RE: Voting Abuse and Ineffective Curation: A proposal for blockchain-level change
Let's face it people that invest here don't just give away their money . They want to make as much profit as possible.
Yes... conditionally. I think part of what gets overlooked in this discussion is TIME HORIZON. Maximizing profit NOW doesn't always make sense if it causes a long term loss.
It's great that people want to make money from their auto-upvote, auto-curate, delegation schemes, but if the RESULT of making a few thousand dollars a week is LOSING 50% of the value of the Steem token because it earns a reputation as a shitcoin on the shoulders of it's flagship front end being a pit of spam and plagiarism, what good is that?
Let's just take our original poster here @blocktrades. It may be very profitable to delegate that $5 million to various "programs," but if the USE of those programs means the original principal of $5 declines in value to say $2 million over 18 months... that's not so clever.
"Maximizing profit NOW doesn't always make sense if it causes a long term loss."
somebody needs a lesson on how markets work
OK, I'll bite. How DO markets work? And I mean real markets, not just market theory as contained in economics textbooks...
People all have different concepts of morals, all have a different set of abilities and short-term goals. The problem with a market is that it can pit these two groups against each other. One group might want to stop starvation, while the other might want to stop climate change.
Both could easily be achieved with our level of resources, but due to markets each member of society can only do a small amount. Investment is often the best way to increase this amount. The problem is the most profitible investments also tend to be the most destructive.
To be the most effective to save those starving I must invest in something very profitable, like big oil. To stop climate change I would have to investment in something that creates the horrible labor conditions that causes the starvation, like mining.
If I wanted to help both, I would make less profit and be unable to help what I care about most. That creates the situation where even if I don't do it, others will. So all I can do is put myself in the bad position and try to make the most of it.
The same situation applies to stuff like the curation rewards talked about on the post
Thanks for taking the time. I appreciate your perspective... I am often an "odd fish" because I don't approach problem solving like many people tend to.
I have always been a long-term thinker, and when I encounter something positive my first thought tends to be: "How can we turn this positive into 5-year, 10-year, 50-year benefit?"
It is an approach motivated by seeking safety... I will forego maximum profit NOW in exchange for moderate profit in perpetuity.
So getting back to Steemit and the curation rewards issue, my approach tends to be motivated by "Let's take the approach most likely to ensure there will still BE a Steemit to offer curation rewards, 10 years from now."
Thanks again for the explanation.
"maximum profit NOW in exchange for moderate profit in perpetuity."
then you will never be as powerful as those who seek it now. The only way to beat them is to destroy the system
That's a very good explanation of markets.
Newp.
Starvation - maybe. It isn't resources, but policy, as you point out, that causes starvation.
Stop climate change? Not in our lifetime, probably not until we can build a Dyson Sphere.
Maybe we can mitigate, or even fully eliminate, human contributions to climate - if we can even figure out what they are, which we sure as hell haven't yet.
E.g. What is the impact on climate of increase in detritovores in the deep ocean, resulting from definning sharks?
No one has any idea.
Of course this is only true if your investement is 'loyal' to the vehicle.
But, if investors are only here to milk short term profits, then no matter what strategy we devise they are going to be a long term detriment to the platform.
The investors that care only about profit, and not the manner in which the profit is earned, might as well start mining organs in war zones.
I reckon investors in Steem invest here for more than just profits.
This is exactly right! If we allow shit content to be the rule rather than the exception, then the value of STEEM will fall off a cliff and no matter how many you have in your wallet you are not going to be doing very well.
Great point denmarkguy!
You make a splendid point ! Indeed if we would just all be on the same page then Steem would become worth much more if we share and don't self upvote.
Right now many might join Steemit but I have a feeling that the number that leave is even bigger.
The newcomers are what breaths new life, if we don't find away to take care of them we might soon be self upvoting with SBD SBD worth a few cents
Of course, the inverse of that is also true. Even if an investment entailed reduced ROI, or losses, if they resulted in nominal upwards movement in Steem, they'd be profitable.
It's sorta a prisoner's dilemma though, because one investor's lossy investments that caused the tide to rise would cause his competitors to attain better ROI, because they didn't undertake the initiating lossy investment.
This is why cash is king.
Good point!