1 Comment/Post Per Day Limit For New Users? Do The New Rules Leave Space For Growth?
I have been looking at comments from various places regarding the likely rate at which new accounts on Steem will be able to post comments and replies following Hard Fork 20 - which is information that really wasn't available prior to the fork as far as I am aware. It seems that it is very much the case that the anti-spam effect of the resource credits system will be able to prevent a certain amount of the comment bots that fill up post threads with pointless comments - but at what cost?
As I understand it, the amount of Steem Power that an account has will determine how many resource credits it can use and then these in turn affect the rate at which the account can interact with the blockchain, including voting, commenting and other actions. The witnesses can affect this level by changing a parameter in their configurations relating to the cost in Steem of account creation - but from what I have seen, in order to have a situation where new users can post 4 posts per day and make 10 votes per day, the account creation fee would have to be set at 30+ Steem, as opposed to the 3 Steem we generally have it set at currently (with some witnesses aiming for even lower).
It looks a bit like maybe the personal desires of those involved to 'clean up the system' are being put ahead of the needs of the network when it comes to attracting new users. The argument is that new users will be motivated to buy Steem Power and this will increase the quality of the commenting and posting since people won't want to waste their posts. However, in reality, unless this new 'pay to play' model is made totally clear to users (which it hasn't been) - including via very clear notifications in the UI in multiple ways/places - then the vast majority of people will never use Steem.
Getting people to transition to another social network can be difficult, even during the times when Steem was paying out large amounts for posts.. So any barrier to entry must be taken seriously and we should be taking steps to remove such barriers, not add new ones.
If people want to increase the return on their investment in Steem, they (in my experience) would be served best by thinking like the venture capitalists who look for social networks to be competitors to the prevailing dominators in the marketplace (e.g. Facebook) by providing social services that make the social aspect of the software more attractive - rather than trying to extract relatively small amounts of Steem Power from new users just so that they can make a comment on a blog!!
Wealth Barrier
If we look at the wealth distribution in America we will see that the vast majority of people have virtually no money available and most of the wealth is concentrated in the top few percent. This means that any kind of financial barrier automatically excludes most people from using Steem. Some might short sightedly conclude that a financial based social network doesn't need people without money in their pocket, but that denies the reality that most social interactions are between people in ways that don't rely on money, plus also that very useful brains can have messages to share with the world,but no money available currently.
Check out this short video on how our perceptions about wealth distribution tend to be wildly inaccurate:
Technocracy and Elitism?
The idea of anarchy is 'no rulers' and this network was allegedly founded on principles of anarcho capitalism. I have written at length previously on why anarchy and capitalism don't really mix well in a pure sense (as was echoed by classic anarchist writers) - but here we have an experiment to do so anyway. The problem here is that any move that snuffs out those with smaller accounts in favour of those with larger accounts is absolutely weighting things too much in the direction of capitalism and not enough in the favour of anarchism - at least if the network is to maintain any pretense of being anarchic in any way whatsoever.
The idea has been proposed to delegate Resource Credits to empower all users to be able to create accounts for other people - which might sound good on a certain level - except that it does literally nothing to stop scammers and spammers since they can just buy their way in anyway. This sounds, again, like a way for those with the most to be empowered mostly to control those with the least, justified by the difficulty in programmatically detecting the difference between poverty and spamming!
Personally, I prefer the idea of an inclusive network, rather than an exclusive network. If we provide an uncensored platform that allows the voices of the suffering a space to express without being controlled, we cannot also then require them to pay to do so - as if they are all in a good space to do so. I appreciate that most here in positions of control appear to be allowing financial incentive to dominate their logic, but I appeal now for them to reconsider and understand that not everyone is a heartless money grabber - fighting for survival - some with a lot money do want to do the best for humanity and beyond that at least they understand that real needs must be met by products and services for them to truly thrive.. Which means meeting the needs of those who are just starting out too.
For reference, I made all of my Steem from blogging on here and I started with nothing. If I would have had to have paid $100 to get my account to a state where I could blog regularly (baring in mind I made 100 posts before I got anywhere), then I probably would have given up, just like the majority of other people I know who came here have done.
I am not saying any of this to spread 'FUD', but to highlight the risks and threats involved and to motivate change. Contrary to popular opinion 'negative' is not 'wrong' or 'bad', but rather - negativity is the mother of evolution and highlights what needs to change.
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
Vote @ura-soul for Steem Witness!
(Witnesses are the computer servers that run the Steem Blockchain.
Without witnesses there is no Steem, Steemit, DTube, Utopian or
Busy... You can really help Steem by making your 30 witness votes count!)
Thanks for the fine post. Expressing those negative aspects is, ironically, a positive look ... in its own way. Or at the very least, an objective look.
In fact, the reason I clicked on this post was because of the rather negative nuance of the heading, re the "limit" and the question about "space for growth."
We all know how the wealth gap and income inequality are increasing, particularly in the US and in other countries that have adopted the neoliberal "Washington consensus." Let's hope that it does not become the consensus on the platform.
At the same time, these recent Steemit developments indicate that it might lead that way, resulting in a parasitical, cancerous system wherein the cancerous portions grow exponentially while the rest of the system dies, slowly then faster.
Here's hoping that the developers and the witnesses will focus on the health of the system, and ensure that any such major issues are dealt with and responded to, promptly and effectively. Growth for the platform and growth for all should be the ultimate concern.
Regarding the coming "re-calibration / stabilization" of this platform, I had tried to redeem my rewards yesterday. While the "Current reward" amounts disappeared, the same amount never appeared in my balance.
Do you think that that issue will correct itself over the next few days? Sure hope so.
You are welcome! It is important that we don't deny the negative, critical aspect of our mind's eye - since it is needed to find ways to improve life. We just need to be careful not to get stuck in a negative loop!
I also thought I had claimed rewards that didn't appear, but then I remembered that the reward system now pays out more SBDs and less Steem.. Did you check to see if your SBD balance increased when you made your claims? It's possible you just missed the increase. I have only heard you and me saying this so far, but I'll keep an eye on it every time I make a claim. Every time I have carefully monitored the claims so far, they have been correct.
Right, that last thing we need (now and always) is to get stuck in negativity.
Also, we have to avoid knee-jerk negative reactions, of which I've seen plenty over the past few days. Granted, some of the changes in HF 20 might not be perfect, and some might even have a less-than-ideal impact on the platform, but that does not entail the end of Steemit. (Over the past few days, I've read a few posts announcing that the end is near!)
Also, thanks for your reply and the input re my updated balance. I had not noticed that simple difference re the shift from Steem to SBD payouts. Now I see that all is well in that regard.
Stay positive, stay realistic.
100% agreed. It needs to be easier for new users to join and participate, not harder.
They are working on it i supposed...
Check this out
https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/hf20-update-restoring-continuity
I hope that all works out quickly and as expected. I just wish these things had actually been considered and tested before HF20.
Excellent well written post which echo's my fears. Sadly the people you and i are addressing don't seem to be interested.
Its "pay your way or go away"
I agree completely and recently wrote something similar on steemitblog’s post from last night. They are using a method to thwart spam that also thwarts new users, and that doesn’t bode well for any of us. I fear for my enjoyment of relationships on this platform and for my investment in steem. Because if they don’t correct their thinking about newbies, this coin is going to zero and this platform going to the graveyard.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I doubt that such a problem will be allowed to continue for long as there will be too much uproar - it would be good to see some systemic changes to key processes here.. We shall see!
I fully agree, and blowing my RC's to say so!
i fully share your concerns here... from what I've heard the latest patch (0.20.4) is supposed to lift the resource pools 10 fold... making transactions proportionally cheaper...
it makes no sense to kill the userbase as the current rates would, apparently that's all due to unforseen consequences under real world variables?!
I also agree with you.
Posted using Partiko Android
Most of these problems will be solved over time and I think that exclusivenes already starts with the fact that we are operating a blockchain. Most people don't have a clue about blockchain and decentralization so why should we throw all the good stuff to users who are unwilling to educate themself?
In next couple of years Steem will evolve to a much greater platform than we have right now and also the common people will learn over time what Blockchain means. Those two trends will emerge together and there will be a solution so that regular people will join Steem without doing any large investment. But I think it would be still good to have that incentive when you invest than you get more out of the system. This concept is not something Man made it is really a structure of nature that we can't overcome that easy. As more energy/money you put into a system the more will come out! Its that easy!!!
Posted using Partiko Android
I appreciate that we are used to the idea of 'what you get back is what you put out' (karma works like this too) - however, there is more to consider here. If the aim of the blockchain as is it is to simply be an experimental space for exploring new ideas, fine - but the fact is that many people are attempting to increase the value of Steem directly in numerous ways. Since this is the case, it is not wrong to help that along by facilitating ease of account creation and onboarding of users (in fact, that was the exact selling point presented for HF20). It's one thing to make new account creation more decentralised, but another to then make the experience of the new users less appealing in the same breath. More tweaks are needed imo!
Good point, I guess all cards with the new RC system haven't been discovered yet. The recent post from @taskmaster was really helpful as he explained that RC ressources could be traded on the internal market and more so every user with unused RC credits could create new accounts for new users. So from that point of view decentralization and could become more widespread and the responsebility if a new user has enough RC credits could be directly influenced by the users.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yes, there is potential for interesting developments - people will basically have 'guest passes' to be able to invite new users. In my opinion, they should also be rewarded with some kind of new user bonus - but that might be easy to exploit.
I think this is the first commentary that I've read which speaks to the foundation or root of the problem -- which at the very least "feels" like it's seated in a bit too much capitalism, and let loose upon the have-nots by those that have. A bit of a jaded viewpoint from the get-go, maybe.
But isn't that how it has always worked? For instance, those that put more into the platform have more say in how it is run. There are two way you can put into the platform. You can buy Steem or you can earn it (ideally with quality content or curation). What better way is there? There's not much reason to invest in Steem if that investment doesn't get you anything. If no one is investing in Steem we might as well pack up and go elsewhere as the value will drop to 0 and there will be nothing to really distinguish this platform from others.
Having said that, a one post a day limit is certainly too...limiting for new users. I'm sure this will be adjusted as time goes on and the first adjustment is imminent. However, those with less of a stake in steem will always be able to do less than those with a greater stake in steem and I don't think there is any other way to make it work. But it's also true that anyone can earn more steem over time.
I would suggest that tradition isn't always the 'truth'. Just because something was one way, doesn't mean that it needs to be that way forever. I wasn't trying to point a finger at RC's or HF20 in particular -- more the mindset that led to the structuring of these upgrades and how they were rolled out.
You could have gotten the lowdown early on and ninja mined a huge stake, similar to those that are voting in/out top 20 witnesses. It's true that there's numerous people on here that have invested large amount of real money (whatever that 'is') -- but it's also true that there's some GIGANTIC stakes that were simply (or not so simply) mined.
I don't know what any answers might be, but I still think STEEM is a very interesting experiment with loads of potential. I think it provides compelling ways for people to be rewarded for interacting with eachother, and my personal feeling is that the presence of 'investors' gives back very little to the ecosystem, and probably just extracts from it. Nothing different from traditional investors...
But any time you have something of value or of potential value, you will have investors. We are all investors in this platform in one way or another. Some invest time, some invest other currencies, some invest both. The point being, without value, steem is meaningless. Without investors, there is no value.
The reason it works this way isn't so much tradition as it is human nature and that is truth as much as anything.
I have spoken many times about the gap between our felt understanding and our mental processing.. This often shows up in software design and it is key to understand if we are to have balance. I agree, the feelings detect what is not being said and feelings matter!
You are on point, a totally agree with you, thank you for exposing this problem in such a clear way!
You are welcome - I imagine this will be balanced out in some way - new versions of code are regularly being adopted at the moment.
I really hope they take this in to consideration, it's not something they can ignore if they want to improve steemit.