RE: Truth and fairness vs popularity. What to do when a post that says another post is wrong and gets more reward than the original post, which was the one that is correct?
From what I've seen mentioned in Slack, the downvote flag is more for preventing plagiarism and identity theft than it is for voicing disagreement. I might be wrong about that, though.
I've participated a bit in this conversation, and I'm kind of surprised by the lack of humility involved. This stuff is really complicated and many of us will get it wrong (myself included) as we figure it out.
To your point, VESTS do compound the amount of new VESTS you can earn through your actions. That part, I think, has a form of compounding action to it. That, to me, is different than interest which I think of in terms of no other action required.
The more you have, the more you get.
But not absent any other activity, right? Maybe I'm just thinking about that incorrectly. That said, the original claim did involve $2 worth of daily activity, so maybe that's also where part of the confusion is coming from.
your SP is still compounding since the SP is getting 90% of the new STEEM that is generated and that is based on overall marketcap.
This, to me, is the part where everyone keeps missing each other. Some are assuming a hard connection between the USD price of STEEM ("marketcap") and others are thinking purely in terms of the functional code which has no understanding of USD values. Even the latest reply to me on my last comment started talking about fixed USD amounts which obfuscates what's going on here. If the supply of STEEM is increasing, all things being equal, the conversion value to USD would proportionally decrease via that inflation process. I know it's a little more complicated than that because those shares are VESTED and not liquid, but it's still a stretch to me to make a direct connection to USD value and then use that connection to argue for compounding growth. Maybe all of this makes sense if you take into account an assumption which was made which included a specific price for STEEM. With that assumption, the end result in USD terms might be argued as having grown via compounding growth. That doesn't mean the actual mechanism of the protocol has any compounding interest aspect to it. Instead, to me, it means the market demand for STEEM continued to grow exponentially, regardless of the inflation rate.
I think the confusion is that vests are a compounding entity, so by denominating your thinking in vests, the compounding is absent in terms of vests, even though the compounding still exists.
and as far as activity being required disqualifying something from being compounding or not, it really is dependent on what activity. For example, a lot of banks simply close inactive accounts and if you dont proactively do something all your compound interest and even principal is lost. Does that make it that there is no compound interest?
And really, what activity is needed to obtain the benefits of compounding? Basically what you would be doing anyway, so it does not seem like any onerous activity requirement that negates the compounding.
I read a post today where people were downvoting the makeup video as they felt it was getting too much. Spam is downvoted, plagiarism is. But this case is very close to the borderline and I am not sure if I should downvote it or not. Not because I am not sure if it is wrong or not, just not sure if it is an infraction that it got some whales to upvote for it and that the original post got a lot less
well bacchist made my decision much easier as he downvoted this post!?!?
That pushed me over to the downvote side as I have not done anything in this post to warrant being downvoted, other than disagree with bacchist. Here comes my first downvoting of a blog post
well it was anticlimactic as the total went down by $2, still it is the principal of this
I can't believe he downvoted your blog post. He is going to turn Streemit into a flame war clusterfuck.
He can't provide a cogent rebuttal, so he resorts to dirty tactics.
And his accomplice tie-warutho who keeps downvoting the truth.
Did you mean to say is not a compounding entity?
To me, the only way for compounding to still exist is if we assume the market demand for STEEM keeps up with the inflation rate of STEEM. That, to me, is a really big assumption which doesn't really add a lot to the discussion, IMO. I think investors in the market will figure out how to properly price STEEM as the demand by those who want to power up becomes known given a user adoption rate along with the number of people divesting their shares to sell.
You make a good point about the activity involved shouldn't be excluded from a concept of interest. I just hadn't been thinking along those lines at all.
As to why some people are downvoting? I don't know. We'll leave that for them to discuss, I guess.
If you have a seed for a tree and you plant it and do what is needed to make sure it doesnt die, you have exactly 1 tree, regardless of how big it grows. But at some point the tree will make more trees. So let's call a seed a compounding entity.
If you have 1 seed and you talk about 1 tree, then the number of trees has not grown (until it spawns more trees), so there is no compounding of the number of trees, just its mass.
Not a perfect analogy, but the vests are like the seed for a tree. If you dont plant it, dont nurture it, you still have the seed, but you will only have one seed. still it can always grow into a tree.
So if to change the coordinate system where each unit represents a compounding entity, you can pretend it isnt compounding as the numbers stay the same. However look at all the contortions you need to do in order to claim that SP doesnt compound.
If we are parsing at the level of what is the meaning of the word "is", then bad is good and good is bad and SP doesnt compound, even though it does
That's the current consensus but this changed from what I was told by the founders signing up. Originally the founder even said it should be used to adjust payout from a post you think has too much. Then even just a few days before the down arrow next to the up arrow was changed to a flag the fonder responded to a similar question saying you should downvote anything that you felt detracted from the value of the platform, which is obviously subjective. I understand this is a beta system and will change, but its a little frustrating that everything including many payout rules change so fast and so frequently, and are hard to keep up with.
Even though I share a little frustration, I don't really mind, we can still all use the system however we feel is best.
Well said. I too think things are being figured out as we go along. That, to me, is the nature off a beta. So far, I've been impressed with the releases I've seen over the last couple weeks (including what's coming on Tuesday). Yes, I naturally fear change, and it is uncomfortable, but I think much of it is good change.
Downvoting the truth as you do to my posts, pissing people off, and creating flame wars will detract from the value of Steem. I was trying to keep my blog posts and comment posts positive. But somehow you negativists want to stir up trouble and destroy your own platform. You really don't want to piss me off. I have the ability to fork Steem and compete with it.
Making posts claiming "Its so easy to be a millionaire with steem" and encouraging people to spend $400 in hopes that with some blogging they will be a millionaire is very harmful to Steem. Are you intentionally trying to create a penny stock get-rich-quick "pumping" environment?
anonymint said:
@bacchist, @pigeons, and @stephencurry downvoted my blog post (linked in the OP), because they thought it was 'shilling' and incorrect information. So please go explain to them the intended use of the downvote.
Are you trolling against Steem at Bitcointalk? I've been told you are, but I haven't bothered to check myself. If you were, from that perspective, I could see some validity in the claim that this is a well orchestrated attempt to troll here as well. But I don't know, I just find this all quite interesting.
@lukestokes:
If you call analysis trolling, then yes I am doing analysis at Bitcointalk.org. Some of it is postive for Steem and some of it is critical. Otherwise it wouldn't be analysis.
@bacchist wants me to be 100% loyal. He doesn't want the fact that Steem is an exponential compounding system to be exposed. Which may explain why @dan upvoted his (or may not if @dan didn't even read it).
Interesting perspective, thanks for explaining that.
I do see a potential for a lot of downward price pressure. At the same time, I see bitcoin creating new value every day and the price holding. The difference here, I guess, is that I don't get new bitcoin just because I hold bitcoin and participate in some activity. When I have a certain amount of VESTS here, I do have the opportunity to gain more VESTS proportional to my holdings due to my actions in the system (posting, curating, etc). That seems to be the compounding nature you're talking about?
I wish these conversations could be had without so much negative emotion involved on all sides. We might all learn a thing or two. :)
(btw, I also wrote a post about how it appears Ned was making $700k a week which seemed a little bit crazy to me)