Steem: A Cult of Personality
So, when I first joined Steem, something very peculiar leaped out at me--something very particular to this blog/response platform that I have never seen on any similar venues where users are openly sharing content: there are no influential sceptics!! I looked far and wide, and could find no serious critique of Steem, neither as an investment or as a platform that managed more than a few Steem Dollars in rewards. Then it hit me...the little light in my brain turned fully bright and illuminated:
People are not being critical, because being critical doesn't get rewarded like spouting the unquestionable virtues and life-changing power of Steem does. And it all makes sense... As many know, the vast majority of Steem Power is owned by a very small minority--the founders/early adopters. i.e. "whales"--of Steem users. This is problematic for several reasons, but the largest of these problems has to do with the self-serving nature of the whales' platform design/activity. The more people that are interested in Steem-the-platform, the more people will naturally be inclined to purchase STEEM. It is therefore beneficial for the whales to censor any and all content that detracts from that goal. This means that users will naturally generate content that "pleases" the masters, resulting in an ugly skew of content towards this small groups' interests.
This is effectively a Cult of Personality, but not in the traditional definition of the phrase. It is a Cult of a Certain Personality that is the only acceptable personality and the only personality allowed (to be meaningfully) rewarded.
Simple conclusion and honest analysis: voices of reason and criticism should never be oppressed simply because it does not benefit a small minority's interests.
To the whales, the more this platform gets skewed towards your personal likes and interests, the less and less the content will reach out to appeal to a greater audience--in the end, you are screwing yourselves.
If you see a lot of shite being Upvoted and trending, it's not just whales making that happen. One of the problems on Steemit is how people (including minnows) are voting for what they think will do well, rather than what they like.
Yes, if the "reward" system is rewarding those most that reward others most...kind of a self-fulfilling ponzi.
I have upvoted your story because I strongly believe your point is a valid one , but I only agree with your perspective up to a certain 'point'. Certainly it is imperative in these early stages to talk about potential elephants in the room.
To elaborate, I believe that founders, innovators and early adopters should rightfully stand to gain the most. Why? Because they have taken the highest risks, investments of time, energy, money and personal belief in their services/products. Getting from Zero to One, as Peter Thiel puts it, is a huge undertaking.
However, 'nature' or natural principles have a potent and powerful preventative law from allowing such innovators to truly dictate and/or control the eventual direction of the platform, and tha tis the Law of Diffusion and Innovation, or the Bell Curve.
Research shows (search on Simon Sinek for example) that innovators usually account for the first 2.5% of overall platform. Early adopters (stage we are at now I believe) account for the next 13.5%.
However, the Tipping Point is normally only reached at the 15-18% stage when the first rush, or early "majority" (34%) join the platform. This will never occur unless founder beliefs align and resonate with Majority (general public) beliefs.
I don't believe it is so much "How" or "What" Steemit does at this stage, but WHY it is doing it at all. The "Hows" and "Whats" can be ironed out as the system grows and develops, but unless the basic "Why" for it's existence in the first place resonates with enough people, and more especially, their core belief systems...
To sum up, if I don't believe what the rest of the fish believe.. that we all live, breath, and swim in the same water... sooner or later, I'm gonna find me some air.
Manipulation, conscious or otherwise, has the potential to destroy this platform before the foundations even set, and in that sense I totally agree with you, but I do not credit the founders necessarily with the amount of power or control you suggest they may have if they ever wish to see Steemit succeed.
Founders, developers and early adopters (of which, we should still be considered, IMO) certainly should be rewarded, but let us consider the ratios our masters have dictated... They got hundreds of millions in USD terms for starting the platform (some for just being around at the time)...and their investment will continue to grow without them doing much other than simply upvoting stuff they prefer (or even more nefariously, gaming the upvote system by upvoting sock puppet accounts they own).
55K users keeps us in "Innovator" land, IMO. Even as a % of target user base, 55K is miniscule. (Think about it, I have 33K followers on StockTwits, which has 1M+ users.)
When whales have the ability to determine what is "popular" or not simply with the power of their vote, and others "follow" whales' thinking, voting for the "best," i.e. highest rewarded, i.e. blessed by the gods, posts, giving even more default weight the whales' voting power, then it is no longer the voice of the majority that matters. (Which, BTW, I have seen "popular" posts with only a couple "pennies" because of no "influential" votes--which results in it slowly fading down the list of trending posts.)
Totally agree with your points. What is the solution? I suggest we will always need gatekeepers to inform us of "good" versus "bad" content, whether we call these people "whales" or whatever doesn't matter. Each tribe develops it's own language.
The potential for these gatekeepers to game the system for their own advantage will be ever present. Again, what is the solution?
I believe the solution is the market itself. The majority I spoke of is not the majority on the platform presently - I agree 55K is only stage one - but the millions envisaged as joining in the future.
Are these potential contributors/creators/curators/consumers going to be attracted to a platfrom they perceive from the outset as biased and dictatorial? I doubt it.
I truly believe that unless Steemit founders get their "Why" right pretty soon, and that this will align with the belief systems of the "majority" yet to join the platform, lots of whales, dolphins and minnows are going to be left floundering when the tide goes out.
If they get it right, great things can happen here. As Uncle Ben siad to Peter Parker "With great power comes great responsibility". Give the whales a chance, haha!
Congratulations @syntecventures! You have received a personal award!
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
Congratulations @syntecventures! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!