Okay so you are proposing something like the hyperinflationary model which existed earlier in Steem. That is, greater STEEM supply, but a lot of it distributed back to stakeholders so they don't lose ground.
The three problems I see with this are:
- People not understanding it, so they see high top line inflation numbers (even though effective inflation to stakeholders is much lower) and freak out
- The high inflation puts the price of STEEM on a downward trajectory and makes the charts look absolutely awful, scaring away investors (even if long term investor stakeholders aren't losing money or are losing much less)
- Returning inflation to stakeholders (SP) means that liquid STEEM holders are actually inflated away at the high top line rate. This punishes speculators. Great, you say, speculators are disgusting parasites who should be punished. Except that when no one wants to speculate, liquidity dries up and no one wants to invest either.
Overall I think destroying STEEM to create new SBD demanded by the market is better (sending the price of STEEM on an attractive upward trajectory instead of downward, reducing inflation instead of increasing it, and encouraging, or at least being neutral with respect to, speculation rather than punishing it), though both may still have some issues.
Does the peg hold or does steem defaulting cause sbd to crash, too?
If there is not enough demand for STEEM and its market cap drops, the peg will not hold. There is no substitute for a platform that attracts and retains investor interest.