voting -reward to writer model won't work and haven't worked.
What we learned from steemit experiment is we need capitalism not socialism. Payer should spend his own money when he pays someone money, otherwise, there is always abuse and anger.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Nothing about Dawn is socialist in nature. What is rewarded on our platform is greatness, which is difficult to achieve. We reward greatness weather or not people are willing to say publicly that a thing is great, you see, and that is the advantage of simply paying out by traffic: Lots of people like lots of stuff they don't want to admit to liking, publicly, forever on a blockchain.
Furthermore, if many people read an article is that not an indication of its high utility to society? If no-- then why are so many reading that article if they don't find it to be useful?
As for fees for moving tokens, I tend to agree with you. Not certain how our policies surrouning that will look yet, however. I'll let you know as soon as we are >75% certain.
This^ is the main competitive model to the shareholder vote model that STEEM will have to contend with someday, and people will definitely be all over the first mover in this space. All coins have a long ways to go before mass adoption, and STEEM is just a DOGE-sized market cap but with a pint-sized community that you could fit in a kennel. There are only a couple dozen people here with any real power which is obvious to everyone. But that was Dan's great accomplishment, crowdfunding STEEM without losing control to the community. This is the only reason why he can afford to straighten out the payout curve now. I'm glad he made enough money to afford to give power to the little people.
Current 'fixed reward pool for writer' model is collectivism since we should vote (spend money)on shitty post in other to gain some voting reward. Its like taxing on everyone and should spend that tax on posts even that post is so shitty that I wouldn't spend a penny if I had a choice. Even if we eliminate voting reward, it does not solve collectivism. So, once we change this system into tip-based model, then we have individualism and eventually , true capitalism.
So, faddat, We are safe to say current Steemit model is socialism.
Alright, clearly your definitions of those words aren't the same as mine. I can accept that.
Have a great day!
Actually paying based on traffic just opens uo A DIFFERENT ATTACK VECTOR that is more difficult for the little guy. If "greatness" means more people watch it....you are now going to bias content rewards based on who is willing to post the most popular echo chamber shit in the world of public opinion. "This lady cut off her husbands head" will ALWAYS get more views than "This lady teaches to plant a garden". Soooo we can act like you found the f*ing panacea but we would be lying to ourselves.
I'm by no means sufficiently naive to think that the simple weighting by views that I've described is a panacea. I think it's a better solution with its own tradeoffs, and nothing more.
I'm even open to the possibility that it proves to be totally incorrect, and will need adjustment. But I think that given the options it's the best possible route. Only time will tell.
Regarding your example, doesn't the traffic flow indicate that there's more demand for the cutting-off-head kind of information? I mean sure- that says some shitty things about humanity, but well, what can be done about that?