(IJCH) Robin Hood? Complete Overhaul? Or Begin with a few Small Tweaks for Steemit Instead?

(IJCH) Robin Hood? Complete Overhaul? Or Begin with a few Small Tweaks for Steemit Instead?

IJCH - Inside JaiChai's Head (meaning: My warped, personal opinions and musings.)

From the Author

Salutations.

I am JaiChai.

And if I haven't had the pleasure to make your acquaintance, it's always nice to meet a fellow Steemian.

I read this excellent post by @kafkanarchy84:

https://steemit.com/economics/@kafkanarchy84/the-moment-steemit-abandons-sound-economic-principle-steemit-is-dead-observations-of-a-grumpy-anarcho-capitalist

@kafkanarchy84's article prompted me to reply wih this comment:

@kafkanarchy84,

Enjoyed your post immensely.

Salutations, my friend! JaiChai here.

Hope you and yours are well and loving life today.

RE: Your Post

As a very new Steemian of only three months, I have noticed that the Steemit platform is going through the normal growing pains of any cryptocurrency and community.

Newcomers pray to God that they haven't missed the train. Unrealistically, many of them beleive that they should enjoy the same rewards as early adopters.

Bitcoin has a long history of this. I started buying it when it was well below $500 and have seen thousands of remorseful complainers along the way.

Today's newcomers to cryptocurrency aren't afflicted by that corrosive entitlement mentality. They don't complain about the current price.

They accept it as it is without trying to get more by lobbying to take from the early adopters.

Sooner or later, when any necessary, but painful growth comes about, early adopters start longing for the nostalgia of "the good 'ole days" and immediately start making whale waves.

Think Win/Win or No Deal

Robbing from the rich to give to the poor is stupid on so many levels.

It creates an unhealthy dependence between benefactor and recipient.

The benefactor ends up making demands or quickly becomes disillusioned by the steadily growing ungratefulness manifesting in the masses of their recipients.

The ignorant benefactor obviously hasn't been introduced (or simply ignores) this old Asian maxim: "Once a Favor, Twice a Duty".

And the recipients start bolstering their entitlement mentality.

This scenario always ends ugly.

Teach a Man to Fish...

What happens when someone with a "poor man's mindset" gets a windfall?

He spends it like a poor man.

He buys things and friends, puts on a lavish shindig, and is soon begging those same buddies (who are very hard to find by now) for a couple of bucks to eat.

Granted, there are many poor people without the "poor man's" mindset and have the willpower to invest in themselves, but the vast majority endup like the people who win the lottery and eventually become poor again.

Annuities are not one-time windfalls and tend to be managed far better.

This is what I see everyday in my little corner of Asia.

For me, it's always win/win or no deal.

We can amicably agree to disagree and walk away from the table - still respecting each other, still friends.

Longheld Print Media Standards

As a freelance writer for many years, I know that words per submission is a big deal.

In some cases, the publisher requires a minimum. In others, a max cap is enforced.

It all depends on its target market's aptitude and preferences.

Let it Be Written, Let it be Done

I haven't written a good program for quite awhile now.

Since blockchains can be coded in several different programming languages - but mostly in C++ (David Schwartz's favorite), Javascript, Python and now Solidity, I just might dust off some brain cells and come out of coding retirement.

I'm pretty sure the below suggestions could easily be implemented by just a few if/then lines of code.

Suggestion #1: Increase "Author Only" Reward Time Commensurate to words per article.

The majority (89%) of adult readers read at a rate of around 200 wpm with a typical comprehension of 60%.

The top 1% can reach 1,000 wpm with 85% comprehension - a truly phenomenal feat, indeed.

Consequently, it should take the average adult reader at least five minutes to read 1,000 words.

Note: The written English bias is at play here. The majority of reading rate tests were in English and for native English-speaking readers.

Why not add that time to the currently allotted "author only" rewards time?

A side benefit is that this extension of author only reward time may actually decrease the growing trend of "vote now, read later - maybe" instances.

Suggestion #2: Revise Author Self-Upvoting Scale to Incentivize Minnows

Give minnows more power (a standard increase in their power over and above the sum total of earned + delegated) just for upvoting their own posts they have created.

Of course, the choice to upvote their own material is purely voluntary.

Upvoting other's posts should remain as is.

Suggestion #3: A Decreasing Scale until Shark Status.

The higher the reputation, the less rewards for self-upvoting; culminating at the attainment of shark level.

I don't advise taking anything away from a whale's present self-upvote power as it stands now.

But I do believe a maximum reward limit on self-upvotes should be set - USING THE HIGHEST SELF-UPVOTE OF TODAY AS THE MAX.

Everyone should reap the rewards they have rightfully earned.

But seriously?

Making over 1000x more for self-upvoting compared to those same people we have wooed into the community (for everyone's benefit) is insane!

Besides, when less than a handful of upvotes garners hundreds of dollars, it is quite obvious what is happening - especially when it takes mere seconds to view the entire post (and still end up scratching your head, saying "WTF?").

In the end, it is also self-defeating.

Most community wounds are self-inflicted.

The way things are now, it appears that some Steemians are eating their own young.

The Issue over Bots

I understand that bots were implemented to supposedly help minnows, but possess a dark, gaming side too.

Again, why not have all bots voting rewards be set to the length of an article.

It's not the best measure of quality, but it's a start. And maybe tiny shit-posts will begin disappearing.

I was drawn to Steemit with a belief that qualiy content would be rewarded accordingly.

If You Can't Measure It, You Can't Manage It

Unfortunately, "quality" is a subjective term and not easily quantified, nor simple to operationally define (think of the medical community's subjective self-rating for pain).

I am not volunteering to construct such a scale. I have neither the time, skills or inclination to conquer that beast.

I'm merely pointing out that when it comes to judging anything, it's always "Different Strokes for Different Folks".

But everyone must agree (to some degree) that:

Content should be rewarded for its quality as perceived by Steemian cohorts - not solely by the author's own upvote, his upvote bots or his influence to buy votes (akin to having many friends only when you got party money).

Photography and Poems

Full Disclosure: I am not a photographer or poet. But I enjoy anything that evokes thought and emotion. And I gladly upvote any photograph and poem that moves me.

Of course, photographers will have to add at least a couple sentences or maybe a paragraph to enjoy a longer "author only" reward time.

Poets will have to add a little blurb why they wrote the poem; or a the very minimum, explain what their own, original poem is intended to convey (supposed to mean to their readers).

If I happen to think of more suggestions, I surely will submit them for community-wide review.

Upvoted and continuing to follow you, amigo.

Namaste,

JaiChai

Many thanks for reading my post. And if you enjoyed it, please: Upvote, Follow, Comment and Resteem.

- JaiChai "My mind was a terrible thing to waste..."

About the Author

JaiChai has been in the Disruptive Technology, Computer Science and Cryptocurrency spaces for many years. He is an enigma, regarded by his cohorts as sarcastic, funny, intuitive, but most of all - elusive. He’s known for randomly submitting philosophical and contrarian posts on most forums.

JaiChai alternates long dormant periods with concentrated episodes of frenzied commentary - only to go silent again.

When asked about his vanishing acts, he says, "I’m just somebody who enjoys being nobody because I look like everybody. Besides, time checking things off my 'bucket list’ - sans notoriety - is time well spent.”

Parting Shot -

Alright Homer, stay focused on the donut and repeat after me, "I want that upvote, I need that upvote..."