RE: Why I Respect the DAO Hacker But Not The DollarVigilante
Great post. I don't know the guy and don't hate him personally, but I'm sick of this incentivization of previous fame over actual quality of content. I like to see the contents of people who were made famous by Steemit, not people who were already famous.
I am allergic to his post about how to make money though. It doesn't work. You're absolutely right that it's a feedback loop of fame and money, and contains no real substance.
I do understand that people like to capitalize on their fame and I might have done the same in his situation, but this does show problems with the underlying incentivization model of Steemit. This is why @nphacker @agm1984 and I are building up http://steemiq.me/ to provide gamification incentives for higher intelligence content.
Also, it may very well be that there's room for many different social media blockchain platforms. I also like https://www.yours.network/
Perhaps eventually different networks will be for different types of contents and discussions, much like the difference between Quora and Facebook.
I really cannot understand why you put the blame on him? What was he supposed to do - pretend it's not him? If anyone is at fault, it's the people who upvoted him, not the guy himself.
This whole notion of freedom and decentralization will never succeed, unless we learn to take responsibility for our actions. Please stop blaming others. It's the Steem community you should be upset about (and you are part of it), not @dollarvigilante.
He would not be able to capitalize on his fame if we did not let him do so. His success on Steem is the very outcome of this community's actions, so let's leave the guy alone - he has nothing to do with it.
Did you not read my whole post? I did not blame him. I see a problem with people simply amplifying their external networks to override the internal network effects of Steemit. His posts had no contribution towards explaining how to improve the existing networks within Steemit for new, fameless users. He's simply riding off his existing external fame. If he wants to make money this way, that perfectly fine, but he is wrong about the reason why he's made so much money from his posts. I'm not making any comments about him as a person, I'm simply someone who is interested in objective explanations of complex systems.
This^ quote suggests to me that you do blame him. I mean not him as a person but you are clearly upset about the way he acted.
Why didn't you say this instead: "I see a problem with people upvoting poor content by famous people".
He said he'd made money on Steem for two reasons:
Do you say the real reasons are different than that?
Reasons are true... and could be summed up in one post, no need to milk the system for 6 posts pretty much all saying the same thing. It is the metagame that I'm criticizing. Yeah, we all get that Steemit is great, that's why we are here, but we could stop with the circlejerking. A million people have posted the same thing while giving the same explanations. I don't want to see groupthink bubbles being encouraged on the platform. I understand that it's temporary and people have a right to profit off this phenomenom while they still could, but it's time to move past this to truly grow Steemit sustainably.
Viral != network effect. Steemit has already gone viral. Now it's time to focus more on the internal network effects for sustainable growth.