I think... and please Daudi correct me if I'm wrong. I think what he was trying to imply is that if we force SBD down, the speculators that we depend on (in his opinion) to prop of the price of Steem and SBD would lose interest on this blockchain.

Maybe, because the volume of steem is low already (most of steem is not liquid, its locked up) and without volume runs can't happen in a sustainable way.

So, maybe (i'm reading the comment again for the 10th time) the argument is that by keeping the SBD low volume as a debt token against Steem we are creating a "false" scarcity of some sorts, thus enabling possible pumps on a low market cap crypto (which of course is how it works). 

Again, I say... If I'm wrong interpreting that comment, I'm sorry. It's not very clear. 

-------

I happen to understand very well the argument for a pegged asset and the value it could bring to the commerce aspect of the blockchain. However, I'm of the idea that having some liquid rewards be speculative could be enough incentive as to bring speculators (we need them, we don't sell ads) to participate of the space, thus giving us liquidity. 

So, I happen to think. that what Polymath said above.
>This is a little tangential but I was looking at your github comments last week and saw you were interested in changing beneficiary rewards so they don't always pay out in SP. I just wanted to express my feeling that this would be a great change, and probably one that would get easy support. I hope that's something you will pursue adding to the codebase.

Which is something apparently you proposed yourself might be more in the middle for most, and won't make some Steemians run to the hills in fear. 

Just my two cents... Hopefully I made sense.