> Removing the reward pool from the equation is a major change that would turn the token economics on it's head, at least in the mid term I don't think it's viable. **If SMTs are succesful then we can start considering it.**

# *I agree!!*

> EDIT: Maybe accelerating the rate at which the inflation decreases would be a better option.

#### uhm... nice. This choice also could works smoother. :)

The original comment had some ideas I very much disagree with, but decreasing the inflation rate at a faster pace is the one decent idea.

It could also be done fairly easily. I would also leave the final steady-state inflation as positive albeit small.

Also, this isn't really inflation, it is the coin-creation rate. The real inflation rate is much higher.

I don’t have the details worked out but making sure witnesses are paid to secure the blockchain is obviously required and the inflation rate chosen would make sure that is the case.

“Locking” the current distribution would reward those who have held through this bear market and believe in this platform. Buying would be required, which is kind of the point since it would create buy pressure.

Let me present it slightly different ... there is a maximum number of bitcoins that will ever be mined. When that happens, those people are “locked in”. Do you think bitcoin dies on that day? I think everyone would say no. So what happens? It gets traded around and a fair market value priced in whatever asset you are talking about is settled upon by traders. I think the same thing happens here. People will trade Steem and a value will be found. Hopefully people hold it and power it up and the price rises. I am sure when it gets to $2 some people will dump (aka distribute) it and others will hold it until it goes back to ATH.

I do like your idea of accelerating the decrease in the inflation schedule. Maybe that would be more palatable to the community.