Steem is not a blogging platform. Steem is an ad-hoc public and transparent corporation. Let me explain...

in #ascensionteam8 years ago

I hope that is clickbaitish enough to get some more clicks. I think that more people need to understand what this platform is, and what it is not.

What Steem is not (only):

  1. A simple blogging platform with rewards for posts. It is an error in the design that there is such a thing as Curation Rewards at all. This function adds no value to what Steem actually is.
  2. Just another cryptocurrency, with a nice blogging platform to promote it. No, the blogging platform is actually a transparent, internal corporate messageboard.

What Steem unfortunately is, at the moment:

  1. A blogging platform that big investors can use to game the Curation Rewards system to cream off the Steem that is offered for such a task. This task adds no value to the Company, whatsoever, in fact it damages it, by eating the profit potential by creating a pathway through which invested assets are diverted for the gain of those who have no loyalty to the Company.
  2. A Reddit Clone, complete with flamewars, vote wars, and general stupidity. On top of that, because the whole thing is transparent, it is easy for outsiders to peer in and point at things and make us all look bad. Well, if we are being bad, I guess we deserve it. But I think it's just because people don't really understand what the Steem Devs have created, even they themselves don't fully understand. This is something that I am hoping to change by pointing out why these things damage the goals of Steem, and the stakeholders within it, especially those who see this as a way to make a living.

What Steem is, and what it could achieve:

  1. Steem is a public, transparent corporation. The blogging platform is the internal messaging system, by which projects can be shared between members. These projects do not necessarily have to be directly tied to Steem, but instead the activities, profitable or not, of members. The ones that are profitable, and boost the public profile and adoption of Steem are the most important, however.
  2. If all ways of climbing out of the crab bucket are eliminated (like the aforementioned issue with big investors using vote bots to cream off curation rewards, which I think should be eliminated, because it is diminishing the meritocratic architecture of unequal votes), we can stop the leaking out of the system of funds, which benefits shareholders.
  3. Everyone who either invests in, or posts on Steem, is a shareholder. Steem Power is the share instrument. Your holding in the company, like in any publicly traded company, regulates the power of your vote. This is also why these ways of sapping the collective pool, that is, the Market Capitalisation, have to be eliminated. If you are taking money out of Steem, and selling it for other assets, by way of wages, effectively, then you need to also be contributing something. Without curation rewards, big investors, aka Whales, are incentivised to either stay out, or try their hand at contributing something of value to the discourse that helps determine the activity of the Company as a whole.
  4. If the abovementioned architectural errors are eliminated, Steem's capitalisation will at worst remain static, or growing. Developing value added products such as applications that interact with the Steem blockchain, is a clear example of profitable activity for the Company, as it will tend to increase adoption and investment. Because you can become a tiny tiny shareholder, for free, in this Company, the idea is that what you are bringing to the Company is your ideas and skills. These are non-monetary, non-tradeable, intangible assets that you can bring in, and add to the value of the Company, both benefiting all Stockholder/Employees, and maybe yourself, by making a job that pays.

I think that when you look at everything, the way the system is set up, and the things that are happening, and the problems, and the poor performance of the Company on the marketplace, currently, you realise that what I am saying needs to be understood by everyone. Steem has the potential to be a powerful economic force. A corporation without a head, with a constantly mutating body, and hands that can touch almost anything, grasp it, and find a way to use it to benefit the group. If enough people within Steem agree, and we can get the Developers to concede we have a point, we could very easily see the market capitalisation of Steem become bigger than Bitcoin's 9 billion.

We could become shareholders in the largest corporation on the planet. We can use the corporation, if enough of us have the access to resources, that we can divert to projects, cause all kinds of awesomeness to happen in the world. We could have a department dedicated to driving adoption, we could create partnerships with other Cryptosystems and DAOs like this, and we could really steamroll the marketplace towards abandoning Central Bank Monopoly Money, and using real money, based on honest supply characteristics and with no single group with enough power to alter interest rates and cause dislocations in the market, misallocations of resources, and the like.

You may not agree with everything I am saying, but I am quite sure that I will be proven right. In fact, my own personal projects, that I am promoting, seeking to find collaborators in, will further increase the power of the platform, creating a realtime communication system, and help, effectively, form a namespace for the departments of the Company. Departments do not necessarily have to make money, maybe the members have day jobs, and fund their Department. But these parts of the group are not as important as the ones that promote the core elements of the system, and do what is necessary to enable the whole thing to grow. With profitable subunits, not only does Steem become the largest publicly traded corporation in the world, it is also a monetary system, and perhaps even a credit and insurance system.

It is precisely the lack of exact definition of what activities should be done within it, that for the time being, Steem is looking like a flash in the pan. But once the right ideas ricochet around in the Steemchamber for a while, the consensus will build.

I am tagging this with #ascensionteam, this is the name of the department I am starting up. We (only me right now, but whatever) are dedicated to establishing the technologies for space migration. Ascension, as in, rising up to heaven. But that aside, as I am saying, we here at #ascensionteam, we recognise that Steem is the way that we can radically change the way the economy works. Steem is like a fungus that has got into the rotting, decaying insides of the world, and it will take that garbage, and turn it into pure gold. The ones whose brains are rotting with this decay, will maybe try to take a swipe at us, but who cares. They can't stop what has been started.

Even if Steem's developers abandon it, there is nothing stopping the users from continuing to run the Company and take it in directions that make sense to the members.

Steem is the beginning of the end of a world upside down. Help build it up and let's take over the world, and set everyone free!

Sort:  

IMHO, two main problems of steem for now are:

  1. Huge inequality in SP distribution. It is so big that it prohibits the growth of the system.
  2. Lack of demand for Steem. One needs to have an ability to buy an attention of others to his own post for steemcoin.

I don't think point 1 matters at all, except in the issues I have been talking about recently with curation rewards (which give too much advantage to big investors, and, let's just remember, their having bought in raised the value of Steem).

Increasing demand for Steem requires probably just more time, more exchanges working with it, and the usual old chestnut, more people accepting it for payment. The latter point is being addressed already. I think it is only a matter of time before there is many retailers accepting any and all types of blockchain assets.

Steem has a particularly good prospect with this in the existence of its Steem Power, which accrues interest as well as locking value into the market capitalisation long term. It's not just a coin. There is also the hedged SBD, which I am sure will also be optimised over time and become really true to its name.

Well, people like games. When a person clik vote button on reddit, he knows that his voice matters. On Steemit, if you want give $0.01 with your vote you should lock $1000 in the system for 2 years. Otherwise, you vote means literaly nothing - $0.00. For the newcomers this game seems skewed.

That's because they think it's a democracy, and not a corporate board of stockholders. Here, votes mean money, so that takes it out of the realm of idle amusements and into srs biznes.

If you want to play this kind of game, you would have to go elsewhere to look for it. There is hidden, underlying features to the structure of Steem that people are only just starting to catch on what they are. There is more than enough other places where this kind of childish games can be played.

This is why I made this post, to bring it to people's attention. I think if people more generally understood the potential power of this platform, they would also understand why votes are weighted by how much you have vested in the platform.

Steem is a vehicle for massive economic empowerment, and in my opinion, is going to radically change how people see cryptographic distributed database systems. This rewrites the entire ruleset of business.

I am tagging this with #ascensionteam, this is the name of the department I am starting up. We (only me right now, but whatever) are dedicated to establishing the technologies for space migration.

Sign me up as well compadre!

Steem is the beginning of the end of a world upside down. Help build it up and let's take over the world, and set everyone free!

This is an initiative I can get fully behind.

Your post was quite a pleasure to read and I resonated with it quite a bit.

Dang... Now I feel right silly about suggesting you should do a post about hot Bulgarian women to bring in some Steem. :D

My idea of what that is would not be popular anyway. There is this gorgeous lass I see on pretty much a daily basis who works at the supermarket next door. She's not slim or prim... She just has these gorgeous eyes, and she smiles a lot. The other bulgarian girls that I have spotted over the years that I liked, usually it was the strange hairstyles or dress sense that really caught my attention. Girls that get themselves in the girly magazines, when you see them in real life, the beauty is only skin deep.

Well, from @dantheman's post it is apparent that the curation system exists to fund AI research, with people training bots like @robinhoodwhale, to detect and upvote good content. So, you should submit good posts of others to their curation channel, so that they will be fed to the robots. :-D

Otherwise yup, it is a possible future for Steemit, and as far as I understand that is what they did with BitShares, and possibly are still doing with 2.0 too.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that point. So it's really, not actually, even a necessary component, even in their vision. A way to study AI... You know, I'm not happy about it still. They take 25% out. Fuck the AI research, how about distributed social network systems research? lol! really!

Which retard, pardon my french, thinks that computers can judge what the individual user wants to see anyway? I'm sorry, but I don't see how this should be a cost-incurring element of the system. Make a hashtag for bot curation research. Don't take 25% of the vote distribution out of my rewards, or anyone's rewards, for this, quite frankly, utter waste of time and energy.

Very insightful comments. I think you have a good grasp on the directions Steem COULD go....good or bad. Hopefully, those that are in charge will see the current problems and issues and keep SteemIt as a place we can all enjoy growing with, and contributing to--and something we can all be proud of for its accomplishments.

I added a comment, that maybe you did not notice before you replied. Even if Steem is abandoned by the developers, users can take over and keep it running. If they get too pig-headed and don't make changes that become glaringly necessary, it will be forked.

I guess I'm too used to being a "sheeple" and led around. lol. Doesn't someone "have" to be in charge? After all, someone developed and started this whole thing. Aren't they really the only ones who can correct or make changes? I don't understand blockchain very well, so I'm not sure what "forked" means.
Also, if the users take over, it could still go in a bad direction, right? The mob mentality and all?

Leaders should also be innovators. Most leaders in fact just combine what they want, with what the crowd wants, and spin it so the crowd accepts the incursion upon their rights. Leading should mean the tip of the spear, the sharp, pointy edge. Not the guy with the best skills at reading the crowd, and manipulating them from there towards what they want.

Fork, in computer terminology, goes right back to the beginning of Unix. The kernel keeps track of what processes are running on the computer, by keeping them in a tree. A fork is where a branch sprouts off to the side. A fork is a copy of something, but that then goes off and does its own thing.

No, the users who take over would introduce their own system of leadership and voting. The Steem platform itself suggests possible mechanisms for how to regulate this. That is another topic that would take quite a bit of thinking to come up with an answer. But it has to be voluntary, and whoever has the biggest stake naturally should have the most power to veto decisions. Ultimately, I guess that would mean, whoever has biggest Steem Power, would be the CEO. If two people are neck and neck for this position, in time the problems of veto-collision would probably work themselves out as the one most wanted by the most powerful voters would prevail. Power, in the sense of a stake in the Company. It makes sense really. Well, that's my draft version, anyway.

@terryrall This is why I am getting busy writing an application that implements measures that will reduce the damage they cause. As well as curation rewards being scrapped, I think that downvoting also needs to be removed, the flag needs to be gone. It is nothing more than a weapon that ends up being used by trolls, and adds no value. Larken Rose talked about the idea of vote nullification, but this is something for Democracy, really just a thought experiment that shows the idiocy of that system. But in a stake-based voting system like we have here in Steem, voting should not have a negative component at all. People should just be able to simply ignore you, and the upshot of that is that you don't get heard, and I think that is more of a powerful behaviour regulator than punitive measures.

Just to clarify. Downvotes have the same power as upvotes. So it can be used in a negative way by those with big vested SP, to punish and censor people they don't like. I was a victim of this, after I pointed out what a little petty twat a guy who turned out to be a whale, was. This guy had just upvoted a post of mine, which was rather unremarkable, and I was 2 hours shy of getting the rewards and then I kicked the hornet's nest. Well, long story short, it just proved that someone needs to do something to fix the exploitable elements of the system for Evil purposes.

@l0k1 ...I'm trying to understand the gist of it...but I can't not wonder that the 'trolls' here with their actions are actually dragging down this platform...they cause fights...use abusive language in their posts in ad hominem attacks against members...and the WORST thing...they get members into flagging 'duels' with them as well...that hurts everybody down the line...I say we NEED at least basic security here...these b@stards think they own the platform instead of honoring the 'privilege' of actually being here! They are easy to spot! Their ranks are low...their blogs have no posts...just a sh!tload of negative comments & flags! They need to be purged out of here!

I see you have an issue with curation rewards being gamed. But what about author rewards being gamed? I mean let's say tomorrow morning, curation rewards are no longer. A 1000$ post goes 1000$ to author instead of 750-250.

Now... let's suppose I'm a "bad" whale voter. Why would I even need curation rewards to game the system? I hire a couple guys to write me 25 posts per day for something like 5$ per 500 words. I make 25 bogus accounts and then I upload one post per day in each of these 25 accounts. Then I upvote these 25 posts and then I take 100% of the rewards. If my vote is worth 100$, I'm collecting 2500$ per day in SD/SP, and paying 25x5 for the articles = 125$.

One could say, ok, but others will be downvoting you. Not necessary! You could upvote everything in 23h 59m - the time to react would be quite small. Besides, nothing "objectionable" will exist to justify flagging. At most one can say "Hey, this shouldn't get 100$". But nobody will be there to flag 25 posts for that reason, in the last minutes, to reduce the reward.

All in all, I think emphasis in curation gaming is too much. Reward gaming is the broader issue and there are probably more ways than I can imagine to game them.

The problem with your proposition is simple. To gain that power in the first place, you have to lock in a LOT of money into Steem Power. That money is going to accrue interest while it is vested, but then afterwards, you only get that money back. Over a 2 year period. This is why it works this way. The amount of rewards that you can give by voting, are a fraction based on your SP. By voting, that SP is not added to your SP as interest, but instead to the votes.

So it is a zero sum game. As is curation gaming. The rewards you can give by voting, cannot be more than the amount of allocated voting power, which is based on the interest accumulating in your Steem Power. I am pretty sure you will find that nobody is doing this because it does not work. Although I have seen a post suggesting that there might be some idiot trying to do this. I just don't think that this type of reward gaming was not already anticipated. It also is based on a Sybil attack as well, which is a total waste of time in a stake based voting system.

Sure, maybe there is some people making something off this, but the issue of curation rewards, it is definitely a flaw in the architecture and I'm pretty sure there is designs in the works to eliminate these flaws. The gains possible by these attacks I am not so sure how effective they are either. Someone I read, one of the people I follow, maybe it was @cryptos, did an experiment with curation rewards, using a pair of bots. One followed his votes, and the other followed a whale. In fact, the one following him and his manual curating efforts, yielded more rewards than the whale follower. So I think even this avenue of attacking the system is not effective, or so minimally effective that even the biggest whale could not profit from it in any substantial way.

I think long term, as users who produce good content, and accrue SP in their vote rewards, if they hold onto them, their rate of accumulation and their voting power increases. As more of these growing accounts appear in the network, their SP and their honest, human curation activities, will steadily dilute the power of the Whales who, at present, are disproportionately represented in the breakdown of account sizes. It is supposed to be uneven, and the 1% blah blah has the biggest share, however, over time, the system will evenly distribute and the persistent small players making original input into the system, become steadily more and more important, and anytime this kind of account is used to gain curation rewards, this loyal population of hard workers, is boosted up further, and so on. So in time eventually the potential for swiping the cream of the curation rewards gets smaller and smaller anyway, with humans competing against the whale bots.

I am not so sure right now whether I am right about this or not, but I believe there is changes in the works that will alter the curation rewards mechanisms, so obviously there must have been a problem.

We will see.

Yes I've heard something similar. I think Dan wants to enable whale downvoting as a fix for misbehavior... I haven't read something else on this aspect (curation gaming) though. I guess we'll see depending the patches that are applied in the future...

Well, the mute function needed fixing, it's still got a few kinks in it but it mostly works now. I'm not sure how important it is to financially punish misbehaviour if the architecture makes such mischief a zero sum game, such players will eventually give up, or they bring to people's attention a flaw in the code and it gets fixed and they can't keep playing that game.

On the other hand, being able to obliterate the reputation of such hacking raises the cost in that they have to cook up more sybils to keep working. So I guess I would say both probably works. The issue with active methods of this is they are open for abuse for harassment.

This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.

Learn more about linkback bot v0.3

Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise. Built by @ontofractal

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.20
TRX 0.12
JST 0.028
BTC 61841.74
ETH 3420.69
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.47