NO! Steemit Inc is not Steem and Ned is not our MessiahsteemCreated with Sketch.

in #steem5 years ago
I'm tired of reading posts and comments complaining that Steemit Inc is not doing enough to bring the steem Blockchain to where it's supposed to be. I've had enough of people stating that Ned is supposed to step down as CEO and that he is not good enough to lead.

I can't stand people expecting that obstacles and problems are magically solved by someone else, instead of doing something to solve them.

Yes, Ned and Steemit Inc could be considered as the face of our Blockchain, but they are not the community, they are not the only factor that makes the Steem Blockchain what it is but still...

Steemit Inc and Ned alone are not going to get us to mass adoption; our coin is not going to moon just because the leader and his company perform ok. Yeah, SMTs represent a lot and it's something we've all been waiting for but if you are seriously blaming the delay of SMTs and Ned for the underperformance of our coin, then we have a bigger problem in our hands.


Did you hear me? Let me say it again


You know, that magical thing where it's not up to a single entity or group to get things done. Where the decisions are not up to one person or board. That mythical concept of actually getting involved as part of the community instead of just waiting around and see if things change or improve. That weird idea some Steemians don't really get (or maybe know about it), that if we want steem to succeed, it's not only up to Ned and Steemit Inc.

Ned is slowly stepping out of the scene and if you ask me, that's a good thing. I like Ned despite what other people think about him, I think his vision for the Blockchain/coin is achievable but that's not my point. My point is that Ned and Steemit Inc slowly decreasing the community dependance on them is good, it will lead to real decentralization and the community taking the bull by the horns.

Decentralization means a French dude creating @dtube for video creators instead of Ned doing it.

Decentralizing efforts is showed when a pair of British guys take Steem and promote it in summits and conferences via @oracle-d, that's not Steemit Inc's job.

A true decentralized community translates into a ton of people taking over curation initiatives like @ocd, @curie and @qurator, instead of what happened at the beginning where @steemit handled most curation via trails.

You know, when @coruscate and I spoke with Steemit Inc about @steemonboarding, one of their feedback comments was We've been waiting for a year for someone to come up with this. This kind of initiatives have to come from the community, we don't have the resources to handle everything and even if we did, it wouldn't be a decentralized platform if we take care of everything".

You see, sitting down and complaining instead of getting involved is not the way to contribute with our community and our Blockchain improvement.

Not only pro devs can improve our current status as a community and our Steemcosystem. Yeah, they get shit done, but even us, non techy guys can get involved and help out.

Whoever is complaining about Ned or Steemit Inc and not doing anything about it, just sitting down waiting for the rainy season to finish, has no idea about how things work in a decentralized Miniverse.

This is not a rant focused in attacking one person in particular, I'm honestly furious about reading all the comments about "yeah but stinc sucks", "Ned should step down" or "let's make steem great again" without actually doing something about it.

Yeah, complain and criticize as much as you want, I'm not stupid, I know there is a lot to be improved around here and some could say it's up to Ned and Steemit Inc to do it. I've seen many whales criticize and actually doing something about it, there's nothing wrong in speaking out, I actually encourage it, but if you criticize you better bring ideas to the table, you better come up with solutions or at least work towards finding them. There's a few loud whales that criticize but at the same time propose and do their best to improve our community.

Go ahead, criticize, but get your ass up your chair and join a project or even better, create a solution for that which you criticize.

Ned and Steemit Inc are doing their best with what they have and how they can, but it's not up to them for steem to moon, it's up to us a community.

I've been wanting to rant about this for so long but I didn't have the balls to do it, maybe because I'm always shilling how awesome is our community and how much I love being around here, which is true, but reading all these comments and posts blaming an entity or a person while being part of a Decentralized community's drives me nuts.

This post is not meant to defend Ned or Steemit Inc, is meant to tell you: Stop complaining about how our Messiah or his company is not making you rich.

If you want Steem to moon, it's going to take more than just ranting about how bad things are around here.

Success as a community is going to take maximum decentralization.

It's going to take YOU getting involved.


I'm tired of reading about people who are tired about the deserved criticism of Ned and Steemit Inc., so I guess we're even.

The widespread reaction is based on a correct reading of the status quo as it at least has been up until now and it's justified. How it works is this:

The top witnesses, some of them very cosy with Ned and Steemit, are the ones who control the platform itself, not what people do on it which is a different matter, so the backlash is only concerned with that (where people get it right that is). @dtube is something on the platform not the platform.

Those top witnesses generally follow the lead of the main contributor and in fact owner of the blockchain code, Steemit Inc. and employees. This is because they have a working professional relationship, and because it has been cheaper for the witnesses to allow Steemit to do this rather than fund or do the changes themselves. That's not to say they don't disagree and even have heated arguments, I was up until recently privy to some of those and got to see the relationship first hand. Unfortunately now we don't see these conversations so much on the chain as we used to around say HF17.

It is also naive to think that Ned's comments do not affect the public image of Steem the blockchain, not just Steemit Inc. his company. Steemit Inc. intentionally positioned themselves as architects and guardians of the platform, as well as the main beneficiary if you look at finances alone.

All of this isn't to say that they haven't done good work. Their efforts created a mutually beneficial arrangement between them, devs and general users, a virtuous circle. They couldn't have done it without the users, but still it is important to recognize that Steem is essentially a gift. They've often done things which undermine various aspects of their own designs, they prefer to do things opaquely, and they can be arrogant, but this is par for the course.

If you are talking about the platform, then it is only witnesses than can change the cosy cartel with Steemit Inc., and it is only large stakeholders which can change the witnesses. Since Steemit Inc. have a large stake, and not all of what they control is actually apparent, you can see how this supports itself. So the message should be to the other whales and in fact every stakeholder to change their witness votes to those who support non-Steemit Inc. development. That would bring the change people claim to want. We need to step up as blockchain developers now.

As for making apps on the blockchain, none of this stops anything and people's recent lack of lustre pretty plainly comes down to the price drop, which isn't directly to do with any of these events as it's more tied to Bitcoin, which is tied to the stockmarket, which is tied to things waaaaay outside of this scope. To those developers I just say: keep going.

Those top witnesses generally follow the lead of the main contributor and in fact owner of the blockchain code,

Mind explaining how you see the open source code as being owned by someone?

I'm very well aware that it is open source, but open source does not preclude the possibility of ownership. As you're probably hoping to point out though, it does bear thinking about as it's not entirely clear.

This post musing on the subject is a pretty good consideration of the subject, here are a few of the most relevant points:

According to the standard open-source licenses, all parties are equals in the evolutionary game. But in practice there is a very well-recognized distinction between 'official' patches, approved and integrated into the evolving software by the publicly recognized maintainers, and 'rogue' patches by third parties. Rogue patches are unusual, and generally not trusted


There are, in general, three ways to acquire ownership of an open-source project. One, the most obvious, is to found the project. When a project has had only one maintainer since its inception and the maintainer is still active, custom does not even permit a question as to who owns the project.

If you read this, and especially the entire post, perhaps you can see where I am coming from with my claim that Steemit owns the blockchain (the steemd project) code.

Here's another interesting announcement from the Steemit blog which could be considered the next one from the one you posted: Steemd is now completely free to use with an MIT License. The license before explicitly forbade anyone to create a new genesis block, that is, to start a different blockchain based on any part of the Steem blockchain code. It's only since this change that other blockchains like are legally able to use this code in their own projects.

The take home points are that open source software does not mean a fully permissive license (although Steemd now has one) and that customs and practice matter when considering ownership.

But just to be clear, yes, anyone can use it, which is probably what you're meaning to say I guess.

But just to be clear, yes, anyone can use it, which is probably what you're meaning to say I guess.

No, my point was that no one owns it. Your logic might hold, somewhat, on the Bitcoin Core code or the latest Google Android release. Yet even Bitcoin Core could not halt Bitcoin Cash's fork. However it goes even further with the STEEM Project, in my opinion, because the Witnesses decide the final direction of the package, not Steemit, Inc.

First of all thanks for the long reply, I appreciate people reading and taking the time to rely when it comes to topics like this one. I'm currently afk but in a few hours I'll get to replying to all of the comments.

That would be interesting, thanks

Sorry, I am newbi here. Why did you mention "it is only large stakeholders which can change the witnesses."? Is it not the number of accounts that crown witness?

It's the number of STEEM those accounts hold rather than the number of accounts that matters, hence the large stakeholders play a much larger role in selection of witnesses.


I absolutely blame @Ned and Steemit. I also blame witnesses though. @Ned could have done a LOT more to encourage decentralized open source development. I don't think that he should necessarily step down for that though. Steemit is acting like a standard corporation that's working on an open source project. That's not what they are. They're leading a decentralized platform. They need to do more to decentralize the development.

Witnesses, likewise, did not do enough to encourage open source development. You can fork Steem and the Steemit front-end, Condenser, but that's not enough. If someone wants to get into open source development here, for the most part they're on their own. It's a lot easier to join teams doing other projects on Steem. That's a problem. The witnesses could have made up for Steemit's lack of leadership for open source development and created forums and lists of features todo and brought in new developers. They didn't. They can't even keep us updated.

Ned and Steemit are absolutely part of the reason that Steem is down. If they had done more to make it easier for people to get into development, then a lot more development would have gotten done. Instead they've just sort of been doing their own thing and announcing major changed, and doing major changes all on their own, releasing code that's far too big to review quickly, giving witnesses the options of either approving it without full review, or denying it simply because they can't review it fast enough. That is not how you run an open source project. They are clearly horrible leaders. The witnesses did not stand up though, so they are all culpable. That's not to say some of them haven't done great work though.

DTube was created because someone was tired of all the people talking about it and just got it done. That is awesome...but open source cannot rely on people just jumping in and getting things done. They have to provide them with at least a little help, maybe direction.

This place is decentralized. That doesn't mean no one's to blame. Everyone is. Tons of people didn't know what to do. They could have just jumped in and started doing things...and some did...but that's not how you run an open source project. You don't just put the code out there and expect people to go through it and update it and fix all your mistakes and add a bunch of cool ass features.

As far as community...people absolutely stepped forward. Tons of efforts are out there. Sadly most of them are using Discord. There's still a lot that needs to be done with that though. A lot of people are a lot more experiences with online communities than they are with organizing online development. To do a curation effort you just gotta get a place to share links. You can even do it in a chat room, which is why Discord has been used by so many.

People can bitch all they want and they will. It is absolutely their right. And their voices influences others. Bitching is doing something. Revolutions are started with some people simply bitching. People who think it's only up to Steemit don't understand open source, but that doesn't mean they should shutup. They can get involved in the community and help things out, and many will, but they can also bitch all they want.

It's gonna take more than just Steemit to moon, yes. But your bitching about people bitching doesn't help either. You could have chosen to make this more of a positive post, but you didn't. You're doing just like them, blaming people. We're all to blame. Steem has failed all together. Your bitching won't change anything either, except make some people feel like shit. More of us need to get involved, yes, and get others involved, but that won't happen by shaming them for having an opinion without doing more.

Thanks for the big reply, tonight I'll get to answer all the comments and address some points you mention. These kind of arguments are good, they encourage discussions and I appreciate you taking the time to leave a long comment.

And I appreciate you being open to differing opinions. This is the social network of Steem after all, so we need to be social, and occasionally argue and bitch. :P

Here here! Well put - little bitches together. ;P

Totally agree.

Just because you love the community doesn't mean you have to blindly push the party line. It's that kind of pc thinking that most of us here are trying to get away from. Agreeing with everything just because it's not acceptable to think differently anymore. It's OK to disagree, to shout and to be angry with what's happening. We're individuals with different ideas and opinions.

The important part is not to give out for the sake of it. To abuse people just because you can. If a person doesn't like what is happening it is on them to offer a different way or a different solution tho the issue. Show us an alternative to the problem rather than just giving out about it. That won't change anything.

Some people are making great efforts to help out and to add value to the project here but i do worry about the lack of cohesion. De-centralisation is great to distribute power and direction but i do feel we need a more coherent plan going forward. If there was more communication between groups and developers to work towards a common interest. A froum of sorts to discuss ideas that could help and to allow people without the tech skills to get involved in ideas that they have an interest in. Whether it is games, marketing, curating, development. A swop meet of skills and ideas really to help get more people involved. Sometimes it can be hard to get off the sidelines and get into the game. It would be nice to see groups looking for people and finding projects to jump into.

I've disagreed with you before but I think you're right on target here. Well put.

No problem. I've never had a bother with people disagreeing with me as long as they can tell my why they think i'm wrong. We all have different views on life.

Well said my dear @niallon11

Well said ....

Yours, Piotr

Thanks Piotr.

Saw your message earlier and i'm alive and well. However working in retail my time is not my own as much as i would like for the next few weeks. Xmas is like that for me and i have to prioritize my full time job for a few days and take my attention off what i do on here.

I'm simply glad that you're fine and sound @niallon11 (is this right expression)?

I was a bit worried that perhaps you decided to quit steemit (as many people seem to do recently).

Enjoy your Xmas buddy :)

We can't really blame people for not understanding the relationship between steem, steemit inc and steemit the website. It takes quite a bit of time to do your research and understand what these elements.

Its part of the teething issues being in this unique situation being a blockchain/currency/dapp provider/social media.

Its clearly apparent now that the community needs to take over the social media and front end aspect and find away to get users off the reliance of

Yep. If we want a truly decentralized blockchain, we can’t rely on one entity to deliver. I think Steemit inc, Ned and company have done a lot to bring us where we are and will continue to contribute, but relying on them to do everything is not a viable or wise option. This growth happening right now is a good thing, and I think it will create a more secure, successful blockchain. Complaining doesn’t help, but there’s lots we can do to participate. I’m focused on user retention through engagement and encouragement. The onboarding initiative is fabulous, as are many other projects in the works. Steemit stepping back some is a positive thing, if we truly want this to be decentralized. And I think we do. I do, anyway. And, for the record, Steemit sent me and four other people to Steemfest, for which I will always be grateful, so zero complaining coming from this mama!

As long as steemit is holding almost all steem in their wallet we won't have proper decentralization. After all steemit account is holding 45Million steem. Can you cumulate this number in 3 accounts on steemit? And even if you could it is still pretty centralized.

Decentralization means a French dude creating @dtube for video creators instead of Ned doing it.

Decentralizing efforts is showed when a pair of British guys take Steem and promote it in summits and conferences via @oracle-d, that's not Steemit Inc's job.

Now about this - what would dtube be and oracle-d without steemit's/ned's delegation of 1 /2 million steem? nothing...

A true decentralized community translates into a ton of people taking over curation initiatives like @ocd, @curie and @qurator, instead of what happened at the beginning where @steemit handled most curation via trails.

I've been in curie for some time - currently its dying - obviously steem(it) don't need it. that's a fact we haven't had delegation nor any support than few nice words from the same people here and there, and now the only whale that has been with curie around for almost entire life is powering down (not killing the trail vote still). Next thing - I love OCD, and yes, they did immoral thing to go with the bot but they are thriving at the moment, so glad for the team and they still curate manually which is great!
Now qurator - really don't know what is it about them - you pay it once to enter on their list, give them upvotes delegate to them and they vote you once a day no matter what you post - how can that contribute to community? They tend to pick up all the cream - Curation rewards, liquid payments, and give random votes for all voters. ...

We started this project - and response was pretty slim - some interaction without any recognition, as soon as we boosted our vote to arund $1 - there is some talk and more recognition - but let's be honest in a 6 month we can suffocate ourself with even rising a vote to $1.5 - without some divine intervention.

So... currently we can't talk about decentralization if everyone depends on Ned's delegation because everyone else will be delegating to bots (profit - that's what we are looking for).

I would go even further to say that without decentralization the ecosystem will still be limited to blogging for engagement. Thanks to creative thinkers and developers we have many other great ways to engage which not only impact our digital life but our physical as well. Would they have thought of a card game that brings collectionists and gamers together to engage? Or an app to track our fitness in the real world? These are the paradigms that we need to break and create outside of their playground to make Steem much larger that just Steemit.

Posted using Partiko iOS

TIMM (a market analysis Steem based community) approves this message. A very worthy rant. We need more of this.

I totally agree with you, and as you have said a great example of effort and dedication to bring STEEM forward are the guys from @oracle-d Matt y Dylan have been a great inspiration to me. People who usually complain and criticize usually do so at all times without providing solutions. regards

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.09
JST 0.023
BTC 27440.90
ETH 1655.69
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.21