You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The twelve million dollar miner: who is @freedom?
The identity of the person who controls the @freedom steemit account is none of our business. There is nothing morally wrong with (a) owning 3% of the STEEM, nor (b) voting for whatever content or witness one wants to with that Steem Power.
What about openness and transparency and the core principle of the BlockChain?.. Decentralization.. we see here instances of hand picking and selecting witnesses, similar to centralized institutions.. abuse of power, no but centralized power, yes..
Go invest and create an open blockchain then. Donate your hard work to wonderful people like me to enjoy. Thank you and I hope you dont keep 3%
But in the end an investor is free to do as he/she will.
This is an interesting point, Steem is unique for blockchain tech. If somebody owns 3% or 20% of Bitcoin they actually have no more power than the guy with 1 bitcoin nor the guy with 0.1 bitcoin. This is because the only thing you do with bitcoin is hodl and spend. For Bitcoin the centralization challenges are about miners and devs, not coin owners.
However, Steem is very different. How much STEEM you own results in how much SP you can have, which is very accurately called Steem power because it does make you powerful and famous on the network. The ability to flag means you even can control future rewards if you have enough SP, effectively muting another person's voice and ability to financially gain on the platform. Additionally, you can influence who can and cannot become a witness, putting the witnesses in your control.
The other issue we face is that Steem draws in people of incredible differences in view. While Bitcoin and Ethereum tend to draw in the libertarian-capitalists and the economic speculators, Steem has those guys but the defining camps are more like: 1. Meritocrats, 2. Techno-Tea Party. These ideologies are absolutely in conflict with each other, as one group wants the blockchain to maintain a status of content purity and the other seeks an economic revolution.
The best suggestion I've heard is that the oracle idea should be a sidechain that allows absolute purity from spam and other junk for global archiving of human knowledge, while Steem as the main chain is allowed to be more flexible.
There's nothing morally wrong with it. I just don't like to fight for breadcrumbs while the rich are eating cake. So this is a factor in deciding whether to invest my time in Steem.