The idea was that those with the most invested are supposed to have the most say in how the reward pool is distributed, which makes total sense. This is one of the fundamental ideals of Steemit, so why are we trying to break that?
I have been asking this same question for the past three days. This is a stake-based platform. Users and investors are constantly told that if they want to increase their rewards, then they need to increase their stake or gain followers that have more influence. Then, when a user finally gains such a following or an investor finally reaches high levels to have a larger impact on the system, they are told, "Sorry, but you're earning too much and you have too much influence."
This so-called "experiment" is a slap in the face to all of the users who took the time to find their niche, to network with other users/investors, and to grow their following. And it's a slap in the face to investors who actually BOUGHT their STEEM so that they could have more influence - exactly as the concept has been sold to everyone for the past year.
The people who have been productive and know how to do social media well are essentially being punished for it. Those who are new, don't post much, don't try to network, aren't good at one thing or another, don't post subjectively "good" content that is valued by others...somehow they are supposed to be earning more than they get?
Most of us agree that the distribution of stake is an issue. Most of us also agree that there needs to be a change to the code to flatten rewards curves. But this "experiment" doesn't fix anything like that. It sends the wrong message and it completely contradicts the entire concept of stake-weighted voting/influence. It's good for neither attracting/retaining great content creators nor attracting/retaining those who want to make large investments into the ecosystem in order to gain more influence.
And as you, myself, and many others have stated, this is a completely flawed "experiment," "test," "initiative" - whatever you want to call it. It's just utter BS with some post hoc justifications for doing it.
Those who are demanding compliance are simply demonstrating once again that certain users have the ability to dictate outcomes...the very thing that they are claiming is the problem. But they seem to think that their demands are more important and that they're acting "for the greater good." Same collectivism, different medium. When will people ever learn?
I hear ya. It seems like that collectivist mentality is attempting to force its way into Steemit. Thanks for your expansions on what I said, this is a comment worth a dollar, not "Thanks I totally agree!"
It's good to know others out there are outraged too, we've got the right to be.
Sadly, it has always been here. It's just increasing and becoming more vocal...as usual. I think that most of the problem lies in the fact that users do not comprehend stake. They're used to just seeing raw numbers of likes or dislikes as they're presented on other platforms and they don't have much experience with a shareholder concept. That's why we see them constantly saying things like...
"Look at how many likes I have! Look at how many comments I have! Why is my post not at the top of trending???"
They're against bots, they don't understand stake and how it applies to voting, and they generally just feel like they "deserve" more than they're getting, often without putting in the time and effort. Just showing up and posting something is apparently the extent of their social media effort, because that's what most people do on Facebook or other platforms. And that's fine if you don't have the time or energy to do much more, but don't get upset when that doesn't make you popular and it doesn't earn a ton of rewards. That's just the nature of the game. That's how it is on all social media. This place is no different.
If anything, Steemit offers you a much better chance of earning money for doing nothing more than posting and leaving. But it appears that this still isn't good enough for some. And because of that, the successful users (and the larger investors) must be punished. It's the good old-fashioned Commie mindset. Still alive and well, as the rest of society demonstrates every day.
Agreed.
The problem is that the mass market that we're after will share in this sentiment. Perhaps Steemit was doomed from day one.
I agree with you and also understand about message that @abit want to share with us, but this experiment really make "ironic" situation. I know @abit have good intention about reward distribution but take wrong way how to share the message about that.
I think its worth pointing out here the distribution of awards in these comments. Anything supporting me, even if it's got a lot of upvotes only has a dollar. Lots of the posts against me have the same amount for a fraction of the votes. How is that the intended result?
quoting myself from "last month" the whole comment is a mouth full, the whole article there is a long one aaand you might have missed it :) it's interesting to read through I'm leaving a funny nested comment from there
·
·
·
·
[-]
craig-grant73 · last month
if they are aware of whats going on, it would be a ton of fun, and encourage them to buy steem power on the days when their votes are worth nothing
$0.00
·
·
·
·
·
[-]
j3dy 58 · last month
:D Purge day :D , I'm not sure I like your idea , you seem like a man who is fond of gambling and odds , I'm not sure that would be good for anyone, which whale will work for years/invest to have power of vote and then be welcomed into a slot machine :)