RE: Who is Best Suited to Manage a Community and Make Decisions?
They still keep all their STEEM, and can keep earning more. It's about shifting from a primary focus of a corporate mindset, towards including more decentralization to empower the individuals who build the community and are the community (shareholders, and everyone included, but money doesn't make one have more power to decide things in the community). The investors invest to make money. Put the power to direct the community in the actual community's hands of everyone, not the concentrated power of 50 accounts. Steemit Inc is heading towards non-profit organization, that's away from purely corporate model. The community that builds Steemit.com needs that same shift, with the decentralization and community becoming the primary focus, not the corporate mindset.
Hi @krnel - thanks for your reply. How do you convince the whales to give up their voting power / influence, and along with that their curation rewards?
Why curation rewards? Where does that come in to need to remove them? Check this out:
https://steemit.com/witness-category/@fyrstikken/voting-power-to-the-people-and-curation-rewards-to-the-investors-please-bookmark-and-read-later-if-you-are-busy
Like I said, they still keep doing the same, but with fyrsts idea, I think it's better. They can still vote, its voluntary, buts its the best for platform. Negative incentive can be introduced to promote delegating power to community like picokernel posted about:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@picokernel/a-brief-note-on-community-building-and-the-role-of-government-interference
Sorry, as a developer I have a hard time translating these ideas into concrete changes. I'm not saying they are bad, I just can't completely wrap my head around what changes they actually are proposing.
Is the main idea behind @fyrstikken's suggestion that users could delegate their SP to another user but retain a portion or all of the curation rewards?
To resolve the imbalance in reawrds allocation being concnetrated int he hands of a few, delegate the power to the whole community that has certain metric met that indicate a real human to filter bots and users who haven't proved themselves yet. Then all votes have a global delegate key applied at the same time in addition to their own keys. Whales can also vote for posts on their own, but possibly with a negative incentive to avoid doing that and promote the power remain int he majority of the userbase. Curation from users goes to users for their SP applied, and then curation for whales go to them. If a globally divided curation pool for whales isn't acceptable, maybe delegate to several communities so that specific curation can go back to specific whales that delegate for those certain communities to curate.
Investors then would not have to do anything. They invest to grow their money. The user base would grow the money for them all equally like a real corporation dividends as well, since it would be a global curation pool for the global delegation key all users use.
Users who invest their time and develop the platform and community will be empowered with intrinsic motivation to be involved, as the voting power isn't concentrated, and this can apply to everything. This will create a decentralized empowered community that will self-direct and self-govern, not be directed by a small pool of power players. This is where things need to head for people to really want to be here. The power imbalance needs to be corrected and this idea allows investors to get what they want, money. Just because someone has more money/wealth/stocks, doesn't give them more power in human relations. To build community people want to run towards, make it empowered this way, Steemit will blow everything away!