RE: Announcement: Charlie Shrem Advisor to Steem and Witness Proposal
chitty approve witness charlieshrem
kushed approve witness charlieshrem
dan approve witness charlieshrem
dantheman approve witness charlieshrem
complexring approve witness charlieshrem
blocktrades approve witness charlieshrem
jesta approve witness charlieshrem
smooth approve witness charlieshrem
jamesc approve witness charlieshrem
marketingmonk approve witness charlieshrem
val-a approve witness charlieshrem
steemed approve witness charlieshrem
instructor2121 approve witness charlieshrem
tatianamoroz approve witness charlieshrem
ned approve witness charlieshrem
steemit2 vest 10,376 STEEM to charlieshrem
garethnelsonuk approve witness charlieshrem
If anyone read my last post about how your witness vote does not matter, I will now show you a prime example of how Steemit, Inc can control the witness list. Before announcing his candidacy as a witness, @charlieshrem received the above votes.
Notable employees include:
@dan @dantheman @ned @val-a @jamesc
@jamesc currently votes for one, and only one, witness.
This was enough to place him at number 21 on the witness list. Within a matter of hours (minutes?).
EDIT: The following appears to be un-related. See below.
It is also possible (although not necessarily related) that others users are collaborating to push people off the list, in order to place him in a Top 19 position.
complexring unapprove witness clayop
kushed unapprove witness clayop
berniesanders unapprove witness clayop
@clayop was removed from the top 19.
Do you believe me yet? Your vote does not matter. Steemit, Inc. controls the witness list.
Good job on your posts ! They are important.
To clarify, I approached people individually and simply asked for their vote. Some said yes and some said no. I've been working on this witness for 2 days and wanted to make sure it worked before I made a witness proposal. Some voted before I did make the post though. I hope this clarifies!
I was asked directly earlier in the day for a vote, and now I'm assuming many other people were too. To be completely candid, I didn't expect him to jump this far this fast. I expected him to end up in the 30-50 range and just slowly accumulate SP much like the other backup witnesses do (and I did for a long time).
For me - charlie is someone outside of the existing "groups" that exist on steemit today, much like myself. I joined steemit of my own accord, then started doing and working on things. I saw him do this as well, with his posts and the projects he's put effort into so far.
I kind of feel for @charlieshrem... this whole situation could have totally been the same, except with my account as the focal point. So I'll just close out by saying if we're going to highlight an issue, it's the voting, and not charlie himself.
My 2 cents.
I agree! My post was not about Charlie.
@jesta
Part of the problem is that people want to believe that that Steemit is rather decentralised or anarchic. They are dissapointed ideolically.
Steemit has nothing to do with anarchy or decentralisation so far. We need to accept this. Steemit is a free market capitalism scheme, based on inherited plurocracy.
Plutocratic and free market are contradictory. When you have power to vote and influence, because you hold a stake in a company, it (eventually) motivates more wise direction by those with more influence. It is not always the case but eventually there is a scandal and afterwards consolidation.
Meritocracy is based on having influence indexed by your 'skin in the game', if you direct the group into a dead end, then as the biggest holder, you make the biggest loss.
well loki, I like what you wrote and my addition is this:
Our actions show what we think of Steemit. We are here. We post or reply often. It means we think it is something worth our most valuable resource.
"meritocracy" is a fancy way to hide ingroup preference and all types of bias; why there were/are less black men in silicon valley and wall-street. This isn't a comment regarding Steemit. I just don't like the cultural meritocracy revolution. Same shit, new names.
You know, you know where you can go if you prefer the social networks where hidden, non participating users completely regulate the agenda of discussion, social networks that still haven't got a working business model that yields actual profits (You do realise that Twitter and Facebook still haven't turned a profit, right?).
The bad behaviour of big stakeholders is bad for the network as a whole, but it is worse for them than anyone else, in terms of the result in their portfolio. I have an idea this is why regular stock markets include 'Preferred' stocks, where people can hold a stake without having any influence in the democracy within the system - they simply may not want to. In the case of this system, the reason for such a variant not having voting power but getting bigger yields is visible: Unlike in a corporation, voting provides yields to those who get the votes for their ideas. If you don't want to vote, you get no benefit of having a say but no benefit in exchange.
It is a recent change, you can now, yourself, disable your voting power. But it does not take your voting power's monetary value out of the equation. It should come back to your share in part as a dividend. I see several big stakeholders who seem to me to be unhappy about having to be active voters to gain a benefit, they hate the constant seeking of their attention and the attention seeking behaviour in general. Their share of vote rewards does not return to them unless they vote, in the form of curation rewards. I think it should be possible to own a stock in Steem without granting vote power.
Group preference is a natural outcome of a group, as all individuals have preference and as a total there is a tendency for the group towards certain things. As I say, if you don't like it, build your own, go somewhere else where there isn't a monetary impact of human behaviour. The developers of Steem are working to liberalise the rewards for participation more outside of vote power allocation based on share, but you can't just do something and then say it's solved without monitoring and adapting it to the result.
I think that even in the 2 months I have been here, there has been significant changes in the way people are behaving because of the changes in incentive that have been made. It is definitely a better place now than then, and the devs don't rest, they keep monitoring, reading people's ideas, and the best ones have a way of bubbling up to the surface and becoming clear imperatives.
Besides, the only thing the Whales have in common is a big stake in the success of Steem. This is not a criteria that leads to nepotism. That can only come from privilege granting from a top-down hierarchic arrangement. Here, you can jump in at the top if you slap down enough cash. Maybe you think that disadvantages you because - like me - you don't have a lot of cash. But over time, having good ideas can prove to be more powerful anyway. I started with nothing, and from good ideas I have built up my power to influence, and anyone can do this if they are determined and have good ideas.
@l0k1
Nop. You can inherit money and still operate on free market. most of the world functions like that. Money is power. You do whatever the fuck you want if you have them and it is pretty much "free market".
Money = power as does voting = rights so a free market can only exist to those whom maintain the network and whom hold its value within the network. A community is going to have disagreements but should always maintain the data allowing time to tell. Personally, all of yall are heroes in my book! Rock on~!
Idealists; the perpetually disappointed
Nice turn of phrase there @radioactivities ;)
You took the steps and you seem know the best way!
I can tell you that the reason I voted for @charlieshrem is that he PMed me (specifically, at 2000 GMT) and asked me to (and after considering the request, I decided it was a good idea). I was not contacted by the Steemit team nor was my vote coordinated with their votes in any way. I can't speak for any of the other voters.
I voted because I noticed him posting a link in the telegram chat, and I had been meaning to actually make a vote for it, at some point...
Yo charlie, for me as an investor the biggest thing holding me back right now is this: How will video/photo uploading be worked out ? - Can we decentralized this ? - ipfs? - sharding? can we do this asap?