Proof that the Steem Whitepaper Both Schizophrenically Believes, and Does not Believe in “Voting Abuse.”
“Eliminating “abuse” is not possible and shouldn’t be the goal. Even those who are attempting to “abuse” the system are still doing work. Any compensation they get for their successful attempts at abuse or collusion is at least as valuable for the purpose of distributing the currency as the make-work system employed by traditional Bitcoin mining or the collusive mining done via mining pools. All that is necessary is to ensure that abuse isn’t so rampant that it undermines the incentive to do real work in support of the community and its currency.” — Steem Whitepaper 15/32
Abuse, as it is used in the above paragraph, was used a total of 4 times. Two of which implies the author does not believe it exists, and two of which shows they believe it does. So what is it STINC, did you design this to get people to act like crabs in a bucket, or does abuse not exist? If abuse doesn’t exist as you’ve suggested in this paragraph, why have a downvote function at all? Come on, are you just fucking with us? You could have spoken one language, wrote a new whitepaper, and then waited to see if people wanted to invest. Instead, you decided to turn everyone into deputy dipshit, and now what have you!?
Interesting moments in Steem's history: The GUI was changed to reflect the idea that the whitepaper explicitly condoned downvotes when @smooth said: "Reducing subjectively excessive payouts is a valid reason for downvoting/flagging" However, when the whitepaper speaks to negative voting, it only says that it is possible, it does not say that it is "VALID." This is similar to real life, the laws of the jungle are true and real. But, we don't go around killing motherfuckers because karma and morals.
Enjoy your flag wars, bitches!
This. Might makes right isn't the law. The reason laws exist is to curb might.
On the blockchain, the code is the law of the jungle, and the people with their voting actions are the artificial law. The people refer to the whitepaper for some guidance or direction on how to impose the artificial law. The whitepaper speaks with a forked tongue, and out both sides of its mouth. It offers larger votes to people with bigger stake PoW, or proof of wallet. Meanwhile, there are persistent rumors about PoB. However, the two cannot exist on the same blockchain at the same time. With PoW a mixed bag of results is the best you're going to get.
It most certainly is not. It's written to enable specific mechanisms, and those mechanisms aren't just the most powerful take all the power they can. I absolutely agree the white paper speaks with a forked tongue, and liars lie for reasons. The code is a feint at decentralization, and Steem is utterly controlled by the ninjaminers.
That feint is convincing, and eliminating the weight of stake created by the ninjamine would fix a lot of things. That's not why the ninjamine was undertaken, I'm sure you'll agree. The ninjamine reveals the actual motivations of the devs, and here we are as their failure to grasp that actual markets create value shoots them in the foot.
Less greed = more profit. Concentrating all the Steem in their wallets is preventing them from becoming billionaires. This is why I am unsure they are just greedy bastards and not actually doing something different from simply profiteering, as it's a fairly simple idea, and they're not particularly stupid people. They may not be seasoned investors, but they're smart guys, and have had three years to grasp the concept.
You keep referring to ninja miners like they are some evil force, all one has to do is purchase more steem if they wish to make them less relevant. Something that is getting easier and easier to do as prices continue to slide with every passing week/month. Having earning ability tied to steem purchases is the ideal long term setup.
If having stake in an investment vehicle is proportionate to ROI, you'd think that folks would undertake to increase the market for that investment vehicle and gain capital thereby. After all, capital gains is the one mechanism that has encouraged capital investment since before the invention of the wheel. It's a proven technology. It's how civilization came about. It's what people innately understand, respect, and want to do. They want to build things and leave a legacy for their posterity. They want to be admirable and make things better for their progeny than they received from their forefathers.
Tying ROI to self voting, or financially manipulating the rewards mechanism in the various ways that have eventuated, seems to not be working very well to grow the market for Steem. The ninjaminers stitched up some golden parachutes, but those will only fly if people buy Steem, which will not happen as long as profiteering discourages the market. There clearly are people that want to spend time self voting, but vanity is not amongst the most rewarded skills in investing. Listen to these words and consider their connotations: self voting. Vote buying. Profiteering. Market manipulation. The entire business model of the ninjaminers is contrary to every civilized societies' values.
Profiteering can be profitable for the profiteers, but everyone else in the market where they operate loses money when they make money. Companies are dissolved, and employees lose their jobs and pensions. Investing to create capital gains causes the reverse effects. Businesses become more valuable. Employees get raises. The investment vehicle rises in value. Compare Berkshire Hathaway as an example of that latter investment for capital gains model, and Bain Capital Partners, or Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, as examples of profiteers.
It's not a mystery why society is drawn to investing for capital gains, and rejects profiteering. It's good for society to build up, increase the value of, and grow markets. It's bad for society to pick the pockets of those that create value, prevent value from increasing, and favor brutal power over noble altruism. These aren't mere technicalities. They're the basis for civilization itself.
The ninjamine is obviously the result of the same mindset as vote selling, and who could have predicted Steem's current financial condition? Every investor for capital gains that has avoided Steem like virulent plague.
It is surely ideal for the ninjaminers for people to want to self vote and delegate to bid bots with stake they buy, because that is the wind that fills those golden parachutes. Fortunately, this is not the only token with a social media platform anymore, and if Steem doesn't become the vector for capital gains it should be, someone else will.
The bottom line is the market. Steem profiteering repels society, and this is not debatable, it's a demonstrable fact. Grow the market, or shrink Steem. End profiteering, or end Steem. It's really that simple now.
Of course they should, but nothing you have suggested guarantees it will grow the market of steem.
There is plenty of data to support the growth of a market for Steem when rewards are potential to users. Guarantee of such growth is beyond my prognosticative abilities. All there is to consider is evidence, and it is certain sure that folks seeking to trick others profitably have attempted to hide, skew, and hand wave away that evidence.
Caveat emptor.
Well it would have been smart if they used their stake to delegate to communities. Yet they were wise to bail when people started talking about forking them out of their stake.
I reckon they revealed what mattered most to them, and it was their stake, not enabling Steem to become a successful social media platform. I doubt @ned et al. could have been more shortsighted regarding that crossroads. However, they got themselves in that position in the first place, which is why it even happened.
You'll never have a successful social media platform that allows people to snipe value from each other. Arrrrgh, everybody's a pirate now. Reward pool rapists and reward rapists alike. Everyone is sailing the high seas of Steem plundering each other's booty. Isn't that just bloody marvelous!
Not everybody. As the rapine loses it's luster from Steem price remaining abysmal, folks that have no interest in swindles remain while the grifters move on. We'll see what comes when it comes, if it comes.
While we remain on a working blockchain, every day is another chance that folks intent on forthright speech and voluntarist governance enabled by Steem's unique features prevail over the wanton profiteers, particularly as there remain fewer and fewer of the latter relative to the former. Sooner or later the doors will slam shut, or new management will reform the place to good effect.
We shall see. I'm curious to see if and when BTC moon, where the smart money is going to go. To a downvote-centric based platform or one that doesn't encourage that type of behavior.
The current EIP is so focused on stopping abuse, which our own white paper tells us we shouldn't be focusing on, that it is hurting growth. The fact that a post has to get to $4 before votes reach a linear curve is a prime example of that. That discourages people from voting for new/small users.
Even worse, I think it's hurting retention too.
Great point, I never thought about that.
I probably should research the EIP more.
Yes, it is a huge deterrent to voting for someone that you are not sure if they will get any other votes. That change was setup to discourage 'abuse', but in reality it probably will end up hurting a lot more than it will help overall.