RE: One SImple Rule Change To Put The Power Where It Belongs, The Users Of The SP
Hey Dave. You know I support you fully with this. I have nothing against bot owners, users, or individuals that choose to grow organically. There are many flavors of ice cream. Or should I say cookies since I wrote a yummy post on the yummy chocolate chip cookie the other day.
I do support us redfishes and minnows, to all vote for witnesses that are active on the platform in some way or another.
The individuals with SP “influence” don’t necessarily have to be engagers but at least show some life on this platform. An absentee owner has great property managers to manage their property, but when the real estate worth drops in value (low demand), well, it’s time for new property managers.
Sooner or later, as with technology, the early adopters become a fad and new life takes over. Communities pulling together could breathe new life into Steemit.
I agree very much with you @beeyou about showing some life on the platform. That's why I am saying that it creates a problem when the owners just delegate their vote and visit the mailbox for their checks (but still decide who the witnesses are). They really don't have any clue what the attrition rate is, what people are saying, and whether any of the arguments have validity... After all this place changes so fast, what happened 2 weeks ago is even ancient history in many cases.
I do love your analogy about absentee owners that have their property managed. You would think they would get new property managers. The problem that analogy brings up is that it will mean a lot of pain to the people that we care about (like Asher). Because unfortunately that is true and will happen if the price of steem drops low enough. If they could solve the problem before steem drops below a $1 that would be better for many, but unfortunately many are not even in tune enough to realize it is a possibility.
I do agree with you also about the early adopters eventually cashing out, and I also agree that communities will sprout up over time. The real variable that I am following is what price it will take to change things (ie how low it will have to go). But if the whales can encourage the communities to develop more like @curie @helpie @newbieresteemday @qurator @ifc @cryptoempire etc... then maybe those support groups will sprout up and make the churn much much less. I do think the social aspect is what keeps me here and I hope over time it gets stronger and our bonds become even deeper and spread out to give this place some really strong roots.
More like anything after 24 hrs is old news. 🙂
Thanks for the comment Dave. I definitely don’t want a plunge in value before change of any nature would be in effect.
I do also agree with Matt’s comment above. Many of the issues are due to human nature, greed being prevalent of all. I do feel that many on here blame bidbots as the culprit of human greed. My thoughts are, bidbots are the businesses that see a divide on here and have a service to offer. Kind of like banks in the real world. Banks (bidbots) lend out money or credit to the poor (redfishes/minnows), we use it to buy real estate (increase SP) and they earn interest. It becomes an issue when there is “abuse” and there are greedy users not happy with a small home but want a mansion of their own. Plus they then invite their friends over to party (circle-voting).
How does this basic human nature get fixed? Eliminating bidbots won’t stop the circle votings activities that many don’t address because it’s not as obvious. The gap in wealth will still exist.
As with the SP influence, Steemit Inc would have to change the electoral system. In its current system, stakeholder wealth(ones that hold the most SP) is the determinant for the witnesses that stay on top. We have a constitutional monarchy system in effect. I do think those that believe this is a democratic platform is disillusioned. Just because the governing group is not here to oversee, doesn’t mean they dont set the rules or path for us all to follow. We try to work with the system until a hardfork comes out, but then again, hard fork require consensus amongst witnesses. And these witnesses are supported by a handful of powerful stakeholders. So issue kinda comes back full circle where it is not a democratic platform.
Edited, per Wiki:
Political scientist Vernon Bogdanor paraphrasing Thomas Macaulay, has defined a constitutional monarch as "a sovereign who reigns but does not rule”
Very insightful reply @beeyou! I don't have anything to add, it is very well stated! :)
Great comment and deserves a full upvote! :D