RE: @snowflake's really interesting proposal - Turn whales into moderators and give dolphins all the voting power (TLDR Version)
As it stands, I'm at nearly twenty percent of this limit of 100MV. Once I get there, I can no longer help the people who helped me. I don't like this idea at all.
Once you are about to become a moderator you can just use a different account and start to build up again with this one, you will be able to upvote with the other too. It's totally up to you if you want to be a moderator or a user.
Where's my incentive to climb the ranks? If it becomes my job to go around looking for things that aren't worthwhile so I can give it a down vote, when will I get a chance to look for the things I enjoy... and how can I show my appreciation?
You could use multiple accounts and you would accumulate more voting power in each one so essentially you would be climbing the rank.
The 100 MV limit is also not set in stone, when it is becoming common for many people to have more than $8000 in their social media wallet then the 100MV limit can be raised. But today they are only 0.2 % of users who have this amount in their wallet.
Imagine how much hate they will receive when the only opportunity for the whale to interact is to place a negative impact on those who may wish to climb.
It won't be the only way to interact, whales can have smaller accounts too and upvote things they like. Nobody will be forced to be a moderator or a user, both gives different benefits, you can chose to be whatever you want.
I see an entire set of new problems if those looking out for each other have to go around downvoting people just so the others who they'd prefer be rewarded can succeed
Moderators won't be able to allocate reward to a specific user, so they won't downvote because they "prefer" they will downvote because they think the content is not worth the payout.
unless they downvote everyone else.
This wouldn't work as the content that didn't get downvoted by the whale would get downvoted by other moderators which would make the whale downvote moot.
We've seen this situation play out many times on steemit, where a whale upvote content and another whale that disagree with high payout would downvote to reduce rewards.
The scenario you describe would only be possible if whales would coordinate the attack and that there was more bad whales than good whales in the system.
What's the point to any of this if I can simply get around it by opening multiple accounts. If I have 10 accounts all sitting at 100MV, that essentially makes me ONE person with 1000MV worth of voting power to play with. Nothing changes. Instead of a user getting one vote, they get ten.
That's why the formula is key. It must be a more complicated formula. Either polynomial ending in exponential or ending in asymptote at the dolphin level.
If I sign on to Facebook... do I need one account to enjoy status messages and another account to argue under news feeds?
This was asked in the question above, but if you want to use your 1000 MV for influence, you can split it into 10 accounts. (One of the proposed changes in the upcoming HF will actually let you delegate the voting power to the other accounts without even having to transfer it.)
If you are using your SP for influence though, then you will not be collecting 'moderator' awards. You would basically be giving up a large chunk of money in order to have that extra influence.
unless youre using it to vote for sock puppets. And since you split up your account into a bunch of different accounts to beat the moderator status, you probably have a bunch of them
People could do that, yes. But they would be sacrificing a big chunk of cash (moderator rewards) in order to have the additional voting power. There would be no more curation rewards, so the only incentive to do that is the ability to upvote more posts (presumably your own).
To oversimplify it - there are two scenarios of this:
The other thing to keep in mind is that there are really only 50 users who have enough SP to create more than 10 'user' accounts. The ability/risk of abuse on a massive scale is not that big.
Even if there is some abuse of this to some extent (which there probably would be) - I think the net effect of the dolphin/minnow users having more say in the voting process would be a net plus.
I'm sure the experts will come to a logical conclusion. I've noticed though, those with a passion to create and drive to succeed do just that here. I've witnessed a few lackluster performers want the same success. This is life. I was in management for many years. I suppose I could get used to being paid to evaluate again, as long as pay was worth it. I have to run @timcliff. Good talk.
Ok, ttyl. Same to you!
Well, to me, it just seems like unnecessary micromanaging and a ploy to take the power away from those who've earned it by paying them off. I don't mean to sound negative or criticize. I could be missing something. It is late and I'm not feeling a clear head at the moment. I am the type to just go with the flow though...so whatever happens, happens.
I mentioned it in reply to @snowflake's post, but I am only in support of the idea if there is backing from the major stakeholders.
If the platform is successful though and attracts millions of users who get actively engaged in the platform and excited about "leveling up" - the large stakeholders (and the rest of us) should all be very happy about that.
I think this change has a real possibility to spark that level of interest and engagement.
You pay someone 10 bucks to flip burgers, they'll want 15. You pay them 15, they'll want 20.
I don't disagree, but there are a lot of differences between that and what we are talking about here.
You won't receive any financial benefits for having all these users accounts. If you were to put your stake in a 'moderator account' you would earn some steem in proportion to your SP and so you would "climb" as you said faster than if you were just a user.
Being a user allows you to give reward, being a moderator allows you to earn reward. It's up to you to decide which you prefer, you can have both in fact.
Note that if you upvote crap content you will likely waste your voting power as you will be moderated by a whale.
potentially to yourself
Which is no different than the current system.
Too many holes. Give more power to new users means more users creating ten accounts and voting for themselves. If half the place is here to downvote and the other half is here to upvote, that's a great way to create animosity. That could lead to terrible side effects and more fighting. I'm not being hostile here, by the way. Some I can agree with, but I see an entirely new set of problems coming from a change such as this and feel it requires a thorough examination. I really must be off though. Have a good day.