But who can do anything about it?
Whales come together?
@haejin makes more on 1 day bullshit on steemit than I do on a month of fulltime work. Something aint right!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
But who can do anything about it?
Whales come together?
@haejin makes more on 1 day bullshit on steemit than I do on a month of fulltime work. Something aint right!
Competition
Competition as in several spamming 10 posts about "guess the number" each day and the people on steemit rewards them like crazy for it?
It's a free market, who's to judge?
We are.
It's not a free market. It's closer to a gift economy. We have been collectively given a gift and told to spend it. We all are responsible to judge in how that gift is spent. Downvotes and upvotes are a mechanism of that responsibility.
This does not make sense at all mate. We are buying Steem its not gifted to us and if there ever was a free market its this one (no restrictions, perfect transparacy, no entry barrier etc). No one can be held responsible unless there is enough Steem Power behind the accusation.
The reward pool is gifted to us. Steem buys you shares in the influence for how it (the reward pool) is spent. All Steem owners (actually Steem power owners) are responsible for spending the pool. Many can equal the same as one. You buy Steem, but you are not giving that steem directly to others, if you were, that would be capitalism...and nobody would be able to have any say in it.
I do not understand why you repeat that the reward pool is gifted. It's not. Some people we vote for, called witnesses, mine blocks on the Steem blockchain. This is not free. They spent time and money to make this happen.
The last part of the reply is simply gibberish mate, I'm sorry. wiki of Capitalism
Sounds like the argument against the global warming alarmists, raised by the guy who has a rocket to propel him and his family to mars when the proverbial material hits the big fan ;-)
It's still valid or no?
If 'free' means no one is held to any measure of 'responsibility', then I don't support this sort of 'freedom'. Such a notion of 'freedom' by its nature restricts the freedom of others and leads to the ruining and collapse of a system, to everybody's detriment. It is in essence, far from free. If 'free' means equality of access, as in the sense of free and open source, transparent, then we accept along with it, that each and every player in that system has the right to judge. because it is in his own interest to do so. Such a process ensures (at least in theory) that the system is sustainable as well. All of this is on the premise we are mostly at this time, rational and moral - if that assumption is incorrect, then we have to re-examine the system and have counter-measures agains this kind of 'freedom' to which you appear to allude.