"You are completely wrong. Steem is a social media platform. You cannot remove the social media functions from the cryptocurrency functions because they are tightly bound together as the blockchain itself. This is not even to mention that the tradable coin gets part of it's value from it's distribution within the context of social media. Honestly I'm surprised that you have this opinion."
I'm not wrong by definition. I don't know why you'd get so...weird about this. I am right by definition in exactly what I said. Steemit is NOT just a social media platform, and it not comparable directly to what we call Social Media today. There is a lot more going on with Steemit and it is therefore much more complex than FB or Twitter.
Steem is NOT a social media platform, it is a cryptocurrency that, among other potential uses, powers Steemit.
You are totally wrong here:
"Steem is a social media platform."
I mean, just ask anyone. You are wrong by definition. I don't get most of this reply. You've totally ignored the value of providing liquidity and assumed I just want to assign myself rewards.
I don't even want to address any of your other points, because you claimed I said things I didn't say.
"You are completely wrong. Steem is a social media platform."
No, no it's not. I can't believe you are arguing basic terminology against the white paper.
What do you think makes Steemit special? For most people, the rewards (I like the anti-censorship). Who provides the value in cashing out rewards? Not posters, they are sellers. Only buyers. Only capital.
Demonize capital and you get communism. Equality of outcome. It seems like this may be what you want?
Why won't you even acknowledge the value of capital? Do you know what would happen without investors? What's the opposite of "to da moon"?
What do you think the honest value of a token, in USD, would be if only content posters had it, because you have utterly driven away capital? About as much as Reddit karma, that's what. The order book will be all red.
Well I'll do you the dignity of a response.
Steem was always designed as a social media network, it's right there in the whitepaper. It is evident, I have nothing to prove here.
I don't know what you mean by "weird" but I have to assume that is just a put down and ignore.
I emphasise that you do want to assign rewards to yourself, you cannot deny this. That's not to say you do not want other things.
I'm forced to update as you're doing a lot of edits. I'm not demonizing capital, you need to accept that. I am not in favor of increasing the reward share of those with capital though via increased self rewarding. Equality of outcome is not the goal, never has been.
I acknowledge the value of capital but didn't think it was needed as nothing I've said has contradicted that.
"I acknowledge the value of capital but didn't think it was needed as nothing I've said has contradicted that."
Ok, I feel that your statement that I should not get to assign a proportionate amount of rewards to my stake as specifically not acknowledging the value of capital. I used the example of voting shares in a company as an analogy.
Could you reconcile those statements?
"I am not in favor of increasing the reward share of those with capital though via increased self rewarding."
Then why would people want to buy this token? Are you familiar with many assets that people buy that do nothing except give away money to other people? Do we really want nothing but speculators looking for capital gains, dumping in and out in manias?
Why power up $50k into my account if I am an author, then? If I can't vote my post $6 and put it in HoT, why would I want to invest, or want the token at all? Why not just perpetually power down, slam the token value to 2 cents, until the platform dies because it pays .0003 cents per word?
Have you noticed the enormous correlation in post payouts going up (because investors are giving the token value) and the daily author numbers moving up x10?
Our problem now is curation (and it not being that rewarding). I suspect there is a lot of quality content coming out every day.
Pretty much dealt with this in the other answer on this nesting level.
Going to try to post a few more supporting links here:
Witness #8 OKs self-voting:
https://steemit.com/steem/@clayop/no-more-fear-on-self-voting
"Overcoming Fear on Self-voting
But is it really bad, especially in linear-based system? Assuming everyone is doing self-voting, a person who is holding 10% Steem Power will earn approximately 10% of contents rewards. If one is holding 1%, he/she will get 1%, and 50% will get 50%. It is literally selfish, but a self-voter doesn't over-use his/her power more than one owns."
These are good, economic justifications here. Don't feel like looking up more atm.