I am very glad to hear you're on your way as an ambassador. I wish you success and a good time, as well as meeting interesting dialogues. I've got a long comment and maybe something for you to take with you. I ask you to read it with care.

When you listen to other founders and developers (like Matt Mullenweg from WordPress), there's one main message: these people weren't interested in attracting the masses or generating more traffic to their project in the first place. This is just a - very nice - result of the activities of open source projects, often it takes years.

The goal is always satisfaction, through the good cooperation of a few (a thing investors are interested in, too). If access is made to an open source and the decisions as to which applications and functions should happen under which conditions are made, it is not a question of trying to please all (the masses), but of asking oneself: How can I improve the product in development, how can I possibly motivate the intelligence and farsightedness of those who see this product or service as established and useful in the future?

If I create a parameter today, how will it impact in five or ten years? In fact, the currently active Steemit community could be called "the few". What suggestions and ideas do these people have? These include the witnesses, Steemit Inc. and other influencers.

I've been trying to spread a formal method of "systemic consensual voting" for some time, but it's having little success. Therefor I ask you for your support. Yours as an active user and hopefully those reading this comment-section.

In terms of functions such as distributing pay-outs by blogging or commenting or the down-voting function, I find that any hardfork seems to be a reaction to the heated debates. However, it is a kind of reflexive behaviour to the "divide and conquer" habit. The influencers and founders of Steemit don't have to worry their heads about how they could please and serve everyone the same shoe size. That will never work. Whether one likes it, how the functions are arranged with Steemit, each individual should be able to decide for themselves. Pleasure will never come from central regulation, but from a decentralised regulation carried by the individual voters.

The method - "systemic consensual voting" - I am talking about is formalised and actually very simple.

On a scale of 0-10, everyone can decide what resistance they feel towards a proposal. Where one decides upon the least resistance, one gives a 0. Where one decides upon the most resistance (pain), one gives a 10. All values in between are given by feeling. The lowest number in the end-result wins.

Take the two hottest themes on Steemit and try to decide on several given proposals. Give this experiment a try. The decision in the end will give everyone a good point of reference. To decide if one wants further to be part of Steemit or likes to move on, for example.

Down-votes - proposals

1. There should be no down-vote button whatsoever. In a decentralized system downvoting isn't necessary, it's enough to provide the users with a banning-opportunity.

2. In case, someone pushes the downvote-button, a window opens and asks the user: "Sure, you want to do this? Have you thought through every other alternative through which you also can make your case? What about waiting to the next day and see, if your emotions have calmed down?" "Do you think, your down vote will bring a change of opinion and positive behaviour to the one, which it should meet?"

3. In case, someone pushes the down vote-button, he loses a significant part of his voting-power (this was the case in the times before HF21)

4. In case, someone pushes the down vote-button, there should be no monetary or power consequences whatsoever.

Decide from 0-10 to each proposal

Distribution of pay-outs - proposals

As soon as the user pushes the button "publish" automatically a choice of different options will take place.

1. Pushing the "publish" button automatically creates a distribution alike for everyone posting content. It has a ratio of 75/25 and will only change after a centrally made decision and alteration.

2. Before a user publishes his content via the "publish" button, he is automatically able to choose a freely selectable distribution of his pay-out. For a listing appears, which offers him up to 5 ratios: 50/50, 75/25, 35/65, 55/45, 85/15

3. Before a user publishes his content via the "publish" button, he is automatically able to choose a freely selectable distribution of his pay-out. For a listing appears, which offers him up to 2 ratios: 50/50, 75/25

4. Before a user publishes his content via the "publish" button, he is automatically able to choose a freely selectable distribution of his pay-out. For a listing appears, which offers him up to 3 ratios: etc.​​​​​​​

Decide from 0-10 to each proposal

You already can see, that this is going to train the users accountability and he must think more thoroughly about his decision. Every time anew. This pays respect to the different states of minds and also financial differences within the people and within the single lives of every individual. When one feels respected in this way and sees this framework provided for him, he is more likely to stay on long terms.

Those above are only quickly made up examples to make the method more understandable. What it also makes clear is, that it's about formulating the proposals. Which is a totally different approach from the beginning. Just making one preference vote in comparison with being able to choose for the least resistance opens up the field for more than a winner and a loser. People actually dislike to choose between only two options. They often can imagine more than that.

My case is the following:

When block-chains in connection with crypto-currencies want to make a difference compared with centralized systems, we have to take up other methods than the known ones.

One is actually forced to think about democracy and democratic approaches. What everyone is still doing here, is acting in a centralized way and wanting to think for the masses, their tastes and likes and dislikes. But that won't work. True decentralization does not only provide the technical solutions to avoid middleman, it also gives the framework for autonomous desicions for the single user. As it turns out, given trust to the single human, they will decide sensibly. Who does not believe that, might not be interested enough in trusting people.

Changing the matter of discussion is the best method in order to come to consensus.

Also a main question could be:

Do the users actually want a consensus driven platform and decision-making processes voteable for all?

Again, I also call for some of my voted witnesses in names: @timcliff, @roelandp, @blocktrades, @curie, @reggaemuffin, @steemstem, and those who know me as a blogger and like to be in touch or a silent reader: @agmoore, @abigail-dantes, @shaka, @trumpan, @ruth-girl, @twinner. I don't want to make the list that long, though.

Please, give it thought and feedback. Thank you.