You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: My Response to dantheman's downvoting campaign against me
The whole idea of Steem is to make people to decide who earns and who doesn't. I would definitely consider to leave if I didn't like the idea.
You purposefully ignore that dan/theman can singularly decide who earns and who does not. He obviously believes that it is his prerogative, but he is not a typical member of the community. His vests were largely free because of insider mining and free coins from steemit, which they obtaind from a well-documented questionable relaunch. He has control over the protocol by being the lead dev and controlling the witness list with his massive votes and influence over other massively free-vested team members like yourself. It makes him (and you) different from other whales, and he should not involve himself this way.
No "investor" wants a monarch at the helm of a decentralized asset, and that is precisely what dan/theman makes himself.
I mostly agree with what you wrote except I think you take it a bit too far. I'd note that Ethereum likewise effectively has a monarch at the helm, as do some other crypto projects, and quite a few investors seem okay with that.
The difference seems to be that in most cases these other monarchs exercise their special "monarch" powers rarely and only under exceptional circumstances, while Dan apparently wants to pretend to be a "regular user" when it suits him (and this on a fairly regular basis), not recognizing that he can never be such and his actions always carry the added power and responsibility of his unique role.
Steem/it would be far better off if he, and other Steemit founders and key team members with a similarly special role, simply never voted outside of extraordinary circumstances (malfunction, hack, etc.). There are probably 50 or so large stakeholders (whales) along with a few thousand other moderately active users. If the system can't function on the basis of those other large and small stakeholders making the day-to-day decisions on things like rewards, downvoting of abuse, and choice of witnesses without Dan (and his team) showing up regularly to "fix it" with their voting power, then it is seriously busted.
At a minimum, we can never know if the decentralized incentives-based model actually works at all without papa Dan and the team directing it on a centralized top-down basis unless they sit firmly on their hands and decline to routinely involve themselves in it.
EDIT: @wingz (nesting) "pushing the boat" is what we call development. If the system needs improvements, that is where they can be made in a manner that actually matters and is an appropriate role for a founder and lead developer. Whether or not @ozchartart's posts are of high quality or not, and whether or not @ozchartart is more or less worthy than someone else of occupying the #1 earning author slot is not pushing the boat, nor is it even steering the ship, it is mopping the floor of deck 3. There's are deckhands for that, or at least there should be. If not, then the problem is not that the captain didn't go mop, it is that the ship is not properly crewed or led.
Ok, I can pretty clearly see your position. I guess what you're saying is an excessive focus on the micro rather than the macro.
In that case a better communication with the users would be preferable... alongside a separate account to provide 'guidance' and 'take polls'.
You make a good point.
Decentralization will work in the long run, but with all the development required... there needs to be someone at the helm steering the ship. Dan will lose power over time along with all the largest stakeholders.
I can understand the decentralized 'utopia' that is expected of crypto, but at the end of the day someone needs to push the boat in the right direction or else this just turns into a tragedy of the commons.
Statements like this one are the reason I do not trust you or your motives.