You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How should Steemit Inc decentralize their stake?
To be fair, they have done this with a fairly large delegation to Steemcleaners. Of course, it's not enough, we need many more Steemcleaners and a lot more delegations to clean up the site.
Of course, that's just delegations, and it doesn't address the decentralize-the-stake issue at hand here. Steemit Inc still owns the stake.
We need an army of steemcleaners with the power to compete with whales and with the support of the community.
I agree some of these whales are not only abusing their stature as wealthy whales they are abusive to the community.
We do, indeed. I saw a comment by sneak hinting that they are working on something to incentivise abuse fighting for stakeholders. Or at least he acknowledged it's a real problem that needs a solution.
I don't understand why they are trying to engineer a more complex solution, one which involves only a handful of accounts. That is obviously part of the problem. The solution cannot be found there.
The only serious stake that can do anything meaningful, stake that had an original purpose befitting a community based solution is Steemit's. 95% of the Steemit.inc stake should be gifted to the Steemit community with a rigorous set of guidelines for it's use. The more I think about it, the more I believe it's the only way.
This wont stop spam and abuse. I agree though that a much better stake distribution is esential
Steemit.inc could award stake for quality curation over time and tied to performance....gradually divesting the stake into the hands of the people that maintain integrity and reputation and who's actions enable steem to function.
Thereby empowering anybody willing to brown nose stinc and disadvantaging anybody not willing to sell their soul for money.
You jumped right past the main point....the community decide the criteria for awarding effort, not steemit.inc obviously.
Yes, if the community wasn't mostly sycophants of stinc, et al, that might be a good way to do it.
Not many contrarians are gonna make the popularity lists and leaving them unrewarded skews the effort towards brown nosers and feel gooders negating the contributions that keep us from inbreeding.
How do you propose to rank curators?
ROI?
Really?
Without dissent it is all a circle jerk by conformists, imo.
Not rewarding those who are unpopular, and contrarian, guarantees that the circle inbreeds and only gets smaller.
Which will be very popular among the sycophants. 0.o
Remember the primary goal is attenuating abuse of the inflation by the handful of powerful accounts. I think positive curation can be structured in such a way that all points of view can be accommodated and nurtured. It requires a significant scaling up and enhancement of current efforts.
Yeah, I think the proliferation of more content policing would probably one of the biggest boons we could have. An easier way to sift through low quality content would be really nice too.