RE: Announcing the Delegation Committee
Yeah, here's the problem with these conflicts...
With the Steem Alliance, he's sitting on the board (if I'm not mistaken) and will presumably have rather large influence over foundation proceedings, procedures, and any kind of committee selections they make there (if any). Of course this is assuming that this foundation actually goes anywhere. As more time passes, it looks like this will probably be defunct soon, or rendered pretty much irrelevant.
As a committee member for this STINC delegation, he will be charged with approving or disapproving support for businesses and/or development and marketing projects that may very well compete with his own - or he will be charged with approving or disapproving support for those businesses and projects that directly and positively impact his own projects/community.
As the owner of Steem Engine, he has many different token owners, communities, and developers that will likely be submitting delegation and funding requests from both the foundation (if it becomes a thing) and STINC's delegation program. Any funding or delegation for these tokens/communities/developers will very likely directly and indirectly benefit him financially.
Sure, aggroed (actually, his developers) get some stuff done (whether it has made a difference in adoption or value is certainly debatable), but there's absolutely no reason why he ought to be on this delegation committee. Can STINC really not find a third person to take that spot instead? Were there only three potential candidates? If so, we're worse off than I had originally thought.
Who, excluding yourself, would you have liked to see in this position then?
It seems rather unlikely to me that there'll be many with a proven record on Steem that has not already built or run something which could have a conflict of interest.
You seem to think that every user on Steem is somehow involved in businesses or projects that would conflict with vetting people and making decisions about delegations. I can tell you that most users have no such roles in businesses and projects. And as @jamesbrown said - there is a much larger ocean outside of this tiny Steem puddle.
But more to the point...
Why must we have Aggroed and somebody who does work for Aggroed (Eonwarped) on this committee, given the many conflicts that Aggroed himself has in all of this? Why must we have Starkerz on this committee, given his role in at least four projects on Steem (Oracle-D, Promo-Steem, 3Speak, and the SBA through his role with Oracle-D) - which I assume would be seeking delegations, as at least one of them I know has received delegation from STINC already?
Two of the three committee members have major conflicts of interest and one has a conflict through his work with one of them. And all three, as far as I can tell, have pretty much zero relevant business/social media experience when it comes to vetting viable projects for this blockchain. That's the underlying issue. The conflicts of interest just make this much, much worse.
There's a big world outside of the Steem blockchain of potential "recruits" (with their own track-records in related fields) for a governance position. It doesn't have to come from within this small pond.
Then you would have to set aside a budget to pay those people a wage. They wouldn't do it voluntarily.
Even at current prices this is an asset worth many millions of dollars that is being managed. A budget is not unreasonable.
Of course. If public image is of any importance to Steemit, side stepping situations such as we find here with @aggroed (conflict of interest) should be a high priority, IMO.
It all boils down to a very simple question: is more money gained/ lost in the long-run (all things considered) by hiring on someone from the inside with a blatantly obvious conflict of interest or from the outside, in someone who requires an additional wage (but is also likely more qualified for the position, as he/she is chosen from a pool that consists of billions of people compared to the few thousand that exist on chain, and doesn't come along with the COI label)?
My guess is that investor confidence in Steem is not high at the moment (feel free to guess why I've come to that assessment). I also guess that it'll not grow from Steemit's decision here, but I could be wrong. Time (money) will tell.