RE: Interview a Steem Stakeholder Series - Interview with @steemed (500,000+ STEEM Stakeholder)
I've often thought about the "negative" side of Steemit Inc holding so much Steem tokens, and honestly, if I was to subscribe to the default position, that is, the "devs need to have less than % percent or it's a scam" mentality that many people on the cryptosphere shout at full lung capacity, I would feel this to be a point of concern, but I'm very far from there now.
They way I see it today, is that as long as Steemit Inc is using their huge stake to support projects that can help mass adoption, I'm completely fine with it. Because, relying on the altruism of people seems to be betting on the horse with a cracked hoof.
Do I think they are perfect? Of course not, but who is? Who on this platform, or in any cryptocurrency project really, can say... So and so is taintless, a perfect member that has never made a mistake. That is a unicornian persona no one has ever seen.
So, as much as I can respect this stake holder's opinion and I do, I think his critiques fall short of being constructive by a foot or two. Until I see a huge stake holder taking on the development side of things, not only saying "Steemit Inc sucks, they know they do", but also putting forth a solution, starting a dapp project with huge potential (they've mostly been started by devs, not investors, and sometimes not even backed by them) I think their position is too comfortable.
"hey guys... fix it.... i got my bags to sell.."
I mean, don't get me wrong, they got their right to sell anything they want, their stake, if its mined or not, it's not relevant. My point is that the position is too comfortable to be objective.
"someone fight my war for me... i wanna win too"
Now, I say this, not because I have something against this stakeholder or any other one, not at all. he or she (i dunno and that's ok) could be the nicest, kindest human being in the world, I would not know.
All I'm saying is that it seems to me that a lot of people who were dreaming about building a better future, maybe with the STEEM blockchain have thrown their hands in the air and said - "if we hit the iceberg it won't be my fault" - and that to me is somewhat tragic.
Sorry for the little rant.
Big stakeholders already put their stake towards development when steemit spends their ninjamine on development. When steemit spends their ninjamine, the sell pressure negatively effects the price. This is predictable future downward pressure, and the selfish thing to do in this scenario is to sell. By not selling, and by proxying to value-adding projects, a large stakeholder indirectly contributes to development in the amount by which the value of their holdings is diminished. It's perfectly quantifiable.
Furthermore, consider that @ned, a founder, was given what now equates to about 9M STEEM from the ninjamine in the first days of launch is now down to 2.5M. This means that he has dumped about 6.5M STEEM since launch. @ned demonstrates the selfish way to deal with sell pressure from steemit.
Also consider @dan, who is the same individual as @dantheman. Between these two accounts, @dan had what equates to 9M STEEM from the steemit ninjamine plus about 1.5M STEEM mined as @dantheman. Look at those accounts now: he is down to about 700,000 STEEM, meaning dumps of about 9.3M. That is insane considering 9M were given from the ninjamine and 1.5M were mined with insider knowledge at the time of mining. I won't go into what I mean by "insider knowledge", but insider knowledge of a project can create an enormous advantage when mining if that knowledge is witheld from the rest of the miners.
Non-insiders such as myself did not have this knowledge and had enormous risk with our mining. If you are curious about the sources for these advantages and risks, I can explain, but not here.
So I think that your criticism that I am too passive is completely misinformed. I think it is entirely reasonable that I would want @ned (who has sold over 2/3 his ginormous stake), @dan (who sold 90% of his ginormous stake--and abandoned the Steem project for EOS), and steemit to work more efficiently to add value to the Steem platform. The early dev team has been paid handsomely, without the risk experienced by us outsider miners.
I am proxying my vote, watching my investment get diluted by selling from both steemit and the team (@ned, @dan, and others). Don't you think this is enough and don't you think it entitles me to offer some criticisms?
On top of all that, the profits I forego to the projects I support goes into content that gets hosted on the platform, adding to its value. From my perspective that's a fine contribution, and it puts my money firmly where my mouth is.
@steemed first of all thank you for answering me, honestly never expected you to even read this, and I must confess and accept that a lot of the comments I made were not directed towards you per say, but more to some others who have used their ninja mined stake for bidbot delegations, or just straight out plundering activities, while at the same time attack Steemit Inc every chance they get.
So, for what's its worth, if you felt this was an attack on your persona, that's my fault and I take responsibility for not choosing my words more carefully. As I said, you could be the nicest person in the world, I would not have a clue, because up until my comment, I had no idea (on me, not you) that you even existed or that you helped sndbox as you have.
On your criticisms of Dan and Ned... When it comes to Dan, I must say they are well placed, because he seems to be repeating this confusing pattern of "i'm all in let's change the world" followed by "the community and i didnt see eye to eye, so i got out" - and its undeniable he has sold as much as he has, its all there on the blockchain.
I'm of the unpopular opinion (among my peers) that absolut altruism can never work, hence why I'm more accepting of Ned selling, since he is still here and trying (if he is doing awesome or not is another subject all together) to move the train forward, and of course this includes Steemit Inc.
I could not expect any development to be done, specially to this magnitude without it being handsomely rewarded since in the cryptospace all good jobs pay very well. A starting position for a blockchain programmer in a respected company is about 150k a year, and I personally know a few that make double that. (this reminds me of the .com era - overvalued, but I digress).
So, to make my point clear. Thank you for responding, for being civil about it, for even reading. Please know that the pulp in the drink I served was not intended towards you and it would take a second for you to know what characters do fall under that label.
This may not be the place, so I won't insist, but I would be interested in chatting with you regarding how you've not been able to convey your ideas to Steemit Inc with the hopes that I or people I work with can reach them in one way or another.
It is also comfortable enough to be honest.
Possibly, but it comes from a whole different angle... If I feel as if the possibility of the house burning down just means I will have to rely on the other homes I also have to my name, the value of the charcoaled property is subjectively lower from my position of "choices".
But, your point is valid nonetheless.