You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: TAPPING THE SLEEPING GIANT OF STEEMIT! WHO and WHY????? My first Argument...
The amount that gets paid out from the rewards pool is fixed. If a user wit a large stake (like the Steemit account) votes to increase the rewards of a single post, the payout for that post would come out of the same rewards pool as all the other content. The rewards for all of the other posts would go down to be able to pay for it.
Also, the Steemit account was not meant to vote on content. It is the account that Steemit, Inc. used to fund new account creation, as well as to pay for the expenses of running their company.
Thank you for the more clarifications on the matter. Now for us minnows would be clearer as to how the reward pool works. Did I create a discussion here? Thanks @timcliff for the initiative and for the comment.
There is information on that in the FAQ and on the welcome page.
One more question sir, can they not able to delegate some of their SP ?
They could, but it would not generate any additional rewards. It would just give certain users (whoever they delegated to) more influence than the users they did not delegate to.
Then at least it would be useful for someone...thanks for the answer @timcliff.
maybe they just lost their password? - @joshvel thanks for using the #discussion tag - i think it could be really helpful if it catches on
They did not lose their password. Their not voting is a choice, so that the community can decide what to vote for.
my b @timcliff just messing around...i read your posts above - very helpful - I'm more on @joshvel side of the steem world still learning the ropes...appreciate you interacting honestly with some of us minnows!
Glad to help :)
Thanks @breakthrough for the input. I'd rather be honest than to be prideful.
@timcliff, what about delegating a little bit for languages without native whales?
I'm sure many non english speaking communities will appreciate it, it will also reduce the ammount of attempted english posts thus increasing the overall quality of contenct and open the door to many newcomers who refrain from it now because they only speak their mother tonge?
Also for example the Spanish community has only one whale so there is like a monopoly as well as some questionable made up rule enforcement that defeats the de-centralized principle of the pplatform.
I'm just brainstorming here, I am convinced this is a great platform and has a bright future (I even invested what i could to power up and help others) And i am convinced that if the minnows really unite we would not need to be begging for support, but as you know it is very difficult to drive and motivate people without an incentive.
Steemit appeals to human greed to make the world a better place (at least it is how i see it, like using the techniques of eveil to do good) I have a series of posts in spanish about distributing the effort for a common goal and i trully hope to be able to encourage and open discussions in a sort of Ágora using steemit as a platform
I tried that in loomio and even thou we had more than 1000 participants, they lacked the incentive to spend time writting and we ended up being the same 10 of us having all the discussions in front of 1000 people...
Now i'm trying to migrate that here (thou with some struggle from people used to facebook) .
In any case thanks for reading!
Well the problem is that if they delegate to one set of users, no matter how good the cause, they are being unfair to all of the other stakeholders. If for example the Korean community worked extremely hard to get their community members to buy $250,000 USD worth of Steem Power so that they could support the members of their community, and then the Steemit account gives the Spanish community $250,000 worth of delegated SP for free how is that fair to the users who actually invested in the platform?
It seems to me to be excellent that these topics are beginning to be talked about on these sides and I have encouraged myself to participate in this small debate.
It is extremely interesting to analyze if some minority communities should be supported or not by the Steemit whales, for this, it is necessary not to decontextualize the subject. Let me explain, we can not "abstract" the Steemit communities of the world outside the internet and their tangible reality that can be summed up in a single word: Inequality. Simply, not all people in all countries have the same investment capacity as others.
Unfortunately, it is simpler to tell the Korean community to invest 250,000 SP in Steemit, than to the Venezuelan community in which the average salary is around 30 $.
It is not with this that you want to ask for a "charity" or that we want things given away, what is proposed is temporary help for communities that do not have the capacity to start with the same force as others if they could have.
On the other hand, I do not think it is so correct that other investors do not want minority communities or less purchasing power to grow, first of all because the growth of any community group in Steemit has a direct impact on the acceptance of this platform and, therefore, the price of STEEM, which benefits us all and especially the big investors.
In addition to the above, we must remember that the premise with which this community was created, according to Ned, is to end the problem of violence, so that altruistic ethics should not be lost in the decisions that are made.
I think it is possible to design a temporary method in which large whales or users with a lot of SP invest in well planned and structured healing projects in the Hispanic community that allow:
The reward and attraction of creators of quality content in other languages.
The growth of the minority communities of Steemit that will end up impacting in the end in the growth of the community in general and of the price of STEEM thus benefiting the large and medium investors.
If one sits down to analyze it well, there are more advantages than disadvantages in the proposal that, besides an aid, I consider an investment.
It is a valid viewpoint, and there isn't really anything that I disagree with. Ultimately though it is up to the investors to decide what to do with their stake. If you are looking to get investors to sponsor your project/community, then the burden is on you to convince them to give you their investment.
Point of clarification here sir @timcliff , is it to give or just lend/delegate?
Either, although most likely if you were to get an investor's support, it would come in the form of a delegation.
One thing you might be interested in is https://www.minnowbooster.com/. It allows you to lease/rent delegated SP. It comes at a cost, and the delegation only lasts for a limited time, but it is cheaper than actually buying the amount you would need for the same amount of influence.
Thank you very much @timcliff for giving time of my queries. And congrats for being the top 2 witness, you are one of my voted witnesses. God bless!