This post is nonsense.
The changes being made do not make the system simpler, they make it more complicated.
They also make it far less transparent.
Steemit inc abused its users' trust when they decided to collude secretly with steemguild to use the reward pool to fund individuals casting massive self-upvotes.
And literally everything proposed here would make such an ill-advised endeavor easier to conceal or more lucrative. All the while making unconvincing excuses about why that won't give up their super-exponential advantage in distributing the reward pool.
I get that many top witnesses are hesitant to vote against a proposed hardfork, but i urge all of them to carefully consider the negative reprecussions of this one before agreeing to it.
Rather than another pork-filled gong show, say no to this and tell INC that you want a more linear reward curve before anything else changes.
Can you make a post asking each witness's stance and collaborative community movement?
yeah, ive been waiting for the 'official' announcement on steemit... i am writing a post now... how many of the top 19 need to agree... is it 10/19?
IIRC, 16/21 witnesses need to agree to pass HF. Some other can clarify :)
wow thats a super duper majority
17
Thanks!
hear,hear!
For the record, snowflake and i have both written quite a bit about the platform, voting and changes we would like to see... and i think this is like the one thing we agree on.
Indeed, even the biggest enemies agree on this feature :) It's clear that there is unanimous support for this, the question is why is it being ignored? Like you said I have yet to hear anything convincing that warrant keeping this curve.
Steemit inc abused its users' trust when they decided to collude secretly with steemguild to use the reward pool to fund individuals casting massive self-upvotes.
"And literally everything proposed here would make such an ill-advised endeavor easier to conceal or more lucrative. All the while making unconvincing excuses about why that won't give up their super-exponential advantage in distributing the reward pool."
As a minnow going through the few whales downvoting and controling Steemit community I find this depressing and wonder why more steemians are not talking about this. If this continues for minnows/creatives you will lose the good content. Please, talk more about this.
To be perfectly honest, i think the 'expirement' was an OK idea. It could have been executed and explained much better, IMO, but i think the idea behind it came from the desire to improve the user experience. @abit (who iiuc came up with the idea) has done a lot with voting to try to improve users experience (including going out of his way to upvote comments when almost no one else does).
Its relatively easy to shit on people like abit and smooth when they try to do something good and it has some negative consequences.... but you have to keep in mind that the net effect of their efforts is to make every users vote worth more.... I don't necessarily think its the answer, but i think its a good step to figuring one out.
At the end of the day, theyre trying to clean up the mess steemit inc made and refuses to take responsibility for.
OK > thank you for you answer. I appreciate all the understanding and knowledge I can get.
Beyond the unfounded and one-sided personal game of 'blame', it appears that these points (back to the OC) are based on leap-to judgement, misunderstanding and lack of complete information. Sorry.
Are you arguing that giving the majority of users more say in the platform is not important? I'm trying to understand reasonning behind this comment.
of course he isn't arguing that. Why argue that super controversial, bad PR point, when you can just kick the can down the road and say "yeah i totally support it maybe well put it in (some unspecified amount of time) later"
Its like campaign finance reform. Everyone supports it. Later.
More SP = More say.
It's an interesting experiment but lets not pretend the top tier trickles all the way down. Whoever is next in line becomes the most powerful and who is to say they are better voters or deserve the power more. The vote abstinance never gave "the majority" more say.
took me like 5 minutes to figure out what this meant. thought it was a reference to the TV show or something.
I guess when you make a bunch of bad decisions, and don't want to take responsibility for them, everything seems like a 'game of blame'.
As a side note, if youre the one concealing information -- saying the other guy is using incomplete information isnt a dis to him. just sayin.
Except that we have actually been developing and spending money on it. This is just blatant disregard. Much of this information is available in GitHub. Thank you.
@sigmajin The developers who are working on the code are paid (I assume; no inside knowledge). It is fair to say 'spending money' when they are paid to develop code, which you can see in github.
on making the reward curve more linear? How do you spend money on that... did you commission a study or something.
@smooth idk if they get paid by the hour or theyre salaried or what, but it seems to me (based on looking at github and also a couple of theoretical posts) that implementing the rsahres to vhares conversion is fairly modular like vote regeneration. That is to say, there's a line that says something like vshares = rhsare ^2 and you change that line.
Looking at it, it seems like the reality is a bit more complicated. But still all told youre talking about changing the variables in like a dozen lines of code. How much of an money-investment is that really? Especially if the devs are salaried (which you would think so, right?). Enough to prove just by virtue of its magnitude that theyre serious about it, and not just floating it to appease the many people who want to see the change?
(fyi, looking at 913 which changed it back, cuz i know where that is, to figure out what changes it took).
noticed this after the fact.... are you searching around for 'reckless disregard' like in times... cause if so, LOL.
What negative consequences are you refering to?
Price is up 25% as a result and minnow/dolphins have more influence.
That's childish. There's no causality between the bullish trend and the experiment, on the contrary. If you look at the timing you'll see the bull trend started way earlier and when the flagging came to the peak, it stopped both in velocity and volume and now it's static. I see a bearish trend forming, based on what happened.
The "experiment", which I supported in the beginning (wish I had waited more) was just a pathetic attempt at taking over the reward pool. There's no methodology, no metrics, no public announcement about how the experiment will be measured, no consensus among the whales, just 2 lines written by @abit, and those 2 lines of text are taking down an entire community of more than 10,000 people. The sloppiness emerging from those 5 edits in @abit's post (in which he downvotes pretty much everybody on Steemit) is unbelievable. Please be aware that this is not an ad hominem approach towards abit, I'm neutral on the person, but the actions of the person, in this case, were deeply toxic.
I think it's time for all to take responsibility for what we are doing and yes, I'm talking about this so called experiment, which was, at its best, a childish and egotistic manifestation of irresponsible people, and, at its worst (which I start to believe it's closer to the truth) a collusive attempt to game the system even more, for the benefit of the few.
I think that there were a lot of people who didnt understand what was happening with the flags, and that caused some bad feelings that were probably avoidable. Also, using the term 'expirement' was questionable PR, imo. It implies that the people getting downvoted are lab rats.
At the very least, i would have liked to have seem more people on board ad-initio so many downvotes would not have been neccessary. But with automated voting, that may not have been feasible.
Also, if youre a guy that maybe gets lucky once a month and gets a whale vote, and today was the once a month, it kind of sucks to be you right now, which is pretty negative. Im not saying its a good enough reason not to do it... just that omelettes require broken eggs.
I think youre assuming a causation there that really hasnt been established. IIUC, it was a pretty bull day overall for alts
If all whales would have participated in this experiment smooth and co wouldn't have to downvote anything, unfortunately there will always be a few whales that won't go along with the plan so Im not sure how else this experiment would have been possible..
It's been bull day for weeks for alts and steem was always the only one in the red, why is it different today? Also the price hasn't gone up for a very long time so why is it up today? I don't think its a coincidence. These blockchains have value because they empower people, the more they do the more value they have.
You got it backward. They are not controlling anything, they are giving community control back.
Not from my experience. As long as the old timers who are in the cool kids group get the few whales to auto upvote them and then downvote those who get a little pocket change for good content (that took many hours of hard labor) I see that as a scam. Especially when steemit has promoted themselves as something completely different.
Whales involved in this experiment are auto downvoting whales who autovote the 'cool kids' group. They don't downvote content that wasn't upvoted by a whale prior.
I got upvoted by @dantheman on a post about HF17, which was written and published before the test was announced and that post was downvoted twice by @smooth and @abit. How does that plays with what you wrote about
Please look at my rewards and at the votes I'm receiving and tell me I'm one of the 'cool kids'. Pretty please, with sugar on top.
This "experiment" was not intended to give anyone anything back. This was a false flag operation to level up the rewards, rooted in greed and selfishness.
Yep, Steemit Inc. should have just set the Steemguild folks up as contractors if they expected wage-level compensation. There's such a chain of consequences from that choice of how to compensate SteemGuild curators. Social platforms can sure change in a hurry!