Just the other day I was looking at your blog in the hope to find an article. And here it comes. You said some important things and I like to add some more thoughts.

To me, Steemit is a big experiment. Decentralization is not something that people are used to living. If there is no central unit that pushes things forward, but a house is placed on the square, where interested people and passers-by can simply build their doors, create applications on their own initiative, then exactly what happened at Steemit happens: things become independent; and not always for the best. There is abuse everywhere and in every system. If the system is big enough, it will always endure those who use it for primarily selfish purposes. But Steemit has never been big enough for that. Unlike shoplifting or welfare, where firstly the theft is priced in and secondly strict control is exercised, freedom on Steemit has been one that is probably quite unique.

The drama of abuse and opinions reflects exactly what is going on out there in politics and business. But the fact that we are now on a par with those whom we have so far liked to insult (and continue to do so) is, if we want to see it from the humorous side, a lesson that many of us can use. How easy it is to scold all those who hold the rudder in their hands and how hard it is to hold it yourself and not know who to ask or what to do with this freedom.

If you compare Steemit to open source, you realize that, for example, participating in the further development of Linux or other projects of this kind, didn't hold out the prospect of any direct financial reward, was merely a satisfaction for those who had the ability and desire to continue working on something voluntarily and see what the baby would become.

Here at Steemit, the focus is and has been far too much on profit. No matter if user or stakeholder: if you don't invest with interest and fun, if you see it as experimental or play money, you will never be happy here. Wanting to build one's existence and satisfaction on something as new as crypto currency in conjunction with blogging, on something as unfinished as this, without wanting to give the opportunity to grow, only produces disappointed minds.

Wikipedia is a great example. No matter how you judge it, it's a phenomenon and a role model of how something can evolve without people getting heated. Or youtube: Rarely seen anything that has provided such an extremely long period of time with a completely free platform for consumption and production. As long as it lasted (without ads), everyone was enthusiastic and a lot, really a lot of people, benefited from it and will continue to do so. Behind one as well as the other are patience, a long-term intention and vision and above all people who have enough time and money, a really long breath. From the really impressive ROI's that have been here so far: Who else is here who has the same breath and hasn't been frustrated or bored?

This social experiment, in which all users participated, could so far be considered a failure. The decentralization and freedom that so many people are calling for is suddenly a commodity that is handled clumsily. What do you do with it? Who tells you where to go? How do you behave when you are a small light in the offline world and suddenly a whale here?

I don't condemn that.

Decentralization is something completely new and different and it can take years or decades for people to get used to the fact that they have to get along without hierarchy. There are only interest groups that can work together, they are far from communities; that's how I see it. I find this word very misleading and emotionally charged. What takes place here predominantly without a central guidance, is a loose union of interest groups or hobbyists.

The best currency is rising user numbers, not rising profits. For the outside world, Steemit is like a kind of village behind a wall. It behaves like a club and somehow doesn't keep the accesses open enough and, as I said, without a central unit that causes a sensation, the whole thing will rather splash on. The new, the exciting, such as in the beginner times of youtube or facebook can't offer it or has tried to offer it by putting making money first. But as always, when money plays the first violin, something is missing.

How I see it: Why all the drama? Why not just going on and seeing Steemit as a long term opportunity and exchanging solutions in some different ways, like consensual voting method.

Curators who see content that is not adding value will downvote it, because it is taking rewards away from everybody else.

What a lousy task. I wouldn't want to give myself up for that. To vote down content that doesn't interest me, that contradicts the demands of my sense of quality: what kind of work is that? But maybe it's needed, I really don't know. Punishment, in my view, never works very well.

I will go on blogging.