You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: A call to separation of powers in Steemit

in #steemit4 years ago (edited)

Its a cool idea, but I'm going to buck the trend and disagree.

As you probably know - what you are asking for is very unlikely to happen. All the people that invested the most (time, resources, and/or money) at the very beginning are not going to just going to choose to all of a sudden stop using their influence on the site. Humans are humans for one, and plus they also have the most to loose if the judicial and executive authority took the site/community in a direction that was bad :)

Even if they would were super altruistic and would be willing to do this if they genuinely thought it was in the best interest of the community, it is highly unlikely they are going to think it is. From their perspective they have a vision for where they want Steem/Steemit to be. They are executing that vision, and they are going to see themselves as the best people to influence it to make their vision happen.

As much as it sucks for that small group to be holding all the power right now, this is in line with what is in the white-paper. They are the most heavily invested people right now, and have the most to loose if they site/community goes bad. It is their right as the highest SP holders to hold the most influence. There are ways (although slow and difficult) for others to take this influence away over time, and to some extent it is already (slowly) happening.

It will not necessarily always be this way. Steemit, Inc. and the early adopters currently hold all the power, but one day it may be the big corporations who bought the most SP. There will always be a group holding the most SP, and they will be the ones with the power. You may think that by relinquishing all their influence it will give rise to some genuinely altruistic community of friendly Steemians - but there is nothing saying a group you will dislike even more may fill that void.

Sort:  

I totally understand your point, however, from a professional point of view, this constitutes a conflict of interest.

Steemit inc has the full right to manage and promote the platform and its content in the traditional way, it should be enough to take it where they want it to be according to their vision. I don’t see a need for individuals related to Steemit inc to subjectively and directly interfere with votes and such.

Micromanaging is definitely not the way to go. It’s totally unprofessional. Micromanaging will not be possible when/if the number of users reaches millions. So the best solution is to manage it is through legislation and proper management and marketing.

My understanding of what they are trying to do is to build/groom a community of 'dolphins' that can ultimately take the place of the current power-house whales. I think part of their vision is to get to a place where they can step back and let the community run the ship, but they want to make sure they have the 'right' set of people in place to guide it.

I think everyone here agrees on the strategic objectives of this platform, and wish it success whether it’s the founders or the big stake holders or the community members. What I disagree on is the operational management.

I realize it is a loose analogy (because Steemit, Inc. does not actually own the Steem blockchain), but in a lot of ways this is essentially a start-up, with the Steem blockchain as the product. @dantheman, @ned, and their chosen crew are basically the founders. The witnesses (and whales) in a lot of ways are the 'chosen' upper management. With this analogy, you are basically asking the founders not to be involved with the decision of who their management team will be.

Where my analogy starts to break down a little more is when you get into voting on content. Here there is less of an argument to be made for the 'company' to care how its users are using the 'product'. I would still argue though that they do have a vested interest in seeing that the community discussions and reward pool are directed in a way that meets their interests, so I also don't think it is totally unreasonable for them to be involved in the voting process.

I’m afraid the extent to which Steemit inc individuals are interfering with the voting system is far beyond the reasonable limit. It might be considered mismanagement in legal terms.

I invite Steemit inc to conduct an independent and professional audit of their management practices in an effort to make things right. This kind of things are very important when it comes to investors’ decision. And could constitute a serious flaw that would for example impede any initial public offering.

Replying here due to the nesting level.

Out of curiosity, have they said why they have been downvoting you?

Some of the reasons were stated here.

Replying here due to nesting level.

Yeah, I guess where we differ in opinion is that I feel it is still within their right as heavily invested SP holders to influence how the reward pool is distributed. I agree it sucks though. If I was doing a series of posts that was getting paid a lot, and all of a sudden any whale started down-voting it to the point it didn't make much, I would be upset too.

If you look at the posts being flagged by this Steemit inc related individual for the claimed reason, you will find that 99.9999% are mine.

This is unjustifiable.

I think instead of singling me out and abusing power on me for some reason (I suspect some alter motives to be in play here), a more general solution can be found, using legislative power i.e. implementing some kind of rules in the blockchain related to the payouts. The rules would apply to everyone instead of using subjective discrimination.

Steemit, Inc. and the early adopters currently hold all the power, but one day it may be the big corporations who bought the most SP. There will always be a group holding the most SP, and they will be the ones with the power. You may think that by relinquishing all their influence it will give rise to some genuinely altruistic community of friendly Steemians - but there is nothing saying a group you will dislike even more may fill that void.

This exactly supports @masteryoda's point. Too much concentrated power is not a good thing regardless of who happens to hold it.

I'm not really arguing in favor of concentrated power. I am actually in favor of the opposite. I would like to see more SP in the hands of the "average user" and 'dolphins', and less in the hands of the original founders early adopters.

The way that we get there is important though. I am not in favor of the current power holders just voluntarily relinquishing their control and not using their power/influence.

I know it is a painstakingly slow process, but the way things are going we are at least moving in that direction. As more whales cash out portions of their stake, and more users cash in their rewards (both pushing the price down lower), other users will be able to accumulate more SP and move up the ranks. I know that's what I'm doing, but I certainly don't expect to have @dantheman or @ned's level of influence anytime soon! I don't know about you, but personally I think that's probably a good thing :)

[Edit] I certainly would be in favor of other ideas that move towards shifting power away from the select few, and into the hands of masses. One example that I am in favor of is the "curation guild" idea that they have been discussing - although we'll have to wait and see how it is actually implemented to be sure. I'm sure there are other good ideas too, that I could support. Asking the current holders of power to abstain from using their influence though does not seem the right way to do it (in my opinion).

I think the idea of motivating big SP holders to keep most of SP in "non-voting form" by providing higher interest rate, as it was described here https://steemit.com/steemit/@l0k1/steem-preferred-stocks-benefits-of-a-type-of-steem-power-that-does-not-confer-voting-power could do the trick

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.03
JST 0.022
BTC 17433.40
ETH 531.49
SBD 1.16