You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Suggestions on how we can improve Steem.
if they, as you claim, don't have all the facts to work with.
Exactly. I can't disclose some information but what we know doesn't seem like Justin is the buyer we wanted or one who had the best intentions for the chain in mind that we've worked years on. It's your choice and I'm not holding it against you nor will it affect my future curation. His actions after the temporary softfork should speak louder about his intentions to what to do with this cheap stake he got OTC. At least he won't also get the community on top of this deal.
So, you can't disclose the information required to substantiate your point of view. From an outside perspective, that seems awfully convenient. Can you see that?
So, you expect people to blindly just accept what you or others said?
How do I know you're telling me the truth?
As an example, I was told the "truth" by curating communities before. I remember one in particular, made some very big public proclamations about being just, for the good, and doing what is "right'. It "sounded" great. They received a ton of support and delegations. I, being my "Asperger-self" monitored their account and saw what they actually did. They painted one picture for the public and even for their curators, and the reality was very different than that picture. I was disgusted. Of course, this community was run by a witness. As were another two, that I had the same experience with. I didn't have the same experience with all the projects witnesses were involved with, not necessarily because these issues didn't exist, but because I didn't look deeper. I am very disheartened. I feel betrayed and lied to. Their actions/deceit spoke loudly to me and influenced the way I saw/see them.
I see that Justin took an interest in Steem in 2016 (or perhaps even sooner). How much of what has been going on does he know about? If he saw and had experiences as I did, perhaps this could explain his methodology.
And, I still can't blame him for reacting to something the witnesses did. It's to be expected. Isn't it?
Am I a terrible person for defending myself? Really? Don't I have to take defensive action to protect myself if I have been attacked?
And no, I am not worried about any future curation. I knew by taking a stance and opening my mouth that I was done here. There is no way forward for me. I knew what I was doing when I did it. I've seen how people are treated who oppose those in power. I am shocked I haven't been downvoted into oblivion yet. I am expecting that.
Perhaps it is because I didn't personally name the witnesses I caught. Perhaps it is because I didn't out them and their operations.
Who knows.
I don't!
While I hope for better, I also have some serious reservations.
Things would really have to change in order for them to change. But, will they? If there is no immediate financial incentive for doing so, will they? If there is a financial loss for doing so, will they? Yeah, I have to be realistic.
As I said I'm not holding you against your opinions and from what I'm hearing your concerns are legit for many witnesses and many have played the political game and stayed in power for too long without providing much back to the community. About your other comment, I believe actions and history speak louder about certain witnesses than who they are. We're in this short squeeze of price now where there's a lot of leeway for allowing some witnesses certain positions because not enough big stakeholders care or are active in judging their performances outside of just verifying blocks. I do believe that once things turn around and Steem gets more traction and value many who aren't constantly evolving, adapting and bringing value back to the platform will find themselves in lower positions.
Right now we have this problem though and my personal opinion after everything I've read, watched and taken into account are that this buyer does not care about the community other than getting them onto his ghosttown of a blockchain. Some things have been told to me in confidence that I can't share, you may think that's convenient and I might be using it to bend the truth but there's nothing in it for me to do so. I wouldn't even mind not being in the top20 with my partner that I share the witness with if there's others doing way better things for Steem. I'm someone who thinks the bar of what is done by witnesses should be increased than just producing blocks and maintaining their position by votetrading or other political games. Steem is weird cause it's disincentivized to buy witness votes by sharing rewards with the voters which is something that occurs on EOS and other DPOS blockchains but at the same time some try defending that producing blocks is the only "job" they're supposed to be held accountable for.
Anyway, the crypto community in general is not easy to understand, the majority hate Steem due to past experiences and former people in charge which is sort of understandable. Many are not aware of the positive changes that have occurred here since but one thing you can't deny is the reputation of Justin Sun there. If the crypto community hate him more than Steem itself it should tell you something, even so, I've done a lot of research on the matter and I've concluded that Tron is what I suspected it to be. A bad copy of code in a bad coding language that could very well be a competitor to Steem but they haven't focused on introducing the social aspect to it because they know people would realize then how dead of real users that coin really is. His acquisitions make sense if you think he's trying to buy users and a community, with buying Steemit he could also have the team work on creating something very similar to Steem and have everyone swap over to that sidechain which is hard to argue were not his intentions to begin with.
So my honest opinion is. JS bought Steemit+stake dirt cheap from someone who wanted out and couldn't find enough buyers because of its reputation. He either wanted a quick profit to flip the coins and knew about the promises of the Steemit stake but plays dumb now because the former seller agreed to sign NDA's not mentioning he knew about it but seeing as how cheap he got it it must've been part of the deal. His best case scenario was probably having the Steemit team who now quit build his steem sidechain, have the community swap over and bring all the value from his Steem over there. Now he realized he lost the community and doesn't want to lose the extra stake that came with the deal and wants out as soon as possible. I don't think there was ever a plan for a true partnership to have both blockchains grow side by side even though that's something me and many others would have wanted. It's sad and I wish there would've been someone else interested in buying Steem or getting the deal through instead because there were (Ned mentioned he had talked to blocktrades as well) but we got JS instead and Ned sold us to someone he probably knew didn't give a shit but he got some more money out of it with tainted stake he insists was no promised for anything and only belongs to Steemit to do whatever it wants with after years of bringing in investors who bought Steem and stayed invested because of that stake being used for the future development, marketing (which we never saw any of) and other distribution.
Well, you're certainly the first person I have heard that said they "wouldn't mind not being in the type 20" if someone was doing something better/more/great for the blockchain/community. Maybe you should lead with that the next time? Haha.
Yes, there is evidence of Witnesses creating systems that benefited them(and their buddies) more than they did the community. People have the ability to see those types of things. It's a blockchain. Nevermind that some of it wasn't hidden very well. It's wrong. It should never have happened, and it certainly should not continue.
Yes, witnesses need to be "evolving, adapting and bringing value back to the platform". It is my belief that they have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the community. If they are not willing to do that, then in my opinion, they should not be entrusted to be witnesses.
"I don't think there was ever a plan for a true partnership to have both blockchains grow side by side even though that's something me and many others would have wanted."
I'm surprised that this is something that you and many others would have wanted. It's refreshing to hear you say that.
Maybe there should be some type of code of ethics for witnesses? And public notice if those are broken.
Really I keep coming back to this transparency issue. Transparency and accountability. Plus giving the community a say. I hate being told "how it is going to be" after the fact. It sucks!