You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A Simple Way to Strengthen the STEEM Economy
I hate to be a party pooper but the problem is not to much steem but rather to few people.
As far as down voting by your "elite caring community" and all this group control stuff talking in chat, makes me feel like this comment section has been hi-jacked by the control freak "community".
Encouraging more down voting is 100% the wrong thing to do if you want steem to grow.
I'm guessing you either didn't read anything in the post, have an issue with someone that commented on the post and are trying to triangulate me into some unrelated bullshit, or are just going around with a chip on your shoulder due to something that happened on the platform, but literally nothing you said relates to anything I said in the post and just sounds like griping and projection to me.
I clearly said in your comments section and the first line is about your "entire post".
The problem is not to much steem = burning tokens is not the answer. Unless ofc you want to kill the social aspect of steem.
The biggest problem that I see is that curation has been broken and there is no interest in fixing it, because STEEM is not meant to be a social platform, it's meant to be a blockchain that runs dApps and is designed specifically to run social dApps. Ned thinks that Oracles, SMTs, and communities can solve the problem of broken curation and spam content and many other issues that I have issues with.
I agree that in theory it's possible those additional features will fix my biggest issue with the platform and the bulk of our economic woes. Burning STEEM is counter inflationary and just makes good business sense to me, but we don't have to agree on that, I'm just offering solutions to problems that I see.
Ultimately we need incentive for people to hold tokens and while Resource Credits isn't perfect, it's a step in the right direction in my opinion. I don't think flagging is the issue that it's made out to be, it doesn't censor anyone as you can click "unhide post" and all it really does is cancel out rewards.
Is it annoying when that happens? Sure, I've pissed off people and had weeks worth of posts flagged to zero out of spite. My posts are still on the chain though and no amount of flagging or disagreements is going to change that. Building an entire "gift economy" and expecting the majority of people to go around and donate their stake like charity to let the beneficiaries of that charity devalue their investment by powering it down and selling it because there is no incentive to power up is a much bigger problem.
There's a reason most of the really large stake investors on the platform either self vote or sell votes, it's the most profitable thing to do. I think fixing curation and making it the most profitable fixes the self voting and vote selling issues as the best content would offer the most rewards for curation. The issue there is we have basically been told to wait on a development that may or may not be coming. Until that happens, we bleed money, so I'm offering a suggestion on how to stop the bleeding and increase the value of the platform.
Is liquid STEEM the real villain? No, but burning it is a potential solution to one of the real problems we have that we could implement without waiting on developments that could never come. Steemit Inc doesn't have the best track record of delivering, so I'd rather be proactive and educate the community on these things.
Thanks for the clarification and hopefully my clarifications help clear up why I'm suggesting this idea (again for like the hundredth time) and hoping it doesn't fall on deaf ears.