You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Help Test Hardfork 21!
Even the "good" witnesses run bots themselves. They think, as long as it isn't flagrant abuse, it's not the problem.
They're against the 100x/day posts that buy votes.
But I think this change will encourage regular users with decent content to buy votes because the system is broken. It's just another step of complication.
I mostly agree. The "regular users with decent content" aren't a problem. Their content deserves to get discovered and their effort deserves monetary kick-back. It's the other seemingly 60% that put out near-literal crap left and right and bot-vote it up to ridiculous payouts that I see as the biggest issue on this platform; them and the greedy, 100% self-upvote whales...cough... Haejin... cough.
And that's exactly the problem. This net is being cast so wide, it will hit the good users as well as the abusers. It's like catching dolphins in tuna nets. Or it's like a court system that puts guilty people in jail, but also innocent people.
And ultimately, as much as the abusers are a problem, if the solution punishes the many non-abusers to this extent, it's not a solution.
You might be right. Who knows, this HF might be the last nail in the coffin on Steem's chances at self-sustainability as an economy, but I feel like action needs to take place now; some kind of change is needed, because what's happening now clearly isn't sustainable... for months, let alone years. There likely will be some "good actors" caught in the cross-fire if what I think is going to happen goes down anything like I visualize it, but, I also feel it will end up as a net positive, as (hopefully) a lot of the abusers will be put into their proper place (profitless or losing money) and essentially purged from the economy.
As much as I hate to use a borderline psychopathic saying, I'm going with it because I think it applies here: "you've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette".
I'll point out, there was no community feedback opportunity on the details. It was first presented that way, as a conversation starter, and then, whole hog, it was a done deal.
I have ideas about how the damage to "good actors" can be ameliorated, but the software is already written and the witnesses are hellbent on convincing us to drop our protestations and get on board. My only hope is that, if it doesn't do what they want and does hurt us more, they'll see that quickly and roll back the changes nearly immediately. But all these warnings that "as with any changes, there will be a period of pain as things adjust" make me fear that they're preparing us to grow used to a world that is duller. And that they'll be less able to see the moment when they can analyze its impact because they'll always be telling themselves it's just growing pains.
Positive changes don't always come with a period of financial pain for users, and efforts should be made to prevent those pains.
We're basically on the same page about how these kind of changes are handled. I picture this upcoming hard-fork as more of a "hail mary" than a well-thought out solution to all of the underlying issues, but, unlike yourself, I don't have a clear picture in my mind as to what could better solve them than what they've suggested (and are trying to implement into that hf).
It may not end up being a net positive or it might (fingers crossed), but, instead of waiting around to find out, I'm going into action with what tools this next hard-fork is going to provide me with (more power to determine where rewards are distributed with "free downvotes"), to do my best to try to correct what I'm convinced is sucking this community/ economy dry.