You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Distribution and Curation: Ending the Infinite Circle Jerk in the Trending Section and Lifting the 99.99%
In every free market economy, it always look like the wealth distribution is not fair, but the trouth is that any attempt to intervene will only make things worse.
Except in this case, we aren't in a free market. We are all bound by the unique rules of the STEEMIT platform. Like it or not, we are heading to a new hardfork that will change the rules.
So the question becomes, "Is the STEEMIT platform stronger with the built in incentive for whales to upvote whales, or is STEEMIT stronger with built in incentives for whales to upvote superior content?"
Remember, the incentives we have now were not market chosen either...
Agreed
No, there is a system design in place now and it aggregates wealth. We have the power to make changes and run experiments. If we do nothing we're stuck with 93% in the 1%. It's worth exploring.
Aggroed, I agree. It is worth exploring, and supporting.
Absoluteky. This is a safe place to test new models without causing famine and poverty to an entire population for generations, as might occur IRL social experiments...
It's not a free market, it's a highly regulated system with specific rules chosen to produce specific results. It's like a car engine. The better you design it, the faster it will go.
What is regulated are the contracts that the virtual coins represent. But this is not why you have a wealth pyramid.
Don't get me wrong. I am all in for changes and fixes in the way Steemit works (altough IMO the more important ones are related the the Steemit social network's user experience), but none of these will make the wealth distribution more fair.
When you assign a reward for choosing a post that others will like, you are regulating behavior. That is a regulation and the site is full of them. And yes, there are ways to make the wealth distribution more fair. Changing the way rewards are dolled out is one of them.
I have to laugh at your vote bots though. 3 minutes and 18 votes? I don't know what to think of that stuff.
That is backwards thinking. Old think. We have a chance to build a new model. Not make this place the same old garbage most of us want to escape.
This was said many times in history and the result was only lots of destruction and suffering, just to end up in the same place.
I plan to write a post about that soon, but in a nutshell, every time you reshuffle the deck, you create lots of value by doing so but only for a very short time. Those who have the brains or the guts or even the luck to grab it, will become the whales of the shuffled ecosystem. Now, if you want to change the rules so that you will have a chance at that big bang moment, that is another thing, but don't expect it to make the system more fair.
I feel bad if you really view life with so much surrender. You should turn off your vote bots, you might give people the impression that others actually agree with what you're saying. ;)
I don't have a vote bot for my replies, so apparently some people agree with me
False. This is the two party propaganda that they feed to the Red team. If anyone tries to even the playing field, that is insipid communism. Poor people who work 18 hours a day to pay their rent should not be getting Christian charity, because you are encouraging laziness (they actually said this in 18th century London). If someone has a Trillion dollars and owns all the land, you just have to do what he says, because we don't do any redistribution. No, free markets have to be protected with laws. The basic truth that the bad guys teach the Red team to reject is that there is never a need to level the playing field. The other thing they sell the red team on is giving public utilities to private companies (because lazy governments are not as efficient).
this statement has some truth in it but is worded too strongly
you can have market inefficiencies, externalities, asymetrical information, public good, monopolies, irrational behavior, misaligned game theoretical outcomes etc that could benefit from intervention
but generally a free market is very productive and intervention should be seldom exercised
More minnows would stay if they actually saw rewards. As it stands now, the dead followers list will continue to grow. Just my opinion.