I been on this chain since before most of you reading this.
But, not longer than @whatsup!
I've watched the greedy whales get put in a box by the other whales.
I watched stinc break them out by changing the rules to suit the greedy whales.
I watched the farmers dump the price 98%.
I also watched good people try to make something of this 'experiment'.
I saw aggrieved parties take the reins back from 'the authority' on the gamble that we could collectively do better ourselves without the dead albatross and boat anchors.
If the intentional bad actor is gone(others remain), but that isn't the only issue, then we need to think about what is next.
Its plainly obvious that giving rewards to the same 50 accounts is not a game that brings them flocking in, pushing and shoving for the opportunity to be ignored by the haves and to suffer their class biases to boot!
Who does that?
This chain may never bring them in by the tens of millions.
We can afford to discriminate, imo.
It will be up to us what we make of it.
I propose we start by taking back what we lost in hf21.
At that time the coders were going broke.
They carried us after resuscitation efforts on the albatross proved futile.
Were it not for the efforts of those few, this chain could've withered, and died.
Now they got ~90m hive!
Those precious few are rolling in it.
It's 'woo, woo, woo' in gramma's basements across the world!
And, good on 'em.
We couldn't do this without them.
However, now that they are rolling in it, they can give us our 10% back, imo.
We carried them when they needed us.
Its payback time, iyam.
I'll save the vote penalty for being poor for another day.
Just know that your vote is half what it should be because the rich people have arbitrary numbers within their powers to set.
I can't be free alone, dear reader.
It is up to you to spread the word.
Cross post mine, if you like.
Attempting to improve things by coding is somewhat similar to attempts to improve things by regulation.
People identify a problem. The coders develop procedures to solve the problem. People familiar with the coders find a new way to game the system and more code ensues.
After a few rounds of the coding game one finds the system completely compromised with a few insiders gaming the system.
This is actually the way that Google rolled out its algorithm. The market perceived a problem with the current code. Google added new layers to algorithm to the public praise.
Everyone praised the increasingly complex algorithm until one day they woke up and found Google gamed by a the technorati and a few large media companies.
IMHO, the solution isn't to have just one system that claims to be governed by a distributed process, but to create a network with thousands of competing sites.
I jumped on the SteemIt wagon in 2018. One could still feel the potential of the site, but even then it was clear the system was gained by the whales and nothing but frustration for the plankton.
Yeah, hive has a tough crowd, for sure.
It may even be not worth playing, but we won't realize it until the sleeping whale stake starts to flop around.
I'm thinking this will not get a lot of consideration. :) I do agree the while EIP was good for stakeholders and witnesses it was rough on smaller users.
I agree, they didn't fork us off to reverse their policies from the past.
I guess we will now have to take time to figure out how many stinc holdovers got left behind.
I can't wait for the day Ned pops up and yells, 'Surprise! I still got enough stake to make the coin unviable!'
It's sitting in those 19 dead whale accounts, iyam.
Until then, I'd expect the controllers to continue with the boot on the necks of everybody littler than them, its just the way greed works.
It's not even totally about greed.
In my world you prove your development is viable via achieving a goal, sustaining or growing a user bases, adding market relevant features, being able to increase price...
Due to those forces you keep internal development down and spend most of your efforts on client facing development. Interestingly they don't have any key performance indicators. The chain just doles out rewards whether the right things are being done (users leaving, less development etc)
Really the same is true in content,there are not any working incentives to do the right things.
Sadly I kind of think it takes some organization and education for them to see development for the sake of development is not the end goal.
Some people's greed doesn't stack coins, they play with lives for fun and tingles.
The Devs would definitely profit by including nondev input.
And an end goal.
Rc delegations and smteees! is about as much as we need.
Afaics.
What then?
We are done with building and now need managers, not Devs.
Maybe they can make the ai that finds 'good' content.
We should have enough chain data to find the patterns of what 'we' like.
Then the code runs itself without us.
I still think we need back that ten percent, now that they have 80m hive.
Woohoo! Haunting!