which is the purpose? which is the ultimate purpose?
how forcedely spreading the voting power is useful in this moment?
how you estimate the effects of an action perpetrated by legit violence and brute strength over a little community? (well, dunno if you actually tried to estimate it)
how you estimate the effects of an action perpetrated by legit violence and brute strength on the future dynamics of a community (every action builds an experience and create somehow a rule).
But honestly I don't think that my opinions are to be considered. On certain matters, everyone has to hits his own head in a brick wall, to improve his thinking.
As a general rule, a lottery is very more attractive that a granted distribution of small change, even if you never win. Dunno if this helps.
Thx for your answers
I think @abit responding is proof your opinions are considered, and I'm responding here too 🙃
All of your questions are basically the Requisite of Communication challenge, probably with a bit of Don't experiment on me. The first was probably the most detailed and important challenge of the post, so I feel it's dealt with. There's a lot on the second too. Also, @abit has actually responded, so while we can't require communication, you've actually got it here voluntarily, and elsewhere I saw from some of your comments.
To iterate the main point of the post, if we support freedom in general, we have to allow for whales to act freely within the parameters of Steem. If these parameters are found to be lacking in some way, they should be changed. I think you're calling for what most people are, power coming hand in hand with responsibility.
For the record, I don't think adjusting the vote power curve (or a similar change) will really deal with this. While there's clearly support for some kind of responsibility requirement for large stakeholders, I'm not sure how it could be implemented fairly. I'll continue to think on this.
well, you already know it, I guess.
But honestly I don't think that my opinions are to be considered. On certain matters, everyone has to hits his own head in a brick wall, to improve his thinking.
Sorry I didn't get time to check your reply of my another comment before asked here.
I hope it leads to wider adoption of the platform, thus higher value, so my stake will worth more.
The rests are hard questions. Actually I don't have an answer yet.
As a general rule, a lottery is very more attractive that a granted distribution of small change, even if you never win. Dunno if this helps.
Thx for your answers
I disagree strongly.
I think @abit responding is proof your opinions are considered, and I'm responding here too 🙃
All of your questions are basically the Requisite of Communication challenge, probably with a bit of Don't experiment on me. The first was probably the most detailed and important challenge of the post, so I feel it's dealt with. There's a lot on the second too. Also, @abit has actually responded, so while we can't require communication, you've actually got it here voluntarily, and elsewhere I saw from some of your comments.
To iterate the main point of the post, if we support freedom in general, we have to allow for whales to act freely within the parameters of Steem. If these parameters are found to be lacking in some way, they should be changed. I think you're calling for what most people are, power coming hand in hand with responsibility.
For the record, I don't think adjusting the vote power curve (or a similar change) will really deal with this. While there's clearly support for some kind of responsibility requirement for large stakeholders, I'm not sure how it could be implemented fairly. I'll continue to think on this.
I think we have a problem of communication. Or of language. :)