RE: Introducing Steem The First Anarchy Mined Coin
However Steemit's anarchy mine answers the problem; the Whales, the users with the highest vested interests in the site, can only realise their fortunes if the group does well. This is in direct opposition to the capitalist society at large
Im not an anarchist. Im a capitalist and i don't believe the two philosophies are compatible. But for an anarchist, this seems like a pretty hypocritical take on things.
After all, whats the difference between a steem whale and an IRL whale? Your take is that a steem whale has his steem stuck in vesting, so he has incentive not to cut and run. But the same could be said of any business owner with a large capital investment. Im sure iun the early days of facebook, mark zuckerberg had a large portion of his personal assets stuck in the company. IM sure in the early days of most large corporations, the founders had most of their assets stuck in capital investments.
If anything, whales here have more liquidity than a typical investor in a large corp. After all, just the founders they have about $3 million in steem that they could sell if they wished. not to mention the ability to power down what about 1 million or two a week?
At the end of the day, youre depending on the wisdom and good intentions of a central authority. Which I thought was kind of the cardinal sin for you people.
Hi Sigmajin, thanks for your reply, I'll try and answer you in order.
First of all, anarchy and capitalism are a perfect marriage, all anarchy means is a society run without centralised orders. Capitalism is one that attempts to manipulate self interest for the greater good of the community.
Anarchy gives a truly free market, so for instance I can go and sell anything anywhere without punitive taxes which favour locals. So by marrying the two philosophies together (anarcho-capitalism) we have a society encouraged to endeavour, without being restricted.
The difference between a whale in this case and a whale who is a major offline company is that they can cut and run by selling. You mention Zuckerberg in the early days of Facebook; you have to remember that Facebook was worth nothing in the early days.
If Facebook had the kind of meteoric rise that Steemit has had, going from $2000 to roughly a $300 million market cap in a couple of months, there would have been nothing stopping Zuckerberg selling all or part of his stake to an interest individual or company.
Plus of course limited liability (an instrument of capitalism) allows major investors to walk away should the business fail whilst in debt, with the company owing millions. So in this case it is the government saying that it will give you instant liquidity, regardless of the state of the company, Ned and Dan do not have that luxury.
Lastly we talk about the founders and their $3 million of Steem I'm not sure where you get these figures; maybe you're talking about their SP?
You can only power down in 104 equal payments; so if they started powering down today, in 12 months time, 50% of their money would still be in the system. They could of course sell their stake to someone, by selling their accounts, however that person would still be tied to the system in the same long term way.
So 1 million a week cannot be powered down, that would imply that the founders had $104 million, which they don't, if they did, I would be a lot richer :-)
Cg