RE: Breaking DRAMA - READ ALL ABOUT IT. ___ abit goes on flagging rampage
There are many people in the community that feel strongly that the current distribution of stake is preventing the platform from scaling to billions of users. There is pretty much no incentive for a 'regular user' to buy SP, because even a relatively large investment of a few thousand dollars does not provide practically any influence. Figuring out a way to make the platform more appealing to 'regular users' to invest is really a key issue that needs to be solved if we all want our stake to grow in value.
The million dollar question is how do you achieve this in a way that is fair to the original stakeholders, and does not open the doors to abuse. Here is a post with some thoughts on the subject:
https://steemit.com/steem/@timcliff/whales-can-the-community-buy-out-a-portion-of-your-influence
The initiative that @abit is an agreement with many of the whales to not vote for a period, as an experiment to see what happens when the dolphins+minnows get more influence. It is an experiment. It is not the solution to the problem.
If the experiment helps the community to reach a consensus on what that solution is though, then it will be doing everyone a great service. We need to figure this out / get this right in order for the platform to scale.
I'm not opposing your thoughts but I would like to a quote of my post today about the meaning of consensus for Steemians to understand and discuss.
Real consensus is not possible in centralized structures. We can't solve social problems with centralized despotic authority, regulations and power clustering.
Consensus (consent) can only exist when:
a) - Everybody is involved in building solutions for the community;
b) - Everybody is informed with proper continuous feedback;
c) - Everybody knows the risks of taking that decision.
Consensus is a general agreement on a proposition to act and change the destiny of all the members of a community and face the risks involved.
Consensus can be "good" or "bad" because collective decisions involve risks that reflect in all the future of the community.
Any consensus in equalitarian groups can be right or wrong about the consequences of the collective choices and actions agreement.
When there is manipulation in the discussion of collective solutions, by self-interest people or groups that fight for Power then it can't be called consensus, but an imposition of a hierarchical structure.
Consensus exists only in equalitarian groups, where everybody has the same rights to express their will and importance by influence and be influenced by all the others.
The effect is that a dolphin or big fish-vote is worth a lot more then it is when the whales "staff-pick" content. I gave you a $0.14 upvote from zero @charlie777pt - it would only be worth $0.07 if the whale votes. In return you get a more real view of what the users, not the whales - but the users of Steemit like and upvote.
Thanks for your comment and vote.
Sorry for not being a tech/number guy so that I could totally understand the depth of your words as an experimented member that I know understand very well this subjects.
My question is that whales that listen to the users (and I see you doing it every day) and create consensus around good decisions that will benefit the community and all the stakeholders are the ones that maybe will profit -and enjoy the pleasure for supporting and good cause- for their very risky investment on a totally new experiment crossing people and money.
Personally, Steemit has been a very good personal experience in itself and for me as well.
This is personal opinion but the first idealism of steemit by the creators was imagined by them, but it had a proposition that a lot of people was expecting for to happen and explains their visionary success seen in actual Steemit.
One of the contradictions we have to solve on Steemit is that for the dream to became true, investors had to sponsor it.
I think that the awareness will open doors for discussion and consensus, I would say some kind social concertation between all the classes on Steemit, to avoid disruptive strategies that benefit nobody.
Please see my other comment in this post about the possible strategies to change people and the path of social networks.
Your welcome, I have made a proposal for the issues we have seen now for almost a year, I think it is a very fair proposal that investors+whales+users+viewers can live with, I include it below:
https://steemit.com/witness-category/@fyrstikken/voting-power-to-the-people-and-curation-rewards-to-the-investors-please-bookmark-and-read-later-if-you-are-busy
Thanks, enlightening numbers for a support of a better vision in my philosophical writings.
I like the interdisciplinary approach of knowledge, Philosophy vs. Numbers ( i wish I was better in this range- but learning)
Thank you very much for the added information @timcliff - You have helped round out the story.