You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Opposing Perceptions, mismatched definitions, parity mismatch, voting, down voting, and "fairness"
A free market does not magically sustain itself. It is not a stable equilibrium that nature somehow automatically gravitates to at all times.
The standard example are monopolies that, once they have emerged, effectively destroy the free market in one particular segment. Hence the emergence of cartel laws etc.
Yeah I don't really care about that in this particular context. I am talking about how people decide upon producers/consumers. This negative vote in any market and the effect it has in steemit.com right now really boils down to the analog of theft and or government intervention and deciding some product should not exist even if some people actually are interested in the products.
I did not use the comparison to illicit discussions about communism, socialism, monopolies, etc. I would be willing to have a discussion on another blog post if you want to make one, let me know about it, and I will reply to you there. :)
I think the downvote discussions miss the point to some extent. Apparently downvotes are (amongst others) used to address the issue of large payouts that are seen as "unfair" (there, the word again) by some.
But that merely tries to cure the symptoms of a deeper disease: Namely that the reward distribution in Steemit is too strongly skewed. In economic terms, its Gini coefficient is far too high.
I feel that softening the distribution needs to be discussed, not its casino symptoms.
{We hit the nesting/reply limit]
I can see that.
I also see anything I post that is criticizing the platform as me filing a bug report since we are in beta and that would imply we might be able to improve some things.
I have not been negatively hit by down voting. I have seen people who can. I absolutely despise what it's results are on reddit.
It is potentially worse here due to the ding to reputation and the loss of potential earnings.
That is going to be a continual powder keg. Don't you think? (question just applied to the powder keg... not expecting agreement on the rest)
I think downvoting only becomes a perennial powder keg if the inequality in the reward distribution remains as high as it is now. In a less extreme scenario where neither a single upvote nor a single downvote carry such an excessive weight people will probably be rather meh about it.
Yes, I can see that as being an issue. I expect the rewards to decrease rather dramatically as the population increases. If I am willing to pay X amount for something it really shouldn't matter whether someone NOT purchasing the object agrees with that price or not.
Yet, there is a difference here that is kind of new and unique. I am NOT actually paying anyone for this as it does not deduct from my own funds. It still has the perception issue of SEEMING like paying to people.
I also know some people down vote because all of the funds are pulled from new steem entering the platform and if large payouts happen somewhere it impacts the trickle down payouts that every other steem power holder gets for simply doing nothing.
This is a VERY new thing. It is definitely a paradigm shift, and we are experiencing pains as should be expected in a beta. I do not post out of malice. I truly want this to succeed and philosophy aside perception does matter. How do you think the majority of people coming on here and posting and seeing they are going to get even $10, and then someone down votes and now they get $1. I believe most people will view it as a hostile act.
Whether they are correct or not, is not what I am getting at. I am only pointing this out as a matter of perception. How then will they react?
This is indeed a tough problem and I know Dan and Ned are in a tricky situation. They have already potentially changed the world. How far can we take it?
I'll be a bit blunt (and maybe a bit unfair to the founders): What we see on Steemit are the results of runaway non-linear effects. In this case, they were deliberately built as the n^2 rule into the platform but I am not sure the implications were properly understood.
It is human nature to lack a reliable gut feeling for non-linearity. The classic example is the water lily on a pond that doubles in size every day until the whole pond is covered after 30 days. Very few people correctly answer the question "when was half the pond covered"? They might guess day 15, when, in reality, it is day 29.
I chose the wrong tier to respond to for your last response... it is one of my top level comments. I did respond though.... my response to you was instead posted to myself. :)