You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Calibrae is setting the end of Steem as Today
I'm eagerly awaiting the development of Calibrae. I hope you can make it a more fair platform, with less oligarchy. @scottsantens had some interesting ideas about implementing something like a UBI on steemit, by changing the rewards allocation, to give away 10 percent of the rewards. That would be a more fair distribution of wealth IMO.
you are most welcome to elaborate such algorithms :)
I lack coding skills, and also knowledge of economic theory, so I don't know what is doable in terms code, or economically viable. But here is the comment from the well known basic-income advocate Scott Santens:
scottsantens 52 · 4 days ago
This is what I'd like to see Steemit eventually adopt. I think every account user should get an equal dividend as a percentage of the total. Creating a clone is certainly one way of achieving that, but thanks to network effects I'd prefer Steemit just make the change at some point by starting small with say 5% as a dividend.
@elfspice This is the first I've heard of this specific steemit problem.
Do blockchain programmers chat or text comments on a regular basis - Maybe github or a chatroom?
I do not understand why it is so rare for me to see a post from Ned, Dan, or other executives and programmers.
Everyone so busy that a few words once or twice a month (with decline payout option) is too much to ask?
I've written an open letter to Dan, Ned, et al. - to date it hasn't received a reply from them.
I'll upvote and resteem, please share all updates and developments with us - thanks for being here and thanks for sharing!
I won't be changing my communication policy, always, off the cuff, regular, and sometimes abrasively passionate.
These pigs are not communicating because they are not working very much at all, and because they know very well that the whole thing is gonna explode pretty soon if they don't put some oil in the engine.
@l0k1 and @elfspice no worries, the Calibrae-PRs are a AWESOME effort to keep the community informed - thanks for all your tremendous efforts, Cheers!
You're welcome :)
A base dividend is not a bad idea. I'd make it 1%. But honestly earned stake, why should that also not be a part of it? Is this suggesting we should not use stake and voting to not continue to decide?
If we can't look at data that eliminates the premine first, how can it be judged that this model was a failure?
I think it would not be a big problem to add a base percentage to pay out to all accounts to keep the floor rising... idk if it should be 1% out of the 9.3, or 0.1%, but let's moot this idea. Simply being a member, this reasonably is a basis for reward. Just not a big one.
Consider how this advantages signup spammers and botfarmers.
What if you have to be a verifed user to receive this dividend? I realize there are problems to be overcome, like allowing users to be anonymous while preventing multiple accounts receiving didvidends. But there might be a way. Then the dividends could be higher.
Implementing that is gonna be pretty complex. No, I am gonna vote against this idea, on the basis that it is an avenue for abuse.
@elfspice, please don't get bogged down thinking about this kind of stuff at this point of the process. You need to be focused on what gets this project to working platform. We can discuss this kind of stuff after it's setup.
I'm not supporting it at all. This is stupid, anti-economics, straight out of neo-marxist communism like The Venus Project.
I'm not a fan of this idea, but either way this is not an issue that should be thought about nor debated at this time. Goal 1: Get a working platform! Once that's done, then ideas like this can be debated by the community of witnesses.