RE: Greedy Steemit: An extension piece
I am relatively new to Steemit and agree with you that there is great potential for good here. I too rarely visit Facebook and rather look through and enjoy articles here. The added incentive of getting something in return for your time is certainly no deterrent to that preference.
I was thinking about this and commenting on another post and include some of those random thoughts here.
Where ther is potential for great good and creation of "value" there is also great potential for abuse.
I am far from an expert on blockchain development and implementation, and may be mistaken, but it does seem that a very few have the vast majority of the power and benefit on Steemit as well as some other Crypto's, much as some would say with fiat currencies. Most would say that is the situation you are trying to avoid with cryptocurrencies.
Not sure how to regulate what sounds like abuse of the system, but unfortunately it does sound like some have learned how to game the system and screw up what seems to be a good idea.
Steem has potential and I feel it is a site with more going for it than a simple currency exchange, but like it or not, that is a huge draw to this platform.
As I tend to do, I woke up this morning again thinking about this. For steem ( or Sp or SBD or any cryptocurrency) to maintain "value" there needs to be a limited defined amount.
If a few control the majority available, then stability of that value and confidence in that crypto (or any currency for that matter) is to easily eroded by possible manipulation and collusion.
Would it be possible to limit an individual to a single account, and devise a system by which the individual could only own a certain percentage of the total available Steem? Beyond that point their earnings may have to go to help others, or they can maintain a smaller percentage of their earnings going forward beyond their limited total percentage, sort of like a tax (ugly word) above a certain level of ownership. That may help reduce the chance of collusion or manipulation.
Also could think about limiting the amount that an individual can upvote themselves.
Much like a newcomer, there would be only a limited amount to contribute to one's own posts, and you would have to depend on the community for support beyond that point, thus further encouraging more valuable posts.
I apologize if these thoughts are redundant or mirror others', I'm just having a flight of ideas this morning, however worthless they may be.
Personally I enjoy the creativity I see here...but honestly it does not hurt to know there is a potential reward as well.
Regardless, these are extremely important concepts for any crypto moving forward, or people like me will be more and more hesitant to invest more time or $ into the system due to lack of regulations and erosion of confidence.
Thanks for thinking about improvements.
@ohicklin
It kind of defeats the purpose of self governance when it starts to resemble the real world. A lot of the issues here are because people are comfortable being governed in other parts of their life and that is protected by regulation and law. Here, people need to self-govern and some have little control, while others freeze. There is still a long way to go though.
It is not my area (although it rarely stops me) but there are many great conversations on many of the topics you mentioned if you dig through the past.
but when is enough, enough?
how much should you be allowed to gather unto yourself before we, as a group, say look man, you have got more than your fair share, that is all the power any one person should have, and you have reached that limit.
consider World of Warcraft, if we allowed people to continue leveling up infinitely, there would be no point to a duel between characters, because some people would take that to the extreme and be level 2000. They would join a battleground, and just run around killing everyone they came close to, there would be no competition, it would eliminate the ability to have a competition, it would eliminate the fun.
When it comes to the real world, this is a apart of the real world, and we are again seeing the effects of having to much in the hands of too few. People like grumpycat that just downvote people that disagree with them, regardless of content. That is the problem, real issues can get squashed by those that disagree because it would effect them. Not because it is wrong, but because it would erode their positions of power, and at no point do I see that being a good thing, we should not allow people to become 'gods'. I've never met a person that I would ever allow to have such power, and that type of power does corrupt, we don't need a king, we don't need royalty, but that is what is happening here.
So for it to succeed, on a personal level for all people participating, there absolutely cannot be those with too much power. Let it be that no one can be 10000x greater than the least, that there must be at least 50 that share the power to sway large decisions.. I thought that was what the delegates where for... well no, but that is what I see as being a reasonable solution, people with power voted by the masses where no persons vote is worth more than any others.
grumpycat isn't flagging those who disagree, he is flagging those who flag him for taking too much from the reward pool. When is enough enough? you see it every day with bernie and others flagging haejin. You see it when authors are over rewarded. It happens here.
This is a very large social experiment and is only just starting.
Many of the kings and royalty here have been working hard for it you may find but, it is also due to them being early adopters, right place right time, right frame of mind means a lot. Many people I have brought in recently got introduced to it near when I started almost a year ago, why didn't they join then? Frame of mind and an unwillingness to discover. They are here now though, it is not too late.
This isn't a democracy thankfully for the masses are relatively uninformed. Check what is happening in the real world. Masses support that.
As said, this is a large experiment and a massive ongoing discussion which includes all, being part of the discussion is important but, that also means being willing to listen and understand. There are many (including me at times) who wants something a certain way without thinking through all of the knock-on consequences. Much of the current issues are issues backed by popular opinion.
It really is all very interesting to be a part of and has an exciting future ahead.
I've heard otherwise, from a few concerned individuals with enough power to get their voice heard. But i'm in no position to debate that.
true, and I do love being on the cutting ed
your not wrong. But I'm not sure that the masses are given an opportunity to hear what should be heard.
Take for example the 200 girls kidnapped in Chibok. What is crazy about this is that before this they where sending the girls home, telling them not to study western thought. But the boys? they killed the boys. There was intense outrage at the girls being kidnapped, but complete silence on the killing of the boys.
I'm positive the outrage would have been similiar had the media reported it, but it is not reported. In fact I found myself searching for 'the red pill movie' after I'd seen it on steemit and found it very difficult to find. I could find other articles published in the last day, but not that one. I finally used peekier.com and found it. So it isn't just not reported, it is actively being censored.
What I am saying is the masses are uninformed by the royality that exists today (they don't go by those names anymore, but they are) and I have interest in preventing such things from happening here. Already if one of these whales doesn't like what you have to say they can downvote you to a insanely low reputation, not based on truth, but vendette and I think that should be consider a problem.
Indeed, I agree with you. But I don't think that keeping people from being overpowered is ever going to fall under that category.
yes it is. I just hope that this issue is addressed, not that there won't be more, but I see this as being a major issue that will destroy steemit's small voices.
That is the rub. Overgovernance vs openness.
There is oportnity for abuse either way, and those who are willing to abuse.
Thanks.