Join Me In Discussion To Build a Better Platform. @pawsdog

I have often been accused of thinking beyond my reach, or to put it in simpler terms trying to emulate Icarus minus the hubris, as I do not consider myself to be prideful; adamant and aggressive as required by the situation, but not prideful.

To that end I am stepping way outside of my Steemit socioeconomic class (Minnow here) to look at the platform as if I were its curator. In so doing I want to draw from my recent observations, experiences and interactions with other users.

So what are the problems with Steemit and what will prevent it from reaching the next level?

I have pondered this for a couple days and more so since my recent, both positive and negative interactions with a few power users (whales). This is such a difficult question to answer, as in many ways Steemits weaknesses are also its greatest strengths.

Steemit, from my understanding as a lowly minnow, is a platform as much about financial incentive as it is about the free exchange of ideas in an entirely self policed community free of content Nazis such as those found on Facebook and the like. It is, in theory, a place to express your ideas and opinions (so long as they do not constitute hate speech or violate any laws) free of recourse in an effort to attract others that share the same interests and ideals.

That said, the financial benefit of the platform brings with it the inclusion of greed, jealousy and the need to begrudge or bring criticism to the success of others. In many ways the financial benefit has created an environment that encourages us to cherry pick the platform features we like and use those as justification to villainize the features we don’t.

We like the idea we can be paid for creating meaningful content; we don’t like the idea that others may be paid more for content we view as not up to par. We like the idea that our posts are gaining an audience and that our efforts are proving profitable; we don’t like the idea that others may earn more, and potentially deprive us of our share. That said, we hold this ideal of social righteousness, up to the point that we are viewed as the one earning too much. At which point our views shift and the payouts are just compensation for our hard work and dedication; anyone who says otherwise is just bitter, hateful or needs to put in more work.

We hate the idea of moderation or content control as this is a decentralized platform built on free thought devoid of censorship, yet we scream for governance when we feel as though others are earning too much or their content is offensive, not valuable enough or we have been slighted. The inclusion of money does tend to add an entirely new dimension to things and lends credence to the age old adage that “money is the root of all evil”.

To that end what are the problems? What needs fixed?

Looking at it objectively as is my nature I can certainly see a post reward cap being a good thing, both on a per post basis as well as a per time frame basis (no more than $X in 30, 15, 7 days etc.). What that limit should be I have no idea. Perhaps we could even add performance incentives for authors to decrease the cap over time based upon average user up votes of reputation 50 or higher. To state it clearer, everyone starts with a cap of say $50.00 per post, each month a calculation is applied to determine the number of high ranking users that upvoted the post and a percentage (say 10%) is added to that users earnings ceiling, the percentage decreases accordingly as the amount increases with a max of say $200 per post. This would eliminate the benefit of shill accounts as their 25 reputation would provide nothing towards increasing the author’s earnings ceiling and at most would be of minimal benefit to the authors reputation in accordance with the current system.

Another idea would be a multiplier that weights a user’s potential impact not solely on their SP (the amount of money they have), but on their reputation as well, tying the two together in a fashion so as one depends on the other with reputation being the more heavily weighted of the two. This I think would avoid situations wherein a user with questionable or negative reputation is allowed to, negatively or positively impact posts based solely upon their wealth.
As it stands now, and correct me if I am wrong, I could have a reputation of 0, invest $1,000,000 towards my SP and go on a terror spree if I so desired. I feel this is a flaw in the current system and both your impact and potential earnings should be limited based upon your reputation regardless of how wealthy you may or may not be.

Another idea would be limitations on down voting, in that you are only allowed to down vote a specific user a maximum of X times per week, month etc. This would likely put an end to flag wars and provide a period in which cooler heads could prevail and let time heal the wounds. At current it seems as if it is common practice to go on crusades that last an inordinate amount of time as users are allowed to continually damage the accounts of others and receive instant gratification time and time again for doing so with no cooling off period.

Conversely this could be applied to upvoting as well to further limit the benefit of shill accounts and users with a network of bots at their disposal. This would prevent them from abusing the system by consistently upvoting themselves or only one person. It would also eliminate the pay for vote industry that has found roots in our community and only serves to dilute the true curation of good content by readers that actually value that content. This industry has perverted the ideals of the platform by allowing content of questionable worthiness to make its way up the ranks based solely on how much the creator is willing to pay for it to be noticed. It is not true curation, does not gain status based on its merit or value and most likely pushes down potentially more valuable content from authors with less financial means.

Lastly and perhaps the most controversial point we vote a delegation of 5 that have authority to rule impartially in much the same way as an appeals court. We set standards for the panel, a peer review process and ensure that the members represent an equal cross section of the community. Say one of Rep 30-40, two of Rep 50-60 and two of reputation 60 or higher, all with equal say and power by consensus on issues brought to their attention. We also apply a wealth restriction of no more than $100,000 per account to avoid implications of self enrichment. I have often looked at politicians whom make $500,000 for giving a speech as hypocrites when they claim to be my peer or understand my needs. A government of the people, for the people and by the people means you need some “average people” in charge as only they can bring true understanding and empathy for their socioeconomic peers.

I will end this here as I have covered a lot, some of my ideas may be dumb, some may not but I certainly appreciate input and community involvement when it comes to making this a better platform for us all to inhabit.

The issue today is the same as it has been throughout history. Whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite -Thomas Jefferson