First, thanks. Thanks for all the time you put into these thoughts.
You write:
The market should have been given more time.
Curie, steemvoter, the guilds, my bot, this post you've just written, it's all part of how we're deciding steem should be run. I don't mean to be preachy, but what exactly is the "market" other than all of this? Other than all of us? You're looking at what the market "chose."
Sorry for not getting to you earlier.
I realize that you're right; the guilds are a product of voluntary interaction, and thus a product of the market.
But when I said market, I meant it in a less than literal sense. What I meant was a "free market" for the content without "regulation" from the guild "governments".
As in people voting for what they value.
Of course, the bots are also in the way of Steemit truly being simply a stake based Facebook.
Unless the incentives can be structured to facilitate this, I'm skeptical that it will arise naturally in any pure-seeming way.
Yeah, I figured that's what you meant. But I'll ask you the question I ask all voluntaryists: if you remove the guild government, which was created via voluntary association, why wouldn't we expect something else similar to arise to take its place? Or do you envision an ongoing battle between the organizationists and the individualists, where self-organizing structures are periodically removed as they accumulate too much power?
What do you think of this proposal then? Your comments are appreciated, also if you disagree violently 8-).