Ditching the Socialist Approach on Steemit - Make Steemit a Genuine Free Market or Watch it Fail

in #steemit7 years ago

200_s-does.jpg

I've been holding off on proposing a solution to the problems the platform is facing in this beta stage - acquiring what intel I could from others first.

I've arrived at what I feel is the only valid solution to Steemit's current underlying problem and I'd like to share it with you all in the hopes it can either help inspire someone to come up with something better or work as a standalone tactic.

Obviously, I'm no expert; just a concerned Steemian who sees where things are headed.

I'll go down with the ship if I have to, but I'm definitely not the captain. :)


The Problem

I won't sugarcoat this.

A good number of the highest earners or "whales" on this platform have taken to spamming the system and using their relative influence (reputation score and SP) to claim most of the available rewards for themselves by upvoting their own content.

I don't blame them.

That shouldn't be an option in the first place, but seeing as it is for some reason, they're just doing what makes sense (and money).

Jerry Banfield pointed this out (which is weird since he often does the same thing) and it's more than a small issue. It's a threat to the entire platform.

As long as a select few top earners keep using massive leverage to claim most of the rewards, the divide between them and everyone else will only increase.

I know hard-working, creative, successful people deserve their success when they make it to the top and I don't fault them for being successful. The fault lies in the way the system is set up to enable such lopsided rewarding of a select few - effectively keeping most newcomers permanently in the shadows regardless of how much effort they themselves put in.

Most of us aren't exactly strangers to rigged systems. In fact, we've come to know them all too well.

The rewards pool is a socialist idea at its root and makes all of this a bit trickier to deal with as it is a fundamental aspect of how the blockchain functions.

But I might have a simple solution...


My Proposed "Fix"

I've highlighted the word "fix" in quotations because the flaw in question ought not to have existed at all.

It is the very leverage the "whales" are abusing that shouldn't even exist in the first place.

Eliminate it.

376311-does.jpg

Reputation should mean nothing on a system level. Innovation, quality and creativity reign supreme.

Let readers decide who and what they like most, not the system itself.

Without increased weight on the platform due to reputation or hoarded steem, high-flying users who've been here much longer than us newer arrivals cannot continue to game the system with bad content (in some cases hardly any "content" at all) that they themselves delegate more than half of the rewards pool to.

They'll have to resort to bribery, nefarious bot mastery or some other ploy to stay on top without actually offering any value.

Those who actually DO consistently deliver valuable content will continue to see success here and loads of newcomers with enough drive and persistence to keep improving their own content will too.

No need for downvotes, crusades, etc. A truly fair competition for all.

TLDR: Level the playing field by removing reputation score and SP leverage across the board. Make content king again.


Another good idea I've come across:

A "village" concept put forth by @clayop. Read all about it here


Message to the Newcomers and "Minnows"

Please feel free to join the discussion below or post your own fixes. Steemit aims to offer everyone a chance at helping it forward, so don't be shy.

It'll take all of us proposing and making changes if we're to make this platform last longer than a grass fire. :)


Sort:  

I didn't see a solution here at all. Remove SP and Reputation? And then what? Who decides where newly created STEEM goes? How do you prevent Sybil attacks?

The rewards pool is a socialist idea at its root and makes all of this a bit trickier to deal with as it is a fundamental aspect of how the blockchain functions.

Can you explain how it's "socialist"? Bitcoin creates new currency all the time and it goes to those who invest the most in mining rigs. Here, on Steemit, it goes to those who have the most influence and have invested the most money in Steem Power to direct rewards as they see fit. How is that, "socialist"?

Sorry, I can't upvote this because I don't even understand what you're saying.

"Bitcoin creates new currency all the time and it goes to those who invest the most in mining rigs. " but Bitcoin is not fooling people into writing articles which goes un-noticed and later get recycled by so called "whales" to get all the upvotes and money while so called "Minnows" end-up with nothing but half a vote and ass-kissing.

Exactly, Bitcoin rewards MINERS with additional tokens for helping sustain the currency. It does not reward those who buy Bitcoin and hold it in the same way.

Holders (or HODLERS lol) see a reward by selling their tokens when the purchasing power of the coin grows, they don't just get free tokens by delegating them to themselves and their friends all the time.

I didn't see a solution here at all. Remove SP and Reputation? And then what? Who decides where newly created STEEM goes?

Everyone does, without lopsided weighted voting (which anyone in their right mind would direct at themselves).

Even voting. Even playing field. Simple idea.

How do you prevent Sybil attacks?

No idea. I did not address such an issue because I have no idea how to address such an issue. There are many others here with better know-how on things like that. I'm simply putting forth an option to correct the current lopsided nature of the platform in favor of those who have been here longer.

Bitcoin creates new currency all the time and it goes to those who invest the most in mining rigs. Here, on Steemit, it goes to those who have the most influence and have invested the most money in Steem Power to direct rewards as they see fit. How is that, "socialist"?

You got me there. That sounds outright communist does it not? "Directing" rewards as they "see fit" can mean pretty much anything those at the top want it to mean.

Bitcoin rewards go to those who outright mine them, not those who have held Bitcoin for a while. Different concept for the most part.

Sorry, I can't upvote this because I don't even understand what you're saying.

I never asked for an upvote and what I'm saying is quite clear; no need to feign bewilderment. :)

No, it is not clear to me. I'm not feigning anything. I asked you about Sybil attacks which is one of the main reasons Steemit is structured the way it is. Go read the white paper (even though it is a bit out dated).

I get frustrated at all the "Hey, I have an idea how to fix things!" posts I see from new accounts who frankly don't know what they are talking about.

Even voting. Even playing field. Simple idea.

It's not that simple at all. It doesn't work. It can't work. Read the white paper and you'll understand why.

(which anyone in their right mind would direct at themselves).

Except they don't. Have you looked at the reports of how much of the rewards pool is going to self-voting compared to normal voting? It's not the epidemic people want to believe it is. The simple fact is those who invest time and money into Steemit to build up their following and Steem Power do well here. Those who don't do not. Those who excessively self-vote or abuse the rewards pool lose followers and voters. It's a dynamic social economy.

There's nothing "socialist" about investors buying Steem and making a profit off of that investment through their curation rewards. The main designer of this system, Dan Larimer, was an Anarcho Capitalist! That's about as far from socialist as you can get!

Bah. I need to go to bed. I've only been here a year, and I already feel old and crotchety yelling at young whippersnapper to get off my lawn.

Sorry if my frustration is being unfairly directed at you.

"I get frustrated at all the "Hey, I have an idea how to fix things!" posts I see from new accounts who frankly don't know what they are talking about."
Lmao are you claming that you know everything but new users are fools?

Yes, that seems to be the implication of his comment. Obviously, I don't agree with his stance. We have every reason to voice frustrations if we'd like to.

At least we want to fix things as opposed to just getting up and leaving.

Loading...

Self-voters include the pay4vote bots that get paid cash for upvoting content, draining the pool for their benefit. They upvote anything as long as you pay, even crap. They are exclusive self-voters and have the most followers.

Delving into the history of the platform, I realize now that its current issues were created by design in the first place.

It is definitely not decentralized or utopian by any stretch of the imagination.

I urge anyone who doesn't understand what's going on here to do some research on steemit being a scam.

There's a reason this post was met with such "frustration" from those with high stake in the platform - they know exactly what's going on - which is why they want people to dump money into this instead of doing what the platform claims to be designed for (earning rewards by creating, sharing and curating great content).

While I have strongly advocated for equal VP, I have even more strongly advocated for weighting VP with reputation, after removing the ability to game reputation with self votes.

It would still be gamable with botnets and sockpuppets, but still largely represents community vetting, which is a lot better than SP.

I reckon some changes to the reputation system could go a long ways towards making Steemit far more equitable to quality content creators, and less so towards profiteers.

Certainly reputation can be abused now. One only has to look at @berniesanders to see just how abused reputation can be! While there are many that feel his flagging deep into negative reputation was more than deserved, I do not feel that two wrongs make a right.

I also feel that we should be able to uncensor posts from those with flagging reputation decreases, just as we can for NSFW posts.

The fact is that Steemit may have decentralized servers, but power to censor, and reward, is highly concentrated, through VP weighting.

Thanks for bringing your post to my attention.

Hi, thanks for checking this out and contributing such thoughtful comments.

I completely agree, of course, despite the not-so-helpful comments of surfyogi and lukestokes (who are both very obviously doing the things I highlighted as being a problem).

We'll see if Steemit stands a chance at correcting itself. The likes of Lukestokes and Surfyogi need to realize they are fighting for a nickel today while missing out on a dollar tomorrow.

Allowing this platform to actually grow in widespread appeal for the reasons it is intended to would lift the value of Steem tremendously - making them very wealthy.

They'd no longer feel obliged to protect their pathetic $100 per day in self-upvotes lol.

Deep in my backlog of posts are a few that deal with this issue. If you find time, you might have a look. One of them points out that if Steem reaches but 1% of BTC, now about $4k, buying Steem at $1 would net 4000% capital gains.

However, given Steemit's beta status, it's risky. However, that's why investors rake risks, in order to gain better returns.

I'll dig into your posts then. Thanks for letting me know!

Yep, the potential is huge. I doubt they care though lol.

Interesting post. May your success always accompany you in steemit development.

Hi, thanks for reading! Best wishes to you as well.

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by Odd Nugget from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

it looks like, with removing reputation and SP you propose to make all votes equal?

Yes, that's what I thought could help with the problem. What do you think?

I think @lukestokes is being very patient with you.
This is not a new conversation, even if it's a new subject for yourself...

You have a lot of opinions, for someone that is not interested in either investing your own money, or really investing your time into growing your image and personality on steemit.

I've invested plenty of both, and you can be damn sure I'm watching daily, learning and growing, participating and working hard to form my opinions after much consideration and reading of all the docs available, and reading the most knowledgeable posters whom understand the system the best.

You mention Jerry and his views, much of which I think are hard not to agree with. He is an example of someone that has very much invested his time and energy and money on steemit. So I would tend to listen to his opinions more than most others...

I wish I had the answers to the frustrations you voice. That Jerry voices. I have not read the new white paper yet, and I look forward to seeing the blue paper sometime in next 30 days I assume.

Keep in mind there is much in the wings, that has not been announced, and thus, Steemit is changing much faster than we realize.

I think @lukestokes is being very patient with you.

I'm not sure why it falls on anyone to be "patient" with me. I put forth an idea, we're discussing it. Clearly what I say carries little weight anyway. Why are you both implying me stating and discussing an idea is the end of the world?

This is not a new conversation, even if it's a new subject for yourself...

It's also not a resolved conversation from what I can gather. Just chiming in.

You have a lot of opinions, for someone that is not interested in either investing your own money, or really investing your time into growing your image and personality on steemit.

This is a bit of a low blow actually. My introduction post shows how much money I have to invest in the platform at the moment.

As for investing my time, I've been active on the platform nearly every day since I joined - posting original content, stories and comments. I've been here about 2 months and have 677 posts total. No need for these types of comments as I'm sure you work hard at this too.

I wish I had the answers to the frustrations you voice.

I know. That's the main reason I made this post to begin with; discussion.

Keep in mind there is much in the wings, that has not been announced, and thus, Steemit is changing much faster than we realize.

If it hasn't been announced yet, I can't logically consider it for the time being. I hope to highlight some of the issues being faced by newcomers that are scaring many off to encourage them to stay and grow here. This is basically the only way that I can do that.

I really think all we can do is set the example.
If I am invested in every way possible, I'll see how I do, comment on the problems I see and participate in finding the solutions.

I would not feel very entitled to comment if I was not doing all the above..

Congratulations @oddnugget! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of comments

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

You describe the problem well, but I don't see the solution. Who will decide what post is valuable? If everybody gets the same vote, then people with more accounts will be able to abuse the system. Again you explain the problem well, but not the solution.

While equal VP would not solve all of the problems, it would solve a lot of them. Botnets and sockpuppets would still be problems. Vote buying, pandering to whales, circle jerks, would be over.

The present system also potentiates a successful Sybil attack making the 'flash miners' very rich. Some might suspect that consideration could have contributed to why Steem was designed as it was.

These matters have been discussed by me at length, with but cursory dismissals from @lukestokes, @timcliff, and various other witnesses and whales. Since these folks are profiting from the present system, it is unreasonable to expect them to want to make changes that would decrease their beneficial interest in Steemit.

What happens when Steemit begins to actually threaten Fakebook? Zuck buys the SP necessary to control the witness votes, and ends the threat. Those that hold substantial SP are who he'd have to buy it from, so why would those with substantial holdings want to change that?

Making VP equal ends that profit motive current whales have to potentiate a Sybil attack.

That's why it won't happen.

Edit : beneficial interest is a financial term, not an expression of feelings and concern.

Very true, but @david.prochnow has sourced a pretty impressive option for dealing with Sybil attacks (users using multiple accounts) effectively on a decentralized social network. The link below explains it in detail.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160418092652/http://virtualhost.cs.columbia.edu:80/~danr/courses/6772/Fall06/papers/sybil.pdf

Currently, users are able to do the same thing someone pulling a sybil attack would do by simply buying influence on the platform and delegating rewards to themselves. It's just so much easier for them right now and that's no good.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.29
TRX 0.12
JST 0.036
BTC 65930.92
ETH 3387.67
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.75