Thank you. I am not sure whether people want to hear honest observations but this is a very honest summation of my observations. The management of this is so weak and defensive of its record that in the real world it would be ridiculed as a prime example of what not to do. I will probably get hate mail as a result but ...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm new here myself, two weeks, but it seems there are many whales with an open mind. If the others would understand they will benefit financially from the platform changing then growing, maybe they will have a change of heart. I believe we need to hear what ails us to truly find lasting solutions. Also, most humans are interested in financial gain, so to quote @papa-pepper "steemit like you mean it!"
Also, I just proved a minnow can top the Steemit HOT list!! Thanks for the vote!
Ok, I shall follow the papa man - my second, you were the first. I am a keen observer of business management and this ... is set up to disappear up its own arrogance but time will tell. I hope to be wrong.
maybe you can work for Steemit! I think they would benefit from your perspective.
Are you suggesting that steemit needs management -- hooray for you -- you appear to have seen the frailties of the few which feed off the many and have a form of myopia which is riddled with denial!!
Oh, believe me, I see its flaws which I point out. The devs, most of them don't see what I see. They don't understand the human happiness factor.
But I will say that the coexistence of bots and humans is something we'll have to face in the future. The curation bots are not the issue, it is the poor management of these bots that is problematic.
However, you are not seeing the useful Cheetah bot, without which this site would be full of spam, plagiarized material and other foul things! Find Cheetah!
Thank you for your honest observations and agree I with them. I see the very similar thing and hearing from a new user is just as important as anyone else on Steemit, with large stake or not.
Resteemed.
There are loads of people with an open mind, but they are sometimes hard to find. The algorithm that determines rewards will be changed soon and it will be interesting to see the differences.
You see, everything has been bootstrapped. You should have been here 8 months ago. If you think it's crazy now.....it was aboslutely nuts back then.
But nothing has really changed - the ownership has barely moved and people have come and gone ... I find it a fascinating case of justification. There is no justification but there seems to be an entanglement of proud words to suggest that there is. It is a Greek Tragedy of certain calamity. Oedipus Tyrannus and the gouging out of his own eyes is a good parallel.
I have followed you and hope to find the nuggets of reality!
that's not entirely correct. See how one person with no prior investment managed to gain wealth through his commenting, posting and community building:
http://steemwhales.com/thecryptofiend?weekly
Now, look at a whale who is currently powering down:
http://steemwhales.com/berniesanders?weekly
The one thing I don't know is if he is powering up a different account or cashing out. If he's cashing out, then Dan's prediction about the wealth transferring to those who actually think the platform has value is true. We still don't know if this will happen or not.
I will say, though coming in at a later date....it's quite hard to gain rewards without dogged persistence. When Steem had a higher market cap it was much easier. The lower market cap yields lower rewards. Personally, I think the trending page should be spectacular. Right now it's not. But believe it or not, it's a lot better than it was 6 months ago. There's more distribution now than before.
You are being very kind, and helpful to someone who has been following and observing and now Pointing things out. I thank you!
My question still remains though - though there may have been some movement between this account and that and the fiend person you mentioned before has obviously done great things.
If 90% is held by 2% and 98% by 4%, how is that distribution? 4% of the set-up is being rewarded with 98% of the revenue - it is a slavery system with pretty packaging!
That is why 12 of us got together and co-wrote a post about this exact issue. The devs are changing the algorithm to lessen the distance in rewards. I'll find the post if you want to read it.
Sure! Thank you. Does the new system give a target distribution model. What i would like to see is that, much as ownership has its benefits, the extent of those benefits. So, if you take a month, any month, plug the activity in at one end, what comes out the other end - does it make the distribution 60/40 for our 4% and 96%? Or is it 40/60 as it should be closer to?
please read this post, then we can discuss:
https://steemit.com/steem/@clayop/making-steemit-better-a-proposal-to-flatten-the-rewards-curve
Well, the real problem lies within the issue of sybil attacks. Are you familiar with this? Basically, sybil attack means that bots/sockpuppet accounts could vote for a post say like 2,000 upvotes. In order to prevent gaming of the system, all upvotes are not equal. This means that because I've invested a ton of time and energy into this system (8 months to be exact and over 7000 posts), powering up most of it, my vote currently counts for $.05. I think what the problem is, is that there's too much distance between new people coming in and whales. Also, even with my investment, I'm not able to significantly affect the rewards of those I vote for. It takes too much time/money to get Steem Power. This is what I hope the algorithm fixes.
I have read your post - parts of it a couple of times. I can see the struggle you are facing with the 'whale' people. They will not let go. The top 20 or so, who really do control the whole thing (less if you want to be corporate minded), they do not want to surrender their control and are not really concerned about price of steem - it is a grab and hold - they will be grabbing more in other accounts so as not to appear opportunistic with the price as it is.
There is a demand from them to be allowed to keep what they have AND to be allowed to boss the 'pot' of money in the meantime. This is called having one's cake and eating it too.
Meanwhile there are others who are in the 20-60 range who are getting fed up because, despite their position, their rewards are looked at as Return on Investment and they are getting grumpy with diminishing returns. They can see their stake being better employed elsewhere because the blockchain throws up opportunities more and more frequently -IT people, like doctors and professors and so forth think that they can take an idea and make it worth millions. They cannot, they are IT people and doctors etc. They are also looking at the ROI in terms of today's value or even July's value, rather than what they actually paid for their stake, as one should.
As to your post, it is a nice pleasantry, I am afraid. If you cannot show absolute numbers, which this does not, it is what we used to call flak. When a missile is approaching a ship you throw up all sorts of stuff to distract the missile and take it off-course.
I am sorry if that sounds a bit insulting. It is not meant to in any way. It is just that the explanation doe not really explain.
"Your December would have given you 'x', rather than the 'y', you actually received" - That is an absolute demonstration which is what the non-algorithm centric mind needs.
To what % is the rewards structure changed? If it goes from 98/2 to 96/4, people will say that one's rewards have been doubled. The actual distribution, when it is done, does not work that way though and this is one of the veils which the average person does not see. Hence my suggestion of a weekly distribution summary. It can appear anywhere. It will, though, show up the true distribution which is a case of whales profiting at tremendous leverage off the average blogger.