Very valid points. I have been thinking about this for a long time. I wouldn't allow people to buy influence. You can't be sure how they got that fake money. It could be debt making real money in Steemit :)
If I trade fiat for steem, fiat loses value and steem gains right?
You know what? I'd treat outside investment and earned steempower differently. Let me be the judge of what I want to see. If I want to be appreciated then from people who know what they are talking about. Isn't this all about that?
You see, you could allow outside money to be promoted but not affect curation.
I think it's rather subjective and not something any centralized system can or should police or regulate. What if someone invested crypto (BTC they earned providing value to someone else, as an example) into Steemit? There's no way to know.
To me, it's a waste of time to put value judgements on how other people earn their stores of value and what currency they currently store it in. If they violate the NAP or some other moral framework most can agree on, then sure, but that's separate from the concept of money, IMO.
That said, Steemit has posting rewards right there on the blockchain, so you're free to value you things however you want. :)
Well you are right. But I still think it's wrong that somebody could censor (by giving me a low score) me just because they have a lot of power. Isn't that what we wanted to avoid in the first place?
I agree, which is what my post about flagging talks about. The connection between flagging and reputation score changes things a bit.
You know I just have a grudge against people who are stupid but powerful. I'm sorry I don't want to waste your time for some mental block I clearly have, so be warned :)
Stupid people are certainly a problem, and they are everywhere.
And we're all stupid in different areas of thinking.
Let's leave it at that. I'm going to investigate how steem works but I have to say if somebody talks about voting strategy I'm like