You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Consensus exists only in equalitarian groups, where everybody has the same rights to express their will by influence and be influenced by all the others
While I agree with what you are saying here and you KNOW I GET IT, as I've been shouting this for 7-8 months myself, I need to play Devil's Advocate here. I've done this enough time I know what the opposition's points are going to be.
- This is not an economy. It is more like a company where you own shares which you buy, or are awarded through your actions. In companies not all votes are equal.
Essentially that will be the most likely response you receive.
I am not for forcefully redistributing wealth in this system. That too is bad.
I wouldn't mind seeing a way that votes were equal, but the ability to award certain amounts was still somehow tied to your steem power.
This makes steem power attractive to accumulate, and it does help with the long term investment in the platform.
EDIT: Basically... incentive for accumulating steem power is a good thing.
I have wanted to get in better contact with you, can you contact me at [email protected]? Thanks.
Everyone keeps the STEEM they have. It's equal to vote and reward based on global delegation of power.
If all votes are equal, then how does one award more for having steempower? The votes aren't equal then, right? That negates the point of having everyone have an equal influence to affect the valuation of other content.
Yeah, accumulate SP right now is only to control who gets what rewards. So those who have the power decide who gets what, not the community, not like social networking sites work in general. This isn't social networking site per se, but stake controlled site for social media to decide who gets more or less visibility and rewards. Like the Digg fiasco.
I see investing like a corp. You invest because you evaluated the company and see promise in the stock going up, so when the company succeed you make money.
If SP isn't used to control rewards on the system, is there a point in it? Are we stuck with this because thats the reason to get people to power up so they can be part of that control? And the community will never decide for itself who gets rewarded, but it's always those who have the wealth power?
The SP as I saw it in global delegation where people have equal influence on each other, would be to allocate curation based on the SP you have.
Thanks!
+1 for devil's advocate, someone's got to do it! 😅
I suggested a reduction in relative power. Seems reasonable, would you agree?
I'm interested to see how these new curves work out. Though at this point, let's try anything. If it fails, backup, learn from it, and try something else.
Instead what we have now is people making assumptions about the results of experiments (in positive or negative outcome) without bothering to actually put it to the test and prove/disprove that.
Very true. I guess the problem is that there is "real money" at stake. But yes we're still in beta! We should experiment, and really this is happening, HF17 is coming very soon. I think there'll be a lot of interest in HF18 but we should see how the changes work out.
The biggest problem with the Hard forks is the amount of changes that come in each one. It can be difficult to correlate what thing caused what if there are too many. So we may have to wade through some of that.
While we are in beta I'd be interested in more frequent, but smaller forks so we can see specific impact from specific changes.
This is the best way to iterate changes to come to the optimal solution. Its how I set up optimization of an enzymes reaction conditions. Changing too many parameters at once makes it impossible to identify the root causative change agent.
Agree ⬆️