Someone proposed this idea to me and I wanted to present it for general discussion:
1. Assume a worker was elected and had a fixed daily budget
2. Assume the worker used their daily budget to pay people to lock up their funds for 1 year.
3. Assume the worker prioritized users by who was willing to lock up the most funds for the least reward
Under such a system, funds are taken out of circulation increasing the price in the short term. Everyone who is a long-term holder should be competing to lock up their funds leaving only those who value liquidity more than the reward holding the liquid coins.
In general this should lock up 10 to 20x more funds than it would release via dilution and if the program is "maintained" would certainly reduce the liquid supply for many years. In effect, it could more than counter all dilution for at least 1 year after the program is voted out.
The key points are this:
1. No extra dilution
2. Everything shareholder approved
Those that lose under this program are those who "hold for years" but don't participate. Everyone else benefits. In other words, those who "might want liquidity but never use their liquidity" end up slightly diluted after many years.
Anyway, I just wanted to remind everyone of the policy of all such spending being subject to shareholder approval and that I am committed to not increasing the dilution rate or long term supply. Merely trying to give us tools to empower you all.