Share Your Opinion: Reaching A Consensus on Subsidizing Activities for Newcomers
I am happy to hear some news from @steemitblog about their concern surrounding engagement:
Ensuring that low SP users can transact as much as possible is our #1 priority and we will continue to work with the witnesses to optimize the system to that end.
Consensus
Here's your chance to share your opinion!
In case you haven't read their latest post, they're asking for our opinions concerning
Thanks to the RC system, we are getting a more accurate picture of how much things cost on the blockchain. But now we need to work together to figure out what to do about those costs. This means coming to a consensus about what user activities should be subsidized by the rest of us so that people are still able to join the network, participate in the community, and initiate positive feedback loops of value creation.
It is not our position that, “The costs are what they are and users just have to deal with it.” But these decisions are not as simple as they might seem, and we believe that the ultimate decisions should be made in a decentralized manner, based on the will of the community.
and furthermore:
We encourage you all to make your views and opinions known to the witnesses, and to reinforce those views with your witness votes.
It sounds like it's time for everyone to share their opinions!
Because many Top 20 witnesses are relatively inaccessible (in fact I don't even know how to go about truly getting in touch with one), perhaps if people make HUBS of opinions, we can go about creating a consensus discussion.
I think many can vouch that we, @mountainjewel, are a good actor on the Steem blockchain. I invite witnesses to read the comments in this post below to gather information regarding "good actor" opinions(that's you, my friends and comrade Steemians who care for Steem's future and the ability for newcomers to post, earn Steem and grow their accounts.)
Share your opinion below.
Consensus only works with an engaged network. As I shared in a post just yesterday, I think newbies need to be able to make at least 30-40 comments a day. If they abuse this privilege (are Spamming), they lose this subsidization.
I think there should also be a shift toward encouraging new users to also power up to take the subsidization weight off of the community.
My opinion
Currently, looking at my RC allotments based on my accounts SP holdings (found on steem.supply/@myname):
... I clearly have some Resource Credits that could be delegated to new users and I think we, as a community, should subsidize new Steemians to help them get on their feet.
The ability to comment, engage and grow one's network is the backbone to the Steem blockchain.
While I'm not sure what Steemit Inc and witnesses have in mind as far as subsidization, I have heard wind of the possibility of delegating resource credits in the future. I'm looking forward to hearing some updates on what witnesses have in mind.
In the meantime, @whatsup (a very good Steem actor!), has already offered to personally delegate SP to help newbies who are having trouble with lack of RC who cannot build their accounts. Check it out!
Are You An Active Redfish/Plankton/Minnow Worried About Transacting?
I strongly agree that new users should be encouraged and have the resources to post and comment and vote. Perhaps something could be set up like the SP new accounts are loaned. New accounts could receive RC loan to get going. Then like the SP it would go away after a period of time. Kind of like training wheels to get going. Then newbies have to build up and ride on their own haha (I assume new accounts still get loaned some SP to get going. I didn't confirm this.)
yes! that's what i'm hoping for too, steven. i think now they get 5 SP instead of 15 SP delegated from the start. training wheels, exactly! with the incentive to keep powering up!
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Not much engagement here so far. That’s unfortunate.
I really feel like a newcomer should have unlimited access to the platform. If they need to make 100 transactions a day, or more, let them. And if their actions, or anybody’s really (dolphins, orcas, whales) are deemed to be spam/abusive then, in the case of newbies, remove their access to subsidized RCs, or, in the case of older accounts, remove/suspend their access to RCs.
This ought to take care of the spam problem.
Once a newbie has reached 200 or 300 SP, their delegation could be removed and if they need more RCs, they can rely on the connections they have hopefully made in the time it took them to earn and power up 200 or 300 SP.
Good behavior shouldn’t be punished or limited.
Agreed.
Agreed. And thank you for the resteem to help get this post more access. It is unfortunate there was not more engagement on this call out for opinions. It seems accounts over 100 (and especially up to 2 or 300) will be fine as far as transactions are concerned. Thanks for stopping by to share your opinion!
It was nice to have the opportunity too. It seems like HF20 was a wake up call for a lot of people to sit down and really consider what Steemit is, could be, and what they want it to be. It will be really interesting to see what this place is like in five years.
Finally getting around to this.
I'm wondering if this is where our 'communities/tribes' come into play. I'm not sure on the economic/technical mechanics of how this could be accomplished, but it would make sense that the communities can be used to help the small accounts that are part of them.
Perhaps if we are talking about temporary delegations.... maybe they can be given to communities with the express intention to then be placed onto accounts within the community.
This would also encourage some engagement, so the more engaged one is (with the help of such delegations), they can build up their own SP (hence RC) to be have the delegation removed and passed on to a new account.
People engage when they feel part of something. Just feeling part of something as large as 'Steem' as a whole is too nebulous. Being part of a smaller group of people who are active outside of the platform (such as in chat servers or with real-life meetups), is a lot more tangible and do-able. The admins and moderators etc can identify who deserves the delegations thus.
This begs certain questions....
I think delegation of some form is one answer... but I wonder if we also shouldn't be encouraging users to invest into Steem, by purchasing token and using that to power up. Perhaps we can look at ways to help people who lack the fiat liquidity to buy into Steem. This raises a whole lotta different issues and questions, but I think its worth examining and having conversations around. Could communities put together a crowdfund (use Foundation, for example) to help someone with no money to raise enough fiat to purchase 50 Steem?
That are my thoughts. This is a great time to have these conversations instead of being a nay-sayer and making all sorts of conspiratorial claims. Steemit Inc have opened the forum, so let's have the conversations and find the solutions.
This is a good point. If the allotments to complete newbies are insufficient, it would surely provide an impetus for them to join communities and within communities, as you say, they would likely find delegations that would allow them to act in order to make bonds and Steem which would allow them to grow their account. (That is awfully complicated tho for an online social media site!)
Totally agreed!!
I think as far as the needed delegation in the beginning (at this moment of writing) is less than 60 SP. That's not very much. I'm not sure if Stinc would even think about delegating SP to smaller communities (like @naturalmedicine) so that we could delegate to newbies that we vet. That said, there are larger accounts within Nat Med to fulfill that need. I think if someone gets over the amount of SP to "normally interact" (and here again, we'd have to define this), then the delegation gets taken away.
I think it is difficult to as a new user to invest-- that is, before they have any positive experiences. I for one have earned all of my Steem and I'm not in a place to invest and likely wouldn't invest in a social media site (esp one I hadn't tested/had a good experience on yet.)
Thank you for chiming in! You raise a lot of good questions and i hope others will take some time and read your points and comment if they feel so inclined :)
Hi @mountainjewel!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 4.664 which ranks you at #1522 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 369 contributions, your post is ranked at #49.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Steemit is very fortunate because much like a grass roots movement who's growth and success is made possible by passionate supporters, they have truly passionate users. I would say this is very rare in this type of industry. I hope they don't take it for granted.
They need to do better when it comes to making the platform accessible and engaging to new comers if they want growth. They must see this. They must have countless reports and statistics on their desks showing the staggering amount of churn that goes on. I just don't know why it has not been a core focus to date or if it is why it's been such a slow moving action item.
I would love for steemit-inc to open up a bit more on this front so we know their intentions.
Hmmm ... I got off topic a bit. I would subsidize if I thought it would make a difference but would it? The number of new accounts, dead weight accounts, and how to manage that seems like a big job. From a business perspective, it should be a core part of the platform and successful business case right?
you are certainly right @walkerland. I think, in a way, Stinc does not care about this (the things you bring up in the first two paragraphs). if you look at this post by taskmaster -- here - it goes into the purpose/focus/ intent of Stinc. Tho i nowhere near agree with his points, it is an interesting thought that Stinc is phasing out of even being involved in the daily user experience on Steem blockchain and leaving that up to the DApps that are coming here. I have yet to be satisfied with the communication from Stinc and, like you, I think they could and should do better. As you say, they have a really awesome even rare thing going!
It's strange to me as well that they don't realize that -- or care... I can only imagine the things which led them to not focus on the passionate user base that is already here and instead focus only on the future SMTs and things of this nature which are their dreams for the platform .I am much more a quality of life while you're in it type of person rather than always hoping for the next big thing to solve it (which seems like they keep doing.)
I agree with you: from a business perspective it should be a core concern. Yet in this case, it seems they were targeting Spam accounts by limiting the RC activities for those with low SP and they didn't realize that it would have such a large impact on the daily user base! ... sigh-- they're certainly out of touch or just don't care... both are not good. Thanks for sharing your opinion!
I worked in the very competitive IT industry for a long time, I do know how it works, I have seen the big games played and have played a role in in and have held a personal stake in the success of many projects. My gut instinct is they are playing this wrong and losing sight of where the core strengths in this whole concept lie (the people and supporters). They are making a massive mistake if this is true.
If I had some money I would build a team and make a strong foundation and a platform much like this one (with some core improvements) that we could all feel part of, secure in and one that would truly care about the greater good. I can see it - and taste it. I believe in us - the people that drive this and feel conifdent that something good will shake out.
This recent update, the poor communication and slow reaction - investors and anyone with a real stake in this platform (or potential stake) will find that highly worrisome. It is not good practice by any measure. In our company it would have been an absolute disaster that would honestly have never occurred. Unprofessional X 1000. It surely worries me that they don't see the optics side of things and how much that matters. (Even if they don't care about the human/passion side).
oh gosh. I guess I had more of an opinion on this than I though. Oops. I really unloaded. xoxo
thank you so much for sharing! i find it really valuable to hear you're opinion! thanks <3
beautiful vision @walkerland! i would be there with you!!!