RE: An Open Letter To @elipowell
Without a doubt there would be !drama associated with a proposal like this. Although, as we know, on here, there is drama with everything so we are accustomed to it by now.
As for the points you raise, that is why it is not a forever, guaranteed delegation. If one opts to stray from the parameters, there is a good chance the delegation is not reupped the next quarter. It would take a bit of monitoring by 50 or so people, but it could be done. I am certain there are 50 people on here who truly care enough to invest some time checking out the habits of 25 or so people who received delegation.
Plus, if Steemit Inc would step up and expand the program you are talking a lot more than 10K accounts being affected.
Finally, I disagree about removing buyers from the pool: users do not buy tokens for the most part, especially Planktons. If they did, for $125, they would be Minnows.
Make it a contest. First 1000 Planktons who buy the amount to be a minnow within a certain period of time get 5k delegation for a month.
If you like this, you can update your post.
Say I'm this dolphin who nominates some deserving individuals. I think they deserve it. Then suddenly I'm seeing some funky business that doesn't sit well with me. This could be someone I've known for a long time, and care about, as an individual. How do I break the bad news to them? "Sorry, you're cut off and you'll most likely hate me now." Why would I even want to be responsible for that? How would I look, if who I choose turns out to be a bad idea? My reputation is at stake, I can't screw up, but I also don't live inside their heads to know enough about how things will turn out. What about the others who I don't select? They would feel like I'm picking favorites; left out. I don't want to leave people out, which is why I don't like picking favorites. Those feeling left out in the cold aren't going to like me too much. Money does strange things to people. It can break up families, ruin relationships. I don't want to be responsible for something like that. Let's say I'm chosen to be one of these dolphins and I refuse. Then, again, I look like an ass, because I don't want to hurt someone.
Some drama can be good entertainment. This kind of drama though? Turn this place into a reality TV show? That concerns me, a bit.
I'm not really a fan of handouts either. I think people should be investing time, money or both, especially when it's a big business they want to run. I'm far more confident about a project when I see an investor plop down a nice chunk of change, build something, and operate it, on their own expense, then turning a profit. That makes the place look shiny to more investors.
I'm already seeing one comment here where an individual is already concerned about how they've been here for a long time, working, like they should be doing, and someone could potentially take the helicopter to the top, while they're still stuck climbing the rocks.
What's Steemit going to be known for after all is said and done? The welfare state? We're so damn poor, and nobody was interested, so they had to just give it all away?
"Users do not buy tokens," you say. Well, let's give them a good reason to.
And just know, I'm not trying to be hard on you. It's nothing personal. That's just how I feel.
TL;DR = The idea makes me feel uncomfortable. Don't give up though, maybe give this some more thought.
To start, how would your name be tied to anyone. The list compiling would be done by a number of people, with many individuals overlapping.
How is delegation considered welfare? Do you really believe that?
If the person is below 5,000 SP, he or she could still be the receiver of the delegation. As for the rest who are above it, this is no different than any larger account delegating. Steemit Inc has the largest stake sitting there helping nobody. We have a distribution problem with the token that is changing very slowly. By putting that to work, targeted at the smaller accounts, it could spread the payouts around, especially with the 50/50 payouts coming up.
After two years one, there was little reason to buy STEEM by users. While I like your post about the business of blogging, this simply is not how most look at it. So while I am in agreement with your views, the masses say otherwise.
Okay, good point. Anonymity.
To an extent, yes. I'm certain if I wrote a post every few days asking for upvotes, I'd be considered a beggar. Some delegations can be helpful, I get it. Many content producers struggle these days because like you said, "Half is delegated away." I think if more removed their delegations, we wouldn't need to be asking Steemit to delegate. Kind of a vicious cycle, not really helping things in the distribution department. It's up to us stakeholders to help distribute but if we remove our ability to do so, we're not exactly helping. I'm comfortable with taking some of the blame there, since I'm part of the community, but I have full control of my SP. To each, their own.
I've always believed building a strong middle class is crucial to our survival here. I know that extra could help, but I'm old fashioned I guess and think people should have to work for theirs. I'm flexible though. People will need to be out helping during this 50/50 change, yes, and I'd like to see everyone doing their part, not finding a way to continue sitting on their hands, as they pass the responsibility over to thousands of "lucky" low SP holders.
They'll catch up soon enough ;)
*edit: And I should add. This:
I don't believe it's full on welfare, but I'm showing how no matter what someone does, it's easy to spin things and make a good thing look really bad. It was more of a question. How could it all really improve the image, when people will do and say all kinds of nasty stuff to tarnish that image, regardless. So there's the spin and there needs to be a counter for it prepared in advance to negate the effects of said spin.