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
The white paper suggests there are good whales that counteract the bad whales, but that doesn't seem to happen.
Agree. The idea is that good whales will step in to protect their investment but doesn't seem to be happening unless I'm mistaken.
The problem has been identified and a solution (vote cancelation / negation) has been put forth to balance the system. The problem isn't that good whales won't set up, it is that some of the louder members of the community have convinced a large number of people that it will create more problems.
What is worse, many people consider the "good guys" to be the "bad guys" just because they happen to be founders. This in turn has lead to a demand that the founders remain "neutral" and ultimately that cedes power to others who step up to fill the power vacuums.
It is a pity that some (most?) think the founders should be neutral and not use their stake, presumably because "picking a side" is inherently bad for some reason. I think it doesn't stand up. It strikes me that one of the biggest problems with that is that you then have a substantial SP stake doing very little.
People begin to have a problem with power when it is perceived to be used against them. Really it does all come down to the misinterpretation of down votes, which unfortunately has to be laid at the feet of steemit.com
If the founders had used their stake more wisely people wouldn't ask them to be neutral.
Wasn't it the good whales that voted up the post in the first place?
The good whales voted up their own posts in the first place?
No, the post that got flagged because it was making too much. It was the good whales that made it worth something in the first place.
Yes, upvoting from the "good whales" counteracted the "bad whales" already.