You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: But Anarchism is LAWLESS CHAOS! Clearing up some common misconceptions about Voluntaryism/Anarcho-Capitalism.
I do not think that vote value should be independznt of the amount of steem power you hold. In the end, that would mean that there is no reason to hold sp. We would all cash out, seeing steemprice plunge to a mere fraction of what it is today, and a vote would be reduced to the same meaningless value as a like on youtube.
In a fair society, your wealth is the result of your contributions to that society.
"I do not think that vote value should be independznt of the amount of steem power you hold. In the end, that would mean that there is no reason to hold sp."
That completely ignores the value of Steem as an investment. Steem as a currency is based on the success of the Steemit platform. What grows that platform increases the value of Steem, regardless of it's value in curation.
The value of anything is driven by thecdemand for it. The demand for something is driven by its use, and sometimes in the short run by speculation. Right now the only use for steem, is that it can be converted into sp, which gives you power in this community. Sure here and there you find someone on this website offering something for steem, but practically all its value lies in its abimity to give you power in the community. And im not only talking curation rewards for yourself, but the ability to reward good content with more power in the community.
Of in the future you get a network of goods and service suppliers who accept steem, only than will it have any other value.
I understand your point about equality and all, but go and take a look through the commenting dection here and on youtube. Which is the most productive of good meaningful conversation? That effect is created in part by the kbowledge that simply posting insults at someone else could hurt your account if as much as one whale where to flqg you. Something you do not get with equal voting power for all.
I disagree that you would not get civility without inequity. I think that possibly offending people that can upvote you is just as powerful a mechanism as any based on downvotes.
The difference is that downvotes can also be used simply to cause harm. Upvotes can't do that.
You mistate value. Value is not merely a reflection of demand, but relative to demand and supply.
Steem can be converted to BTC. Steem has value outside BTC, or Steemit, in myriad ways that are beyond this discussion. However, in the basic sense, Steemit is the justification and creator of the value of Steem.
That value is not only that it can be disbursed through voting, but that Steemit is incentivized, which makes it the only supply of incentivized social media platforms at present, and there is a demand for this. As long as Steemit is the sole supplier of this market, it will create value in Steem. This is a far greater driver of value in Steem than voting. It is not that Steem only has value as incentivizing votes, but rather that as votes incentivize creation and curation, the underlying currency gains value.
Competition in this market is coming. This matters because the silly games that Steemit potentiates to concentrate wealth are widely and rightly perceived as unfair, and people like fairness.
Platforms that are more fair will succeed at Steemit's expense, should Steemit not rectify this problem. This is the supply side of value, because as Steemit fails, Steem will fall in value.
I supposed supply and demand was implied when I wrote demand. I agree that both are important, and right now, supply is being held low, because many authors choose to keep the steem which they earn. I would guess that the amount of steem which is for sale outside of steemit is fairly small compared to the amount of steempower.
That being said, I agree with you that perhaps better systems which are perceived as more fair might exist.
I am following you since this exchange: it would be interesting if you could write a slightly more elaborate post (as a stand alone post) on how you see equal voting power work for the good of steemit, and how you think people will feel motivated to keep their steempower in such a system.
Because that is what makes it incentivized, the fact that you can be rewarded for good content. If everybody dumps their SP, because they don't need it for their vote weights, and new users don't buy, because they don't need it to increase their voteweight, I believe the value of steem will crash. If 1 steem has a value of 0.00000154$, no-one will feel more incentivized than by a like on youtube.
It's great discussing here though. THis kind of discussions would have gone to the stage of a shouting match 3 posts ago on other social media.
"THis kind of discussions would have gone to the stage of a shouting match 3 posts ago on other social media."
And THAT is why I care a great deal about Steemit. I very much believe in the power of conversations like we are having to expand understanding, and create a foundation on which is built a better world.
Apparently all my doom-saying on HF19 is FUD, and I could not be gladder about that. I'll have to continue to watch over time to ensure that things are actually more fair, but that seems presently to be the common perception.
This will be the most important test: author rewards diversification. Author rewards are the vast majority of all rewards on Steemit, and, because of how wealth impacted votes, were concentrated in a mere handful of accounts before now. If that number increases dramatically, I might even completely accede that the problem of perception of unfairness is gone.
Not likely, but conceivable.
Thanks for the follow! I hope I am worthy of your attention.
Amen.