Is It About Content or Stake - RE: SteemIt Inc. as a Stakeholder and Judge

in #moderation6 months ago

SteemIt Inc recently posted asking for community feedback on fighting abuse.
They acknowledged that abuse is subjective and hard to define.

Since the beginning of Steem there have been many debates over abuse, what is it and what should we do about it.

One of the challenges is keeping the site interesting and usable.

If you look at Steem as a cryptocurrency, I would say that there is no such thing as abuse.

Each stakeholder allocates their own portion of the reward pool. They can reward ANY thing they think benefits Steem, in the case where they think 10 posts a day and paying themselves is the most valuable part of Steem, it is their choice to do exactly that.

While I totally believe that is true and if the site becomes a hideous mess Those with the most stake have the most to lose and thereby have the right to make bad decisions.

In theory it should be a self correcting problem.

If the site is about content first and crypto secondly, then the problem gets even more interesting as I think it would be hard to get any 2 people to agree on what type of content adds value to the site.

We have talked about downvotes for the entire existence of Steem, but if you think about it every stakeholder has a right to vote for what they think adds value to Steem for any reason.

My first reaction to Steemit Inc's question was to think that it plays into the narrative about a centralized authority. However, SteemIt Inc's stake is just stake now. So, I guess if they decide to play this role it is just that.

A stakeholder using their stake to do what they think is best for the platform.

I still love the experiment, but DPOS is a complicated system to deploy when you are also trying to achieve some objectives.

So, what does add value to Steem in your opinion?

Mine view is USERS.

In order to attract users we have to moderate the site and I while I know there will always be different ideas on how to do that, I do think downvotes and at least a minimal level of curation is required.

What are your thoughts?

@whatsup

Sort:  

Personally, I am glad to see Steemit exercising their stake in a number of different ways. For the first few years I agreed with the hands-off approach, but once they got below 30% or so, I came to see them as basically just a majority stakeholder with the same rights as any other stakeholder. After that point, I think it's healthy for the ecosystem for them to start making use of the capabilities that their stake brings them.

As you said, those with the most stake have the most incentive to preserve and grow its value.

My only reservation is that they need to make sure not to reconsolidate their stake above that 25 or 30-ish percent level, and further deconsolidation would be preferred.

I always supported the idea of SteemIt Inc using their stake to help grow the platform.

Yet, I can also understand why that was an issue for people who actually purchased their stake.

There are a lot of various views, but it seems Stake should be the tie breaker on a DPOS system

In theory it should be a self correcting problem.

I agree and would invite people to consider the idea that cashing out STEEM to exchanges is a success story that can increase enthusiasm and improve distribution. Increased enthusiasm can be more valuable than a small selling pressure, and if there are large amounts of STEEM dumped at low prices it can improve distribution. Improved distribution supports the democratic nature of the platform, fairness for the reward pool, and could place the majority of power in the hands of a multitude of small wallets rather than a handful of large wallets. In my opinion it was a mistake for the community to focus on artificially raising prices by limiting rewards to small circles of large stakeholders, rather than increasing distribution and currency velocity and letting natural economic forces take control.

I completely agree with this.

It's an experiment and no one should interfere.
It's self balancing system but in case is not it should die off.

Yeah, we have all gotten used to people selecting the winners and feeling justified "saving" broken models.

I lost my faith when they start freezing wallets.
On both chins.

I think USERS also.

As I am still here it has to be you that attracts me... As judges are a turn-off for me it can't be Justice Sun.

Justin Sun is no longer playing an active daily role.

He's involved in many other projects and Steem is not his primary focus

Good, busy men shouldn't waste time on anarchist communities - they do that fine by themselves.

I would have to agree on the part about a user is free to do as they wish with there stake. It is mind boggling how people fell they are entitled to a whale vote, and even if they do, they still might complain on the % of vote. This also apples to self voting. If someone is not allowed to self vote all because a certain group thinks it is immoral is absurd! Now of course there are some fine lines and etiquette people should follow when self voting. But even then, those are not law, just matters of perspective.

I think it is an idea that was born of the best content will make it to trending.

With the DPOS system in place that has never been true and will likely never be true.

It is a question of equilibrium and finds the right ingredients to prevent abuse.

@whatsup, I think we have a similar opinion. And I like it. I'll explain why?

The most important value is a man, and on Steemit, of course, the authors and participants of the Steemit platform. The success of the business depends on people.
You can have any kind of progressive ideas, but if you don't like people who are engaged in your business, you have no chance of success.

I understand that everyone wants to be rewarded for writing publications. Curators want to earn as much as possible from highly paid authors, but...there are talented authors who can't promote themselves and they don't have a promoter either.
What to do about such authors? I am sure that we should support them, at least a little...
Thank you so much and have a nice day, @whatsup

Thanks for sharing your point of view.

This post has been rewarded by the Steem Community Curation Project. #communitycuration04

Dear @whatsup

Indeed, I've seen this post by Steemit Inc and I found many replies either inspiring or disturbing.

If you look at Steem as a cryptocurrency, I would say that there is no such thing as abuse.

From this point of view I would agree. However in general I believe that we all should pay less attention to definition of abuse and more to the fact, that if we will not find ways to protect STEEM from those who are taking advantage of this chain - then we will all lose our investment (time, effort, money).

It's time to think about survival more than anything.

We have talked about downvotes for the entire existence of Steem, but if you think about it every stakeholder has a right to vote for what they think adds value to Steem for any reason.

Poorly designed tools, which were released to public without any guidance - are partly the problem here.

My first reaction to Steemit Inc's question was to think that it plays into the narrative about a centralized authority.

Are you so much against centralization?

ps.
I honestly believe, that being able to purchase some steem and power up shouldn't give anyone rights to enjoy curation rewards. I would rather like to see STINC introducing "curator program" and only being part of this program would allow people to enjoy curation rewards.

That should be privillage, not a RIGHT. People do not like to take risk abusing the system, knowing that they can lose their privillages. At the same time, same people will easily abuse the system, knowing that they have a right to do that and that no consequences are awaiting.

It's all about mindset :))

Yoirs, Piotr

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.16
TRX 0.03
JST 0.026
BTC 12981.30
ETH 413.28
USDT 1.00
SBD 1.00