RE: The Haejin Problem: The Solution is Simpler than Most Think, Much Simpler
Putting a cap would have so many ripple effects on the entire steemit eco system.
It seems to me that would discourage investment in steemit. One thing we all to put in mind, is that whereas this platform is premised on content creation, not all people are bothered about that.
I mean, why would someone already with billions invest it on steemit, just so he can get down to creating content and be paid like everyone else, the majority who have in deed, may be invested nothing?
That sounds like charity, no?
Following the many perceived abuse problems currently affecting the platform, I have also read several suggestions, in regard to the bot question, saying that bots should be banned.
That too, like putting the cap you are suggesting, will only serve to discourage investors who in putting in their money, indeed care very little about content creation. But are drawn by the curation aspect of getting value out of the millions they invest..
Your solution here would work under other circumstances, but with the assorted incentive Steemit is premised on, i see it has having a lot of ripple effects, the witnesses would be hell bent on recommending it.
But of course an idea along this, just could be the kind we can build on, may be include some caveats.
Thanks for your thoughts. This is actually the first idea of its kind i have read, among the several that are daily being proposed.
Meanwhile, i curate for @asapers, and i am glad to drop by to check on you. Your content is top drawer, and we are proud you are part of us.
Not necessarily. The Internet has always had a currency to reward great content. In the earliest day it was the traditional curation where people would maintain daily link lists. Later it became (re)tweets and shares. Before those Digg and Stumbleupon were massive share platforms and could over time contribute to the rate card of sites. In fac, several tp digg members, redditors, and undoubtedly also Stumbleupon users have over the years been caught charging $ to submit content to their Web 2.0 profiles.
Platforms like Flipboard and Zyte among others have turned that currency in easier discovery. Depending on the profile of they who shared it was always charitable to share (and possibly crash servers).
I honestly do not think that bid bots or content creation/curation rewards are interesting for high-value, high stakes investors. Most investors who purchased a lot of Steem will be waiting/hoping for Steem to become more valuable. Especially now with SMTs on the horizon, Steem could at some point become a limited currency and that's when its value will go up and what most investors wait for. Remember that more often than not investors are passive, and operate in a background advisory role. Only very rarely are investors active participants or partners.
Those who care about operating a bid bot, or delegating to bid bots, they're here for the low hanging fruits. Actually, not for the fruits... merely for the peanuts. They may already have lost belief in Steem and are just getting as much as they can while it lasts. And, honestly, I'm not sure that is the type of investors we want or Steem needs. But currently, those surely are the vultures we deserve.
Instead, we need investors who are interested in the steem ecosystem for the long run. People who will invest in teams who build new gateways, apps, soon also SMTs.
Do you think that any mid- to long-term investor will care about Steem, and invest in teams, if every day always larger parts of the pool are used by bid bots?
No, we will only get ever more bid bots. It's a self-destructive catch-22. But as history has proven us, the human species excels at pushing the implosion button.
Thanks for your great thought-provoking comment.