dilemma.

tl;dr is stand on the sidelines and wait to scoop up very cheap STEEM after the dust settles.