You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A video answer to Jerry Banfield's Idea of Removing the flags
You make many sound points that I strongly support. One issue you tangentially raised is that SP is highly concentrated, and this is centralization of the police powers of the community - a bad thing from a societal standpoint.
Worst for the policing of the platform is the fact that these few powerful accounts aren't competent to conduct policing, even though they delegate some of their power to others. SOC (SMTs, Oracles, and Communities) will enable communities to decentralize that power, and flags will then be able to function as originally intended, and necessary to create a robust and fecund society of creators.
The real problem with flagging is stake-weighting, and the concentration of stake but exacerbates the problem.
Thanks!
See, that's something I think worth discussing. Because maybe, just maybe we can separate two elements here.
One would be a one user one flag system so that hate speech and such can be effectively hidden - and something completely different could be stake weighted counter votes, to remove payouts.
Maybe that's the happy medium. We also don't want to remove incentives for people accumulating SP and powering up.
SOC is going to potentiate myriad experiments in social media blockchain communities that are practically certain to reveal what actually are optimal, rather than the present speculative circumstance.
Investing has never depended on profiteering, and comparing the price of BTC to the price of Steem illustrates that investors do not require the ability to extract rewards from a pool to achieve capital gains. The fact that Steem price hasn't eclipsed the price of BTC illustrates that the theory behind stake-weighting votes to draw investment is faulty, as it has not happened.
Indeed, what has happened is that stake-weighting Steem has prevented investment, and instead encouraged profiteering, which is a net negative. Investors are intent on capital gains, which requires increasing the price of the investment vehicle, while profiteering extracts maximal ROI and does not promote or depend on price of the underlying investment vehicle.
Steem attracts profiteers, rather than investors, for this reason. It may seem counterintuitive to prevent rewards pool mining in order to increase investment, but that's the underlying mechanism that makes actual investment possible: preventing profiteering from extracting resources necessary to the growth of the investment vehicle, in this case Steem.
We really don't care if holders of Steem are holding liquid or powered up, as long as they are holding. The rationale that created the failed incentive to hold Steem is proved to have failed in practice. No such incentive inures to BTC, or any of the other top cryptos, yet they continue to outperform Steem.
Let us bow to the market reality, and act to create investment incentives that have been proven since before the dawn of history to work, primarily capital gains. Rewards pool mining is counterproductive, and reduces investment, rather than induces it, which suppresses the price of Steem.
This is an interesting conversation no doubt. I've been doing a lot of research lately into the world of POS, specially masternodes, the philosophy behind the ideas and what not.
Have you analyzed how they work? It gives you a fresh perspective, at least it did for me.
Presently my thumb detector (hammer) is in full swing, as it is a seasonal occupation, and 'tis the season. I wrested a bit of time today to catch up on important posts and must soon return to finding out where my thumb is.
Can you relate the perspective you have gained from your research?
I intend to make a video about it, because it seems to be quite extensive.. but I will share it.