RE: The Case for "Enlightened Self-interest" on Steem /Help me fill up the @openmic reward pool this week/
Great post and points, Marica! I thought you might be interested in the conclusion that @dantheman Larimer arrived at in a recent Medium article.
Dan, by the way, built, co-founded, and created Steem, Steemit, and bitshares. He is also the founder and creator of EOS, which is about to launch in June.
To say that he is the most experienced blockchain developer on the planet would be quite fitting. Anyway, I think he shares many of your concerns, and in learning from past mistakes, I sense his new project, EOS, and all of the sites that will be built upon it have the chance to adderss many of these concerns currently burdening Steemit.
I'll link to his full post following his conclusion below:
"The true goal is to lower the barrier to entry for the creation of new communities and allow free market competition to reward the most effective communities and punish the most corrupt.
The only way to maintain the integrity of a community is for the community to have control over its own composition. This means that open-entry systems built around anonymous participation will have no means expelling bad actors and will eventually succumb to profit-driven corruption.
You cannot use stake as a proxy for goodness whether that stake is held in a bond or a shareholder’s vote. Goodness is subjective and it is up to each community to define what values they hold as good and to actively expel people they hold has bad.
The community I want to participate in will expel the rent-seeking vote-buyers and reward those who use their elected broadcasting power for the benefit of all community members rather than special interest groups (such as vote-buyers). I have faith that such a community will be far more competitive in a market competition for mindshare than one that elects vote buyers."
https://medium.com/@bytemaster/the-limits-of-crypto-economic-governance-9362b8d1d5aa
I have been actually listening to Dan the last few days when i was writing this post... He makes some great points. And he will deliver on his part. Problem is.. Will everyone else? People have a tendency to find cracks in the armor. I could bet you that if you started some kind of a project of feeding the homeless out there somewhere exists a person that would look for a way to profit from it.
You're right! That's where I think the concept of self-policing/composing communities comes into play. Dan alludes to this, and the #openmic is a perfect example of one such community albeit subject to the vote-bots and all the rest.
BTW, you wanna know something personally hilarious about your post? The image you selected for the storefront has my family name emblazoned across its primary signage! Ha-ha-ha... I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I saw it... lol... That alone was well worth the price of admission. :-)
Yes. It seems the best functioning communities have some rule set that works towards a fairer wealth distribution. Dan added a "constitution" to EOS which i support fully.
People tend to forget that you cannot have a functioning society if you do not create a basic set of rules.
That seems to be the case on Steem as well. We all love the money earning possibility here, from the minnows to the whales, but the problem is that when you have no rules to speak of the society starts eating itself from within.
Your goal to increase your short term gains is self destructive behavior if that destroys the community in the end... Its unadulterated stupidity.
If Steem based platforms wither away along with a thousand others coins that will eventually, The price will suffer and you wont have time to pull out your SP before it falls apart.
This massive bot delegation business offers more earning opportunity on Steem then any other blockchain.
Then why arent more investors buying in?
I assume they know that this will lead to disaster.
My price of admission is pretty low. If you read the title, youre free to read and listen. :D
I hope thats not your family store. :D
The only concept within your reply that I cannot connect with is any form of "wealth distribution." In my view, wealth is something that should be earned - not arbitrarily distributed.
How one wishes to classify what one individual or a group of individuals so choose to do with their accumulated wealth is quite another matter.
Agree entirely with everything else stated. :-)
PS... No, there is no relation to my family there... haha...