RE: Stake-weighted voting is a neo-fascist abomination: anti-liberty, anti-equality, anti-humanity
Weighted democracies have been a catastrophic failure throughout human history, most notably Ancient Rome, of course. When you put all power into the hands of the rich, it'll always end up in tears.
Nobody has to use STEEM tho and thus it has no power over anyone.
If high stake holders control the outcome and make it bad for others, then don't use it. You can't equate it to human rights and power and all that.
All forms of power will eventually push too far on the string and fall apart. It's hard to use Ancient Rome etc to glean specific lessons about stake-weighting. IMO it would have been disasterous no matter what the specifics of their system was. Empires always eventually do that.
To be clear, none of this is a problem for a blockchain project, or a free market project. However, it's a crippling, catastrophic issue for a project that claims to be a humanist social network project.
In what sense is this claimed exactly? Is it in the white paper or an official description by Steemit Inc or something?
It's currently literally worse than a monkey randomly assigning rewards.
I agree with this, but then the question is "is this really that awful" and "how exactly do you improve it".
Often we come to Steemit with the idea of like "oh, magically rewards us commensurate to how good the content is". (At least, that's kind of what I thought at first.)
But then you dig thru it and you realize.. oh, so people essentially own the right to distribute rewards.. thus it's kind of like just a convoluted way of tipping you, got it.
It just doesn't naturally exist where you can create content and expect to be rewarded for it in a vacuum beyond what someone wants to pay you for it.
So in that sense, STEEM's model isn't largely problematic to me. You just have to accept that distributing rewards based on how "good" content is isn't really how it works and might not be a reasonable expectation.
If you think there are ways to make it work like that or a little closer to that, I think that's great. (You and I hold a similar amount of SP, fwiw.) But I don't share your perspective that there's something catastrophically awful about STEEM right now.
Finally, apologies for the sharp tone. If it suggests to you that I'm desperate, you'd be goddamn right.
It's good to bring the fire 🔥 Mincing words or censoring attitude doesn't get anywhere.
I wouldn't have taken the time to write this post, or contribute to Steem in various ways over the last 2+ years. I have just seen a better Steem before, and I can see it being a whole lot better. There are a lot of good things here, but the reward allocation algorithm is abysmal and holding the whole ship back. We have different expectations of the platform, and that's fine. I'll take your advice and stop using Steem if stake-weighted voting is not replaced with a better alternative.
Fwiw I'm not doubting your involvement or suggesting that you @liberosist should leave. I mean in concept, the fact that anyone can leaves makes it not "power" in the same way as Ancient Rome.
I get your disagreements and reasons for wanting to fix it.
I'm not interested in diversionary pedantic arguments, but most countries offer a process of asylum and immigration. You can leave your country. Granted, it's not as simple as how I will leave Steem.
It's your argument, lol.
You compared it to Ancient Rome and I responded. Garbage in / Garbage out I guess.
As far as what you say here:
Ya, "do X, backed by a gun, if you don't like it you can rearrange your life and take on a huge hassle" is different than just not using a blogging platform.
And the variables and dynamic becomes totally different.
Like for example a large part of why Rome collapses, as I understand it, is expanded war and inflation to pay for it. Stake-weight rewards can't spiral into that issue, even if in other ways the parallel works.
Take care.