You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Open Letter to all Steemians - Hardfork 21: Culture Change
Ninjaminers hoarding more tokens will not grow Steem.
You had a choice: support HF21, or no longer be a witness.
I think you made the wrong choice.
To be technical on wording, there was really only one ninja-miner: Steemit, Inc. Everyone else who mined tokens early were simply early adopters.
We can't keep looking at the way things have been and extrapolate out how they will be in the future under the new changes. Those of us who have been working on this (for literally years now) are hoping that as a result of these changes - six months from now we are looking at a totally new Steem. Whether we can pull it off remains to be seen, but I am hopeful.
That is 100% false. If I was not in support of HF21, I likely could have stopped it. It is a choice between HF21 and the status quo though, and I am strongly in favor of the opportunity that HF21 gives us over the state we are currently in.
Fair enough. It is quite possible I did. The results of this HF are impossible to predict, but I chose to vote for the path that I felt gave us all the best opportunity to see the platform succeed in the long run.
I appreciate your measured response to quite inflammatory comment. I don't think you are right that you could have stopped HF21, but I certainly could be wrong. However, your integrity is showing here, in the face of my apparent hostility, so I will refrain from blaming you for what I believe will prove to be disastrous results. Clearly we simply disagree on certain matters, and you are utterly forthright in stating your positions AFAICT.
The coming market for flags will be disheartening to you I expect. It was not something that would have been revealed by testing, since those intent on profiting thereby would not have revealed their intentions during testing. Due to financial incentives, I expect shitflags to result from that market, just as shitposts have from bidbots. It's not as if we don't have evidence for shitflags and professional flaggers on Steem already, and enabling the cost of such flags to be offshored to the pool will greatly encourage that business model.
I have proposed mechanisms that will obviate profiteering, and Steem market cap has dropped ~50 places since I did. In the event you eventually realize that profiteering and capital gains are not compatible and are faced with taking action to promote capital gains as necessary to prevent further harm to Steem, please do consider those ideas. It was a while ago, and I know digging is a time sink, so upon inquiry I will be happy to either repost or reiterate them.
What I want to know from the witnesses is where this 20 STEEM number came from. Can I get a detailed explanation why it had to be 20 and not 5... 20 is really huge!
The number was calculated by running the current voting data though the new rewards curve and comparing the results.
The problem with this discussion is that it assumes no changes in behavior among the voters. If there is no change in behavior, then things will be worse for users who are not earning much. The whole point of the hardfork though is to drive a change in behavior.
I hope it does change behavior. I feel like Steem has drawn too many content producers compared to curators. I support the 50/50 change, I would have supported 20/80, I support the 20 STEEM threshold thing, though I wish it was 5, but I get the idea and agree. My main concern is the free downvotes. I get that a lot of people believe in downvotes, but I feel that too many people into the idea of being able to downvote stuff are not paying attention to how strongly it offends the downvoted person.
It literally enrages people, and I believe it creates a toxic environment. I believe in positive encouragement and techniques that favor quality over quantity, but I want a happy environment on Steem, not a battle. I want quality to win not because crap gets downvoted but because people just love the quality content producers. Youtube doesn't prevent you from putting complete garbage on their platform, but it simply won't earn anything because nobody values it. That is what Steem should do.
In my view we just need to encourage quality and not go after the crap. That is why I get the value of the 20 threshold (though I wish it as 5). It makes it extremely difficult for poor quality content to reward itself and rewards viral content. I'm down for that, I get the value there. But I do fear that the free downvotes are going to either lead us down a path of constant flag wars or overly authoritarian whales scaring the shit out of people like Aggroed just did. He threatened bidbot services, it doesn't get more authoritarian than that. I really wish we could utilize positivity rather than negativity. Imagine if Steemcleaners and flagrewards just hunted undervalued content. I think people would feel so much better about their experience on Steem.
Sorry, but users need to get accustom to the fact that there are downvotes. Downvotes are a necessary evil in order for stakeholders to decide BASED ON CONSENSUS what gets rewarded. Rewards are not rewards until all stakeholders have agreed through voting (or lack of voting) and the seven day payout is complete.
I know there are some stakeholders who take it a step too far and cross the line into an area where it becomes abusive. I am not trying to argue in favor of that, but in a decentralized system - we are not going to be able to control that type of thing completely.
If it becomes a big enough problem, then community members can propose solutions and get them funded via the SPS.
That's basically what downvotes do.