You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Wholesale witness voting changes.
I didn't realize that so many proposals to change rewards to 1.3x were circulating. I thought that was just a random article. I hadn't heard about people wanting to switch to 50% curation. That doesn't sound like it would benefit minnows and redfish very much.
It's the latest in a long line of depressing news. (And it sure looks to me like it's another example of the top witnesses deciding things among themselves in secret meetings.)
It would be nice if some of that stuff was more out in the open. Then we could all know what's going on. I'm not sure why they would want to adopt a proposal that would benefit the largest accounts if they're really trying to help the smaller accounts. If we're going to have a middle class, we need the red fish and minnows to grow.
Kind of surprising that such votes by witnesses isn't its own blockchain operation. People voting for witnesses should I think ideally be able to extract tables like this from an RPC node with a few lines of code. The fact that this isn't the case is rather disturbing.
I'm not sure why they don't have it on the blockchain. If you noticed, Steemit set up the RC system so that they don't need witness approval to make changes. That's worrisome to me. If Steem is decentralized, why wouldn't it be something that's decided by the community?
The kevinwong post proposal formally came out earlier this year (seems like mid-Summer, but I'm lousy with time frames). I personally hadn't seen anything about it until it popped up in a comment conversation on a different post, recalling it, where Ned said he'd read about it. That was only a few weeks ago, I think. According to one comment in this latest post by cervantes, smooth says this discussion has been going on for something like a year.
So, basically, the 1.3 superlinear curve is not that popular, but the 50-50 idea is. But there's shortening the curation window, which is fine, and also incentivizing downvotes, which only big SP with high rep are going to do, anyway. Now, they want to be paid to ruin people's accounts. Woohoo. :) That little editorial comment is mine, not what they said. I'm just thinking about what a separate downvoting pool in the hands of some people would do, and it's not pretty.
Honestly, I think the idea of the 1.3 super-linear curve is a better idea than 50-50 curation. The latter is much more directly going to damage small accounts. It seems like they're trying to push the smaller users out as they work on bringing on SMTs. Remember, the point isn't to have Steemit (or any of the platforms on Steem) be successful. It's to build a place where dapps can give out their own tokens that are built on top of the Steem blockchain. They're courting the dapps, not the users.
I don't think Ned cares if users are around. Why should he? He'll likely get much more money by selling dapps on the idea of running on his blockchain than from people buying Steem. His ICO already happened (even if it never really happened). Now he has to have something else to make money on... dapps are the answer.
The witnesses won't really have to care about the users either, because once SMTs come online, if all users leave and it's only the dapps that are using Steem, they'll still be earning the same amount of Steem.
I'm not saying that the witnesses are doing it from a place of being malicious. I'm sure some of them really do want Steemit to succeed. It just seems that everyone who has some control over where Steem and Steemit will go is more worried about the big picture and "getting there" than they are about the people and experience now.
Even with 300 SP available, I still don't have enough RCs to post and comment as much as I'd like. And I'm nowhere close to one of the top users. New users still won't be able to gain followers if they cant network. I don't know how the system works, but couldn't the top 20 witnesses take a small paycut so the newbies could actually post?
Sure, this is a freemium blockchain. It's one where you have to pay if you want to play more. But you have to at least let the users "play." Otherwise, they're not going to try the game long enough to want to pay. Then again, if SMTs work and they get dapps on board, Ned and the witnesses win either way. They simply don't need us.
Well, I can't speak to any of it being better, so you're ahead of me. It used to be 50/50, and there was a different linear curve, and they changed both of those because of something else that was going on. I've asked, on a few posts, and so far, no answers as to what caused the changes in the first place, or why it would be favorable either to roll it back or tweak it.
I believe Ned has his eyes on bigger fish, that may or may not bring more users to STEEM either through dApps or SMTs. He's not so interested in Steemit, the app, but apparently has a stake in something user friendly if he's off creating another company with different devs and some kind of community based dApp codenamed Destiny.
And the dApps should care about users, because I'm not sure how they end up earning if they don't have people using their dApps. And they need to have a lot of people using them, from the look of things. Which means, they will need more and people, and be able to retain more of them.
So, I don't know. We actually may be in the middle of doom and gloom, or it may just be growing pains as I keep reading by others, or more meh than anything else because of suppressed STEEM values.
I have no idea.
I just know I'm working on my best month of earnings ever, thanks mostly to curie, engagement contests, and blocktrades. I don't know how to duplicate the blocktrades one, so can't count on it, but I am hoping for a second curie, and continuing to place somewhere in the money for the contests, even if it is Steem Monster cards (this or next might be the final week of that, depending on what yabapmatt decides).
In my case, having a decent October is about time, because I've been in a royal slump for months.
re: paycut
I would think anything would be possible. The witnesses would probably have to agree to their own paycut, though. :)
re: 300 SP
One of the reasons why I haven't been so keen on delegating, but we all have our priorities, and in some cases, those priorities help us earn. So, I don't know what to tell you about that. It's kind of like darned if you and darned if you don't.
I don't know why it changed. I'm not sure why they would change it back.
Ned is Ned. Enough said.
The dapps won't care though, because they'll have enough resources that they'll make sure their users can do what they need to do. They'll have a lot of SP and they'll delegate enough so that their users can keep getting SMTs.
I do think a lot of people have left, so that's one reason for the doom and gloom. I've known dolphins that powered up and quit. It's too bad.
I was hoping the Steem Monsters prizes would continue a little longer. I was thinking I might save up some of my SBD from this week and use it next week as my single-week earnings aren't enough to place in the Minnow League. I have been engaging, so I should be able to get another 1.5 Steem from Engagement, but we'll see.
Glad to hear you've been getting some good earnings! That's nice to see. I don't know how to duplicate experiences though. I got a few bigger votes from the Netcoins contests, but those are done.
I haven't heard of many people approving their own pay cut.
Yeah, I delegate to SSG and to Steem-ua. Both of those do get me some return, so I'm hesitant to remove them as that would drop my earnings and lower the amount I'll be able to get in the future. I'm trying to be appreciative of my followers and voters by using the earnings to power up and put that back into SP which can be used to appreciate those people back. As it is, a 100% weight vote at 100% power with 0 delegated out would still only be $0.043. With the number of votes I give, that wouldn't go far. Therefore, I'm trying to level so that will grow faster. Not sure if that makes sense, but that's where I'm at right now.