or ... the whales and witnesses have to accept that it's not about them, but about those 90.000 users that are missing ...
as 90.000 more users would actually solve the problem, but in order for that to happen; the whales and the witnesses need to accept that they're the problem, not the solution ...
but they can never do that, because they just love playing god ...
it's just sad that we have to watch this happening more than 300 years, almost 400 years after Rene Descartes already solved this problem ... it's such a disgrace to the human race
I am going to start a new thread here so we can keep nesting..
Out of curiosity, if the whales stopped voting it would basically be up to the 'dolphins' as to who got all the votes. What is to say that this group (and the minnows who now also have more power) would do a better job promoting content that was in the platform's best interest?
Also, your argument about STEEM crashing is also not necessarily true. Bernie and all the other whale's shares today are still worth more than they were before the July price spike.
If we were at the point that the product was about to officially launch and move from BETA to mainstream users - and we were still at the situation we have today with 30 whales having 90% of the influence and average users having no say, I would probably grab a pitch-fork and join you on your crusade.
With where we are today though, I believe their goal right now is to find users that will make good dolphins and get them to the point that they can be the ones holding the power once the site is ready to go mainstream.
Yeah, there are a few threads on that this morning. I'm still not convinced that is an issue either :)
Upvoted this one at 100% because I feel it deserves it :)
Do you have Nextflix? If so, you would probably really enjoy an episode of "black mirror" called "nosedive". I think it does a good job highlighting some similar issues to what you have with Steemit, as well as gives a good example of someone going off on the system and being 'voted down' by those in power. If you check it out, let me know what you think :)
I agree with you here. 90,000 more users and a way for the system to make money off them being here (adds).
If you look at the price since the July spike, it has been steadily going down. I think you are mainly judging based on that. If you look at the full picture though (including the pre-spike time period), the price of 1 MV has actually still gone up.
This post here does a good job explaining what I think is going on right now. The July pump was not meant to be a product launch with everything ready for mainstream users. It was intended to be an investment round to generate capital to fund projects that are going to fix a lot of the issues you are concerned about. The problem is that there is a lag / time delay from the time they raised the money until we will see the results play out in a fully functional website ready for the 'average user'.
https://steemit.com/steembubble/@dan-atstarlite/why-the-steem-bubble-was-an-investment-round-and-not-a-product-launch
I agree. Too many threads get cut short, or you have to find another persons post to reply to, to address the comment that won't allow a reply. It's definitely one of the more irritating parts of Steemit. Is there a reason that they capped it at 6?
Is there not a way to cap a specific amount of posts to be paid out, but not limit the replies? I can see it being legit trying to limit post rewards after a specific count, but it definitely hurts some of the more interesting convos around here. Thx for the reply.
The reason it is there is because when the original platform was launched, the author of the post actually would get a share of all the comments payouts (to encourage posts that generated conversation). To keep the blockchain math simple, they put a limit of 6 on the nesting of how deep the payout would be calculated.
I wasn't there at the time, so I don't know why they did it - but they did remove this. The limit of 6 is just a legacy "feature" that they haven't gotten rid of yet.
Usually it is not on the whales and witnesses to actually solve code problems with the blockchain and code (although some of them do). The dev team is aware of this issue though, and it is one of the things they are planning to fix.
Where it is at right now is they are trying to come up with a clean design of how to have 20 level deep comments represented on a display that currently keeps indenting after each new comment. They are going to have to make an adjustment to the way the conversations are rendered in the GUI, and they are trying to figure out what the best solution will be.
By the time the site is out of beta, I'd expect this to be fixed.
Well if they weren't able to solve it, I would agree with you. They are going to be making a fix though, so I don't see it as an issue. If you have an issue with it not being ready "today", and that it is just something that will get fixed "eventually", then that is a different discussion. It is not a matter of "can't even solve a small problem like that" though - it is just one of time constraints and priorities.
Curation guilds have a good chance of helping with this problem. If more whales delegated their voting to groups that can take the time to do good curation, then it will be better than someone who isn't a good curator (but holds a ton of power) from making all the decisions on what to do with their power themselves.
There is also a trend (a very slow one, but still a trend) away from the centralization of power. If you look at a 2 year horizon, it probably won't remain this way long-term.
I agree though that if you look at the situation today, that is one of the larger problems with the site/platform/community.
Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. So I will concede that it would at least work. It will still never happen though.
A lot of whales are actually doing good with their voting, and an even larger majority at least think they are. So in their minds, giving up their voting and letting other people have more control, because who doesn't think they are doing the right thing :)
Also, out of curiosity, if the whales stopped voting it would basically be up to the 'dolphins' as to who got all the votes. What is to say that this group (and the minnows who now also have more power) would do a better job promoting content that was in the platform's best interest?
https://steemit.com/steemit/@timcliff/dear-whales-and-dolphins-please-read-this-letter
K. I won't get into the you vs. Bernie thing, because I agree it is besides the main point. The main thing is the 90% of the voting power across all the whales. To that, I added a reply to one of your earlier comments.
Yeah, I realized that was in there after I shared the link with you.. I know you have an issue with him. I don't share your view, but I do know he used to be different. He used to be one of the few whales that was actually spending time to truly curate and upvote posts that were underpaid but deserved to be making money. He still kind of does (through Curie), but it is not the same as before.
I see what you are saying. Basically you want the whales to stop using their influence. Whether I agree or disagree with you is irrelevant. It's not going to happen.
Also, the point of my post was basically knowing that there is not going to be a way to literally stop whales from using their influence, the best we can hope for is to make the case for them to use it in a way that we more agree with.
Continuing here due to nesting.
I mentioned it in my other comment, but basically whether I agree with you on this or not is irreverent. The reason is because it will never happen. There are a lot of reasons for this, but here are the main two:
I actually believe that there are more 'good' whales than 'bad' ones who will genuinely do what they believe is in the best interest of the platform over themselves. So let's assume we get 90% of the whales to go along with your idea.
The problem is the 10% that are left. You would actually be giving a 100% increase (1000% actually if you count the n^2 algorithm) in voting power because they will be the only ones with a large stake in determining what posts get huge upvotes.
The worst part about it, is these people who didn't go along with the plan are the exact ones that you would not want having the power, because these are the ones that are arguably acting in their own self interest, rather than handing over their voting power for the good of the community.