You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steem's #1 Pirate - Abuse & Plunder Report 2018-08-10 (last 24hrs)
I can comprehend that perspective, but why not just upvote someone who deserves to be upvoted instead of flagging someone who has an indomitable will? It has the same effect in benefiting people without the conflict of a downvote war. It's win/win for both warring parties and the same amount of good is done its just focused at one person in a noticeable way, as opposed to benefiting everyone in a way that's so minuscule, that it won't even register for most folks.
Take this example to the extreme: Everyone exploiting Steem gets flagged into the ground. Now everyone who deserves rewards gets upvoted. Now you have a perfect system.
If we do it your way the system remains totally exploited. It in no way has the same effect. Flagging actually creates the win/win situation. Even the people getting flagged win because the entire platform is now worth more because it's functioning properly with the proof-of-brain concept.
If you believe in proof-of-brain, then allowing trash posts to rake in hundreds of dollars is the equivalent to allowing counterfeit Steem being created.
99% of Steem interactions could be flags, but as long as the remaining 1% are upvoting using honorable proof-of-brain tactics the system is working perfectly.
I don't want to be redundant and spammy so please just look up to the comment I sent to fullcoverbetting. If we send out the message that this is not the place for new capital to make gains then we discourage investment. Should that happen, the only logical move would be to sell to market before everyone else does.
I'd like to not sound redundant either, but here I am. If proof-of-brain becomes a reality then Steem will make x100 gains. This is a utility token. It either has to provide utility or it's worthless.
Your argument of, "we should let investors exploit the system for short-term gains," has zero merit.
I hear you, proof of brain is excellent. Have you ever by any chance watched any of the 100's of videos that Haejin makes? He's got his own thing, he values his content and analysis.
If he didn't upvote his content, it would mean he didn't value it. If he didn't value it, why would he make it in the first place? He's not even adding these videos to his posts.
He's summarizing and distilling the fine points in his picture charts that he uploads regularly. I personally don't know about financial stuff, or mathematics or any of that.
But, I think if he was trying to gaslight the Steemit community. He would have at the very least uploaded these videos to his posts. Yet, he doesn't do this and that has me further convinced that he believes in what he's doing, or else why do it every single day?
Even if he didn't value his own work, lets say he was just upvoting one word comments. The proof of brain lies in the fact that he's trying to capitalize off of his investment.
The point of the matter is the money that you bring to the platform is merit, that's why you get the larger upvote for bringing mo money.
Correct, value is subjective. It's simply one person's opinion vs another. That's exactly why Haejin should stop upvoting himself. He's facing major resistance from the community.
It isn't hard to engage with the Steem community in a positive way without getting flagged. It would take very little effort on Haejin's part to turn this entire situation around. He could also sidestep the flags entirely by selling his vote.
At the same time, this entire situation could get outdated by adding utility to Steem that has nothing to do with blogging. Blogging is boring and I think Steem is capable of a whole lot more.
You do realize your first point was that FTG's flags helps everyone in the community. Now you are saying that Haejin should stop upvoting himself. If he buys into your idea that his content is not appreciated then maybe he'd go ahead and sell to market which would cause harm to everyone's Steem value. I'm having a problem comprehending how you cannot see the interrelationship of all the actors on this platform? If you get your communist utopia, there won't be any capitalist to fund your expenses. It's simple, yet at the same time it's complex. Take for example free college, free college is excellent right? Do you want to give up 50% of your paycheck so every child in America can have a free (shit) college education? Point being is, it's not free if your footing the bill and it's not valuable if people wont' pay you for what you've learned. I think you need to think some things out, but it's certainly not my place to tell you what to do. So by all means, maybe we should agree to disagree. If not, I am more than willing to continue this conversation Ad infinitum or unless and until we can come to a meeting of the minds, or if you can change my mind with logic and reason.
I'm not the one who brought up Haejin. My argument stands alone without naming names. I was wondering why you pivoted the argument there and now I see why.
A cooperative economy is not communism.
College is an artificially overpriced scam. It's not expensive to teach people things.
"Ha, did he finally realize that those flags were less profitable than self-upvoting?" Who were you speaking of?