How to Prevent Hostile Takeovers for a Naive Steem Community
How to Prevent Hostile Takeovers for a Naive Steem Community
- Fork and Repo Ready to go
- Key hostile account balances forked out of the chain – ready to go
- Back up token listed on an exchange – payment for this possible as insurance
- Independence of Steem Developers. – Removal of conflict of interest – creation of specific blockchain Dev fund
▶️ 3Speak
My first reaction to this is Kudos. It's about time this was pointed out. My second reaction is not to consider your specific proposals, but to consider the weaknesses they are intended to address, and their etymology. Why have we been so naive as to engender exposure of our soft white underbelly to 'foreign' capital?
In part, this is the legacy financial model. Rather than decentralization, industrial capitalism is based on centralization. Stinc being a stock corporation has allowed @ned to undertake this transaction at his sole option, because of his centralized stake. Not his stake in Steem, but his stake in the corporation. As the majority stockholder, he had centralized governance in his person completely, and this is a feature of institutions that subjects those seeking more power over them to the 'dog eat dog' office politics that favors the least socially functional in the scrabble for power. It has been often noted that psychopaths tend to gain power, because they are more willing to undertake socially unacceptable means of gaining it.
This is not in reference to @ned whatsoever, whom I am sure is a nice person. Due to the specific eventuation of Steemit, his accession to that majority stake was accomplished much differently than the model I just outlined. However, nice @ned has parted with that stock, and now it's out in the wild, where raving psychopaths indeed roam seeking power. 'Like lions, seeking whom they may devour', to get Biblical.
So, legacy business models necessitated by capital accumulations enabling institutional operations intruded on the decentralized mechanism Steem is intended to be. Additionally, the ninjamine enormously skewed distribution, and this has been a constant debility for decentralized development. From rewards mechanisms to powerdown duration, the stake wielded by whales has been the primary interest of development, rather than the growth and health of the social network and decentralization of the blockchain, particularly regarding governance.
Understanding these causes of the weakness and naivete of Steem and it's community may enable us to improve governance models such that decentralized blockchain social media platforms may be designed to inherently resist hostile 'foreign' capital and takeovers, as well as distribution imbalances. Certainly there are more, many more, sources of naivete and weakness, and it will be necessary to understand them to the extent possible as well.
However, this doesn't help us now, as Steem is what it is, regardless of why it's that way, and we need immediately actionable means of securing it from hostile takeover. I reckon @starkerz ideas are pretty functional, and obvious ways Steem needs to instantly adapt to this situation. Tron, as you point out, has acquired Steemit, it's development business, infrastructure, and team, as well as an enormous quantity of Steem.
Presently that quantity of Steem is sufficient to enable Tron to do exactly what @ned did to Steemit to Steem itself, and effect governance at it's sole option. While Tron may deeply desire to remain the God King of Steem governance, Steem will be more valuable in the long run if God Kings aren't potential to it, and even Tron will benefit from this immprovement in the long run.
@bryan-imhoff correctly points out that changing the way stake votes for witnesses directly ends that threat to Steem governance. I suggest we immediately HF to solely implement the suggested change so that 1 Steem equals 1 witness vote. This will not eliminate Tron's influence on Steem due to it's stake, but will preclude it being competent to effect governance of the blockchain at it's sole option.
Further, I particularly like the third idea @starkerz discusses of decentralizing development from a centralized corporation to individuals or companies paid through the SPS. This will prevent that holdover centralized legacy model of institutional control from again threatening the development of Steem, whether Tron puts Steemit devs to other work or not.
The first proposal @starkerz makes is a done deal, facile, and well achieved I believe. The idea to keep that fork current, and to implement SOP as to when to trigger a defensive HF is a good idea that we can explore and undertake going forward.
I reckon having a backup token ready to fire up at will is a good idea too.
Thanks!
What a well written reply. I love the idea of a designing an SOP that has 'guidelines' whereby anyone in the community can assertane the signs as to whether or not any God King is behaving in such a way as to put at risk the basis under which this chain maintains its 'decentralised' strucutres and governance. I would say decentralised 'essence' however, we clearly do not have that, and enough of us, conveniently forgot that Steemit inc. could be bought out. It would appear that Tron are benevolent, at least for now and that they do not fully understand or realize the true power and influence that they have purchased, or the potential to end one of the worlds most beautiful experiments in decentralization. This gives our community time, although not much, to decide on a mitigation, criteria for implementation and combination into a community driven standard operating procedure. What is more, we can do this in the open, in the public light for all to see. It does not need to take an aggressive demeanor, or be executed in a hasty, undisciplined fashion. But will demonstrate the strength of the community, and the commitment towards decentralization that it holds dear.
Brilliant comment @valued-customer
Wouldn't you think that Steem with @ned as a captain (the way it has been for very long) was kind of going nowhere? I surely didn't have much hopes earlier on for better future. Justing most likely will care more about our community than Ned did.
We suffered from his lack of deep experience running social media blockchain cryptocurrency companies. However, it's useful to point out he invented them. He also wasn't the booster Sun seems to be. We're about to see the communities he's been working on for so long released next week. @ned made them, but @justinsunsteemit is going to make them public, and hopefully shout it to the rooftops in a way @ned couldn't do.
We'll see what the future brings, but I have never subscribed to the theory that @ned didn't care. I think selling to Tron proves he did care, because it's about the best thing he could do on his way out.
If he'd sold to Goolag, we'd already be shut down.
Thanks!
It's me again @valued-customer
I just realized that I never actually thanked you for your comment. Big thx.
ps.
I would need to ask you for little favour. Recently I've decided to join small contest called "Community of the week" and I desribed our project.hope hive/community. Would you mind helping me out and RESTEEM this post - just to get some extra exposure? Your valuable comment would be also appreciated.
Link to my post: on steemit or on steempeak
Thanks :)
Yours, Piotr
Yes all good .... I was also thinking about a proposition to increase the SPS share of inflation after the SMT hardfork .... reduce the development from the Steemit Inc or alow the to develop within sps .... now this is showing to be much needed
this is a possble solution. but would only be needed in the event that steemit inc dev and key memebers needed to move away from steemit inc due to conflict of interest events. Basically meaning we as a community would be saying the steem devs "we got your back should you need it".
I think suggestion #3 is most important, and it will automatically lead to the ability to implement suggestion #1 at will. I wrote some about how we could implement suggestion #3, let me know what you think: https://beta.steemit.com/hive-111111/@borislavzlatanov/steem-foundation-employing-steemit-inc-employees#@gadrian/re-borislavzlatanov-q5r0m8
Steemit is not Steem. I'm ok for Tron to have TRONSTEEM token and use it on Steemit.com front-end. TRON is also a great DPoS Chain, but please don't use Steem community intangible asset like Steem, SBD, SteemPower and confuse the community. You can't just move a community like that. Especially an awsome one. Steem blockchain is an undervalue ecosystem. It's a real economy being build since 4 years. The community should get to know www.eSteem.app (Mobile, Desktop, Web) and adopt it as the new default Steem interface. @esteemapp team have been building an awsome Steem interface from day 1. We also need more education in this space. I agree 100% people don't understand Steem blockchain and it's high value. It can be easy to lure people in something flashy. In DPoS consensus, a blockchain can take over another blockchain if token holders decide. Don't forget, No matter your stake on Steem blockchain, you are the own deciding. In TRON and STEEMIT case, It will comes down to what token holders decide. I think Steemit.com should move to Tron without harming the Steem blockchain community so that those who want to stay can stay.
People are social animals, and pleas affect their decisions. Institutions are 'legal persons' devoid of human emotions, ties, or empathy. They are inhuman. Pleas have no affect on them.
Tron has acquired the stake to effect governance of Steem at it's sole option, and pleading with an inhuman institution will not sway it's compassion. Tron does't have any compassion. Sun might, but he has to attend to the goals of the corporation, not his own feelings.
We need to demonstrate sound reasons inhuman institutions like Tron need to respect human society, because that's what creates the value Steem has, and I reckon @starkerz is on the right track.
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 5/20 - need recharge?)
Thanks revise!! you are a good man with a great beard!
You're welcome, I think @anthonydavsii is already on the case!
I’d love to see the idea of 1 SP = 1 vote revisited in terms of governance. 20 million Steem across 20 witnesses should be 1 million each, not 20 x 20. With this simple and fair change it would be nearly impossible for all the witnesses to be controlled centrally. At least a few Steem loyalists could stay voted in and have a voice/veto power in hard forks should the Tron/Steem relationship grow contentious.
Indeed. I have never understood a sound justification for the difference between ordinary votes and witness votes. Except as we see in action presently, since it has enabled @ned to simply govern Steem at his sole option at will.
He never did that, but he kept that power, and now he has sold it to Tron.
Thanks!
interesting.... i am very open to this idea. would have to think about it more, but interesting at first glance
Sounds really interesting. Any downsides you've thought of?
Excellent suggestions. I'm sure we can solve this by gathering everyone from all of the Steem dapps and simply telling them their accounts and all of their data will no longer be accessible with a token swap.
great suggestion thanks for letting us know
thank you so much for vote me. nice to meet you.
thanks for your sharing.