A few thoughts: (1) Maybe people should opt out of steemit.chat. It seems like many of these dust-ups originate there. ; -) (2) There's nothing to stop the people who are complaining from setting up their own competing guilds. If the new guild does a better job curating, it would reduce the self-paying for members of the original guild. (3) You raise a good point about price signals, and I respect your decision to opt out. Maybe we should build on an old idea from @williambanks (here) and create something like #norobots and #noguild hash tags to make it easy for people who want to opt out of bot and/or guild voting, and to make it easy for people who care about that sort of thing to avoid contributing their voting power to guilds or bots. If enough people think it's important and focus their voting on those hashtags, it would limit the payout that's available to bots & guilds.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Appreciate the comment.
Steemit.chat is my favorite thing about Steemit. I've made good friends there. Currently, it brings more engagement than Steemit does.
I like, and have been a proponent of, the communities feature on the Roadmap, and hope that it will bring more engagement and just plain fun to Steemit. But as it is right now I enjoy the chat.
Your second point is true, there's nothing stopping people from starting their own guilds. However, it shouldn't stop people from being critical of other guilds.
This is Steemit, we're critical of everything, hah, and I just haven't seen that many posts regarding this subject before, so I wanted to raise the issue.
That's the real gold mine. If anyone can figure out how to monetize the (awesome) chat channels, they and we would be billionaires!
No you are my favorite thing @schattenjaeger! :)
the main issue is that the Steem Guild is funded by many big whales that by and large do determine what trends.
That would be true with or without the guilds, though, right? Like it or not, they are the major stakeholders.