You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Improving the Economics of Steem: A Community Proposal
Question To Steemit Inc
- When can investors expect the fundamentally flawed linear reward to be changed?
- How many hours does it take to code a new curve?
- Should current investors solely vote for themselves to avoid scammers to receive "free money for nothing" aka free Steem?
- What are the benefits, if any, for investors to not solely vote for themselves?
- The rational investors are increasing their piece of the pie with negligible work. Are there any estimates?
- Who are the biggest rational investors what is their ROI?
- Why did Steemit Inc implement the flawed linear reward curve?
- Where did Steemit explain why linear rewards weren't flawed anymore before implementing them?
- Why mention @trafalgar as the initiator of this discussion while knowing this is incorrect? - Many people pointed out linear rewards were flawed, way before @trafalgar did, among them, none other than @dantheman in the original whitepaper, @steemitblog, @felixxx, @ats-david, me, among many others.
In February 2017 Steemit Inc re-highlighted why linear rewards are fundamentally flawed, yet they never retracted their statement before pushing for linear rewards to be implemented.
In a world with honest people who don't vote on themselves to get "free money for nothing", a simple linear curve, aka n would produce a 1 share 1 vote proportional payout. This is the blue line and shows the ideal situation.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where people will attempt to game the system by voting for themselves. If everyone voted for themselves then the result would be simple interest payments and have no economic impact.
More here.
No need to ask Steemit, stop worshiping them.
Read the downvote section again. I like to think it's mostly my suggestion and I'm not bragging about it because it's so obviously the solution to people buying votes on half baked comments like this one.
Have a look at this poll, seems by the votes to far, I think all these options need to truly be carefully considered before implementing measures that make passive stake holders move to even more disruptive use of their stake.
What are you alluding to? My comment is super critical of Steemit.
Steemit Inc said linear rewards were flawed. They then supported linear rewards while never explaining why they weren't flawed, "anymore".
What's your goal to shame steemit retroactively?
I've been talking against linear reward since at least november 2017. I want a change as soon as possible to something nit fundamentally flawed.
o_o
https://steemit.com/joy/@teamsteem/i-saw-your-dance-video-and-now-i-know-your-rich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=165&v=4qE0SGgWU1w
@teamsteem purchased a 29.66% vote from @promobot on this post.
*If you disagree with the reward or content of this post you can purchase a reversal of this vote by using our curation interface http://promovotes.com
This post has received a 40.29 % upvote from @boomerang.
Linear is flawed, sure, the proposed curve type though even more so. It sends a signal to new users: "please piss off, you are too late, we are full!"
I'dd propose just adding a simple and modest fish-size bonus. Irrelevant for new users, but sufficient an incentive for big fish not to break up their stake into hundreds of puppet accounts.
The blue line instead of the red line
Can someone help? i started several accounts a few years back. I have been able to access them all recently but one...I am using the same master key and I am not able to get in....all of my other accounts are fine. I copy and paste the master keys no problem...I have never changed or attempted to change any passwords. My husband and daughter have both tried to no avail. the account I can not access is @jadabug...could it have been compromised. no steem is missing ...i just can not get in ...it is strange ..I set up the accounts and would like to give it to my daughter to run and i can not get in .augh! I have all of the keys they just do not work!!!! Thank you for your time.