You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: In defence of fiction on Steemit
It theoretically is possible you’re correct. And I would love to see someone trying that approach so we could measure the difference. I though am convinced that it wouldn’t work. Maybe I’m wrong...
Why are you convinced that it wouldn't work?
If you wanted to give everyone the same power no matter what their contribution to the system is you would effectively create a communism-like ecosystem. If person A invested 100 units of any commodity into the system and another person would invest 0,01 unit of the commodity and they both would have the same power, the guy who invested 0,01 wouldn’t have ANYTHING to lose, while the guy who invested 100 could be in totally opposite situation. Now the guy with 0,01 couldn’t care less about the system (there is no part of his that would be at stake if the system was to collapse). With all previously stated facts the guy that has nothing to lose would have equal chances in gaining something from the system as the guy who has everything to lose. If this was the case there would be no one investing money into the system, when everyone who invests close to nothing could have pretty much the same gains. Communism doesn’t work outside of the virtual world and wouldn’t work even in the virtual one. People are selfish and egoistic and will always want more than someone else (and more so when they invested more) This is biological rule of the world…
Now, hang on, I was of the understanding that "communism" was about property being publicly owned and all that. Yet I thought we were talking about a hypothetical crypto where everyone has equal power.
(EDIT: When proofreading this reply, it dawned on me that I should clarify that when I say "equal power" I don't mean "equal spending power". Sorry for any confusion.)
If there's a model for investment where a person investing 0.01 would have the same power as the person investing 100... why bother investing 100? If they're doing it to gain some sort of power, they'd be investing in the wrong crypto. If, however, they're doing it simply because they want to hold more of a crypto they perceive as having value for whatever reason -- maybe they like the idea, or maybe they just don't want to miss out -- then how much power they get from having more of the crypto is irrelevant.
As for having the same gains... if the value of the crypto goes up from say 1 to 100... Does the person that invested 100 not get more out of it than the person that invested 0.01? They have equal power, not equal money. The 100 investor would now have 10,000 and the 0.01 investor would have 1. Sure they still have equal power, but the 100 investor is now a lot richer.
It's also prudent to consider that not everyone sees money as a means to power over others.... some just want it so they can carrying on having food and shelter. I myself wish I had been able to purchase bitcoin back in 2012. Not because I wanted some kind of power from it, but because I'd have a lot more money right now if I did.
I understand it may seem like an odd concept in a world where money regularly equals power and thus the two ideas are often conjoined. Especially on a platform where one of its currencies literally has "power" in the name. Even reading back my comment, I started to notice how this could become semantically confusing real quick (especially with no definition of what the power would be over in an "equal power" crypto). But I'm just not so convinced it's an absolute impossibility. Especially since far too many things came to pass recently that everyone claimed would "never happen".
But mostly because, as far as I know, there's no precedent for equal power amongst a sizeable population. We could speculate all day and propose an assortment of conclusions based a variety of factors, but true answers will only come from the outcome of a genuine attempt. Until then, I remain unconvinced of any outcome.
Anyway, thank you for sharing your perspective. I'm always curious what has people so strongly convinced of things... I guess because I'm rarely convinced of anything lol
you’re right that using communism as term wasn’t the best move. I understand communism as collective possession of...well everything that can be collectively possessed. Now let me explain why I used the term hopefully better then in my previous try. Every cryptocurrency is a token. It represents some kind of "proof of contribution" (in any form) and it also enables the owner to vote. Key element that should not be ignored is that this is all happening in VIRTUAL WORLD...now why is that so important?
It is virtually impossible to restrict any human from creating multiple accounts. All the "restricting moves" can basically be bypassed. There are really only handful of "tokenized rights" in any crypto. Those tokenized rights is your only "possession" in any given Blockchain.
Thus said, person A is naive and true believer in the system, Person B is version of Jihan that wants to destroy our imaginary crypto. Person A invests 100 XY. Person B creates 2 accounts and invests 0,1 on each. Person B now has voting majority and is now able to change the algorithm at will (only those aspects that are allowed by the algorithm in first place but still). His intentions are not to support the Blockchain but to destroy it (or try to game it for quick income that can be immediately sold and at that point the outcome of the Blockchain is irrelevant) and since he can invest just few XY and still maintain the control over the Blockchain (because let’s say he has created the best bot that creates accounts lol) there is really no point for any investor to invest in the Blockchain. Over time everyone would invest only few XY because they wouldn’t receive any tokenized rights for their investment. It wouldn’t even matter that you contributed hella lot to the Blockchain...still person B would be in rule no matter how hard you work for the system.
Now why this could happen to Steem if everyone had the same voting power.
Check the wealth of the accounts that are suggesting that everyone should be equal. They usually are no investors at all. Their only aim is to help themselves because at this stage there is nothing they can do with their strength of vote. It’s totally fine... Everyone is selfish and this is their way how to gain something...People are NOT equal (biological rule).
Don’t take me wrong. This is totally not about power OVER somebody. Money (its concept - better reflected in crypto-world) is tokenized work. It represents how well you contributed to the community that trades with you. Its power IN THE SYSTEM, not OVER OTHER USERS. Yes the power can be used to shut down some people, but it will most probably be for the good of the system from the point of view of the investor (the bigger investment the bigger likelihood of such an action). Those that would want the equal rights in Steem are bit like the person B I described above. Since everyone is selfish, there is no way that any bigger community would settle with "supreme collective possession". Sooner or later the "need to have more" syndrome will kick in...biological rule too.
Yes they do because as I explained earlier, from my point of view, the concept suggested by you ignores the "human nature". It’s like creating a system for the sake of the system and not caring about how their users are "pre-programmed".