Programmers want to get paid to write code. Authors want to get paid to write words. I see both as demographics neither of which are more important than the other.

More code in my opinion isn't going to help improve Steem. The problem is the current code that the programming class has written is simply unprofitable. I asked when they made the proposal, how will it generate revenue? I asked them if they will add prediction market capability for example so people can bet on which improvements will get implemented and bet on the time etc.

Generally if there is no revenue then no amount of borrowing (that is what they want) is going to fix it. In addition, the programmers want to make this change in the percentages yet they wont make the change to actually fix the economy so authors can make $. It's not just a matter of percentages but of a broken economy in general.

Revenue is what matters. When a programmer offers to write code the community should demand that these programmers have a business plan. Not simply let programmers ask for money to write "code" which has no way of generating any kind or profit for the platform.

If the proposal is not burning Steem, if it's not generating revenue to sustain development of new code, then it's a loan from authors. In other words programmers want to eat at the expense of the authors even though the authors are driving more revenue at this time.

What revenue are programmers driving? Well we can say Steemit Inc is at least driving cost reduction. Cost reduction improves the business so this is good. The proposal system is very expensive and is this 20% decrease permanent or temporary? In my opinion it should not be permanent if implemented at all and in general it should be seen by authors as a sort of loan to programmers to pay for development in a time where money cannot be produced from any other means.

But in exchange the authors need to get something. If there is a fee to propose new projects then the fee should be burned for example. The fee should also be high enough to discourage scams and worthless proposals. There should also be a cultural norm in the community to ask how the proposal is going to generate revenue. Examples:

• Locking up Steem tokens (supply sinks).
• Burning Steem tokens.
• Attracting advertisement revenue for Steem.
• Monetization of the data on Steem.

If they can't come up with ways to generate sustainable revenue streams then why fund it?