RE: double standard #1
REWARDING CONTENT?! THAT'S SOCIALISM!
I mean, I bet you're going to disagree to a degree since you and @trafalgar are on the "It's not the individuals, it's the economics" boat, but I've donated a shit ton of my money to streamers, podcasters, etc. I've given it to my friends. Etc.
And I live under the same economics as everyone else.
Why is it that it's possible for me to be selfless under the same economics that make it impossible for so many others to even drop an upvote on Steemit "for free"?
Individuals still make choices, regardless of the "economics".
I blame @fyrstikken. He started this. He started the trend of "We should never upvote for free, that's communism, we should start bots that sell the votes because kapitalizm".
And sure yeah, there was a short-term profit there. Nice.
But the seemingly completely unforeseen consequence of this was making Steemit unappealing and no longer fun to be a part of.
The fun was creating content and then being excited about the possibility of attracting whale attention - maybe even going viral.
Kinda like a lottery ticket.
Now there's no point in making a post here. You either buy a vote and make 0 profit, or you don't buy a vote and make zero profit.
Either way you're not making money. The possibility of making money has been taken away entirely.
So the people left.
And the value of the whales' stakes is dwindling.
But they're still probably blaming someone else.
You got that exactly right. Most of us who like to take our time to produce content and curate is just being at odds with what's happening. It's completely broken. Feels like it's only catering to the fast side of the brain / user experience. As for the econs talk, our scope is the microeconomics aspect of our product, SP, as a utility maximization problem. If the potential rewards gap between content-reflective and content-indifferent behavior isn't as crazy as 4x, then it's more justified to blame (and act out upon by downvoting) those who are still doing the worst for the platform. But worse than worst is to have been pushing and defending the current atrocious design for SP lol.
Some of us were against the current design and spoke out against it while it was still in the proposal stage. And the “community” treated us like pariahs...and still does.
But what are these assholes doing now to address the obvious issues?
Nothing. They’re waiting for the same fuck-ups to deliver something that will likely never be delivered, and if it is, it’ll fuck things up more than they are now.
I’m not going to say that Steem is dead, but it’s in the ICU and is mostly non-responsive at this point. People should be making their peace with Steem, just in case.
It only dawned upon me over time as my UX began to deteriorate. I guess it was a mistake to trust the "smart guys" up there to do the smart things, although I'm just here to write and curate stuff. I dunno, they keep telling me there's no overwhelming consensus to change this, but then again did they have "consensus" back when they were changing up things to what it is today? And how do we get a consensus now that most people wouldn't wanna give up the "easy money" machine and most dont even know what inflation is? It's also funny they've let linear go on while delegating to spam fighters lol.
Only if “consensus” means that STINC and a handful of rubberstamping witnesses liked the shitty ideas. But as I’ve stated many times before - most witnesses have absolutely no economic sense, no business sense, and no social media sense.
You can’t. Once you open Pandora’s Box, there ain’t no closing that bitch. :)
Yeah...the massive increase in spam was one of those predictable consequences that were actually predicted by some of us. But you know, we’re “toxic,” so those “no shit!” predictions were easy to ignore.
And here we are! Hooray!
Some things catch on and some don't, and the economics has a big role in that. In some alternate reality, @fyrstikken could have done his vote selling thing and other people could have scoffed at it or rejected it. Instead a huge portion of the stake adopted it. Over roughly the same period a similar evolution to paid votes took place on Golos with mostly different people and slightly different mechanisms, and they didn't even have linear rewards. It's all a function of the economics. Voting to give away money is fragile and maybe unworkable to begin with but if it can work at all there are more ways to get it wrong than get it right.
You might be interested to know, that a few days ago Golos made a new HF introdusing quite a lot of new Consensus State parameters, including min_curation_reward and max_curation_reward. The author is supposed to be able to choose anything between min_ and max_.
However last time I checked it was 75% min / 75% max.
You're probably right. I'm pretty much done with this place, but currently interested in Scorum, and seeing if things will play out the same.
And of course, I'm mainly interested in it since it's more lucrative for me, personally.
So, we're all guilty of selfish interest in the end.