Are the selfless delaying the inevitable/essential?
Would Steemit inc. be forced to change the rewards structure if we all went full asshole?
After a slow start, as is often the case without tens of thousands to invest, the last 6 months on the Steem Blockchain have been great for me.
I cannot (and probably should not) complain at all as I've been one of the lucky ones who's benefited from free/cheap delegation, and a host of up-votes from the few still choosing to share their large stakes around.
Thank you @fulltimegeek, @v4vapid, @acidyo, @anomadsoul, @demotruk, and @teamsteem in particular for this.
I am now 8 months free from sitting behind a desk stacked with monitors doing work that I'm trained to do, but of which does not interest me any more. Your generosity is the reason for this.
Who knows how long this will last, and at the risk of reducing this time today, my blog is related to a recent post (and so many others since June last year) by @kevinwong.
I invite those here to read this post and the comments made by @trafalgar first. And then the comments made by @teamsteem when I link the post again below.
To cut a long story short
Last year, Steemit inc. chose to fork the Blockchain and make changes to the rewards structure.
With the introduction of a linear reward curve everyone will have a say directly proportional to their stake.
Sounds good, right?
In the comments of the post, not everyone was so sure:
hmmm..
errr...
yeah...
And from another related @steemitblog post
Feel free to read @teamsteem's reply in the recent @kevinwong post and enjoy the further background reading from @dan, and memes from @felixxx
So let it be written, so let it be done
If you successfully made it back to this post, and I don't blame the ones that didn't! What else is there to say or do, as more and more accounts join the self-vote club, or loan out their stake to Bid-bots, as predicted last year by many?
Is there any point continuing to pretend to be 'in a world where honest people who don't vote on themselves to get "free money for nothing"', when this (to some) clearly wasn't going to be the case from the start?
Each day that passes without a change from the top, my doubts increase.
So much so that I've gone to the trouble this morning to calculate roughly what my monthly returns would be like, should I go 'full asshole' with my current Steem Power of around 14,000, and get away with it.
Taking into account that I could vote 10 times a day, and the average value of my 10 votes being $2.59, the STEEM value of this would equate to $77.182.
Multiply that by 30 days, and kindly remove 20% for curation (did i mention the word 'roughly'), the final sum for the month would be $1852.368.
Personally, I could live off this easily. But if everyone was to make these calculations, I'm 97% sure that 97% would not feel the same.
The majority 'active' stake is held by few, who have seemingly resigned themselves to the fact that this is the way it is now - self-vote because the code allows, and this gives the maximum return on investment.
As @trafalgar openly writes:
I'm guessing many whales are in the very same position as myself: we don't want this to continue. Unfortunately, we also can't trust other large stakeholders to refrain from the allure of profit maximization, so we all protect our own stake by partaking in the very activity that's deteriorating our investment. It's tragedy of the commons in full swing.
The issue isn't that bots or individual actors are malicious or greedy; very few people invest in crypto for altruistic reasons. When designing an economic system, you must assume everyone will attempt to maximize profits. When individual efforts to maximizing profits contribute to the value of the whole, then it's a successful system. But when the optimal profit maximization strategy under your system undermines the value of the whole, then you have a flawed rewards structure, that is to say misaligned economic incentives.
The entire economic system cannot be designed to depend on the selfless sacrifice of moral saints paying a high price in order to just keep in check the perfectly rational actions of individual profit maximizers, which is where we are now and why the battle is failing.
As much as I want to, I can't really argue with him.
Are the selfless delaying the inevitable/essential?
So while the few good souls continue their altruistic behavior, are 'we' (check self-vote % and free delegation status) just frantically shoveling water out of a steadily sinking ship?
What if we ALL went 'full asshole' for a week to perhaps finally prove the point that the current algorithms aren't working, and force the changes that seem necessary at this point?
Would Steemit inc. act on this, knowing existing smaller accounts and new blood (without investment) would lose all hope and not touch the place with a barge pool?
I shall take these thoughts to the beach, because for now, I ain't changing.
Cheers
Asher @abh12345
I can't wait to see linear reward being reverted.
I wish this post was on the trending page.
Is it happening? I just want to see something happen, because the future isn’t looking good for steemit if something doesn’t change, and I do love this place, despite its faults.
Do you think it will happen?
Thank you! As much as i'm not such a big fan of the Trending page, I will take that as a huge compliment!
This is mostly just furthering what you have done to increase awareness on the subject, and i'd really like to see an update from yourself on what you think will (have to) happen going forward.
Thank you @teamsteem!
All valid points.
The question is whether the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?
It all comes down to expectations. I am very open in that I do not like the marketing of STEEM by many of the members who are on FB and YT. They promote the money aspect of things. That is setting people up for the idea they will make lots of money (like $15K in 24 hours). Instead I feel we need to promote a lack of censorship (although it exists to a degree), decentralization, and the taking part in laying the foundation for a total societal shift.
The challenge is we are still in the age of scarcity that the banksters erected. We are moving towards the Age of Abundance yet few can see it. They are still tied to the greed, fear, and take take take. It is going to take a while to shift.
Fortunately, cryptocurrencies in general are creating a lot of wealth for people. We are also seeing other measures spring up that are starting to focus upon the overlooked and suffering.
So where does greed end? When the motivation is money and you have people conditioned in the scarcity mindset, it is going to take over. The ones you refer to in the article, with the huge SP, it doesnt take a math whiz to figure out what they will net if STEEM moves up to even low double digits.
There is hope...the fact that more people are moving up, albeit slowly means that the system will distribute the wealth to others. To me, the worst cog in all this is the fact that the sign up process still only lets a hundreds of maybe a couple thousand new accounts through a day. I believe the interest is there yet the process is bogged down. I am wondering if this is by design.
If the blockchain had 10M people with 500K active each day, much of what is discussed would not even be an issue.
I agree for the most part. But STEEM started with a massive problem of initial wealth distribution that actually came out of mining. There are many whales who neither earned (via proof of brain) nor purchased their stake. They just mined it. We lacked proper initial distribution.
I’m so happy to see people talking about betterdistribution. I don’t know much about math but it seems pretty obvious to me that the more distributed the power is among individuals who care about others and contribute to the platform, the less of a problem we have because we can pool our efforts to steer the direction of the platform, rather than being forced to trust a few ultra whales and witnesses that they back up to work it out. Since I’m not good at the math though, I mainly focus on the human aspect and helping keeping great content creators here and bringing them together.
I think whatever that's going to be based on SMTs are going to have some better distribution. We could even end up seeing people using SMT based sites/projects more than STEEM itself. If this ends up happening, the initial distribution problem will be more or less taken care of. STEEM would keep increasing the value while SMT projects creating better communities through better distribution.
It was really stupid to mine STEEM in the first place. A pre-mine and a faucet would have been a far better option. NANO actually did this and it ended up well.
I've read about the lack of proper distribution, but don't know enough of the mechanics to discuss other methods that would have worked better.
I'm no expert either. I think EOS did a great job with distribution. I think public mining was a disaster. Proof of Brain with somewhat high inflation would have done a decent job coupled with a lengthy auction of STEEM like the one EOS had. People have incentive to be early adopters as there would only be a short high inflation period and those with deep pockets would actually have to pay for their stake and more demand they create, higher the price would be for Proof of Brain crowd. Nothing is perfect. But that would have made things better.
Also a faucet that reward people for http://steemitboard.com achievements would have been nice too. That's just my suggestion.
Hey @taskmaster4450, would you mind elaborating a little bit on this:
I'm wondering what you might be referring to specifically, and how having more people on with a limited sized reward pool would actually make what we're discussing no longer be an issue?
Just to be clear, I'm only seeking to understand how that can be, so I can better understand how this platform works.
Also, from the last video the Steemit crew did as part of someone's interview, one of them said they've been manually processing the accounts. I don't know if that's still going on, but it sounds like it. And since they're planning to open the flood gates with HF 20 Velocity, it may continue that way until the HF 20 drops.
Most of the reward pool goes to the authors. The more people who sign up, the more that pool is diluted. This means the distribution of the newer tokens favors the smaller accounts since there are more of them. In short, the few large accounts cannot produce enough content to deal with the overwhelm. They could vote bot all they want, instead of $600 on a trending page, they get $40...still a nice sum but not the overwhelming amount they have now.
This means an acceleration in the distribution of the tokens. The whales, as a whole, have been getting weaker over the last year. They experienced significant drop in their percentage of ownership. More people will make it go down that much quicker.
As for the manual sign up, I believe it is still in effect. You could be right that they are waiting until HF20 before changing it. I saw a video where they said they had something else they were working on...I guess it didnt pan out.
Okay. So more smaller accounts, the less there is for the bigger accounts. So that helps the smaller accounts, but not sure how that keeps the bigger money here? Delegation maybe? I guess it would depend on how much each smaller account is getting.
Okay, well, that helps explain that.
Interesting on the thing they were working on not panning out. I should probably check that out, too. :)
This an interesting aspect of growth that I hadn't considered, but surely the degree of dilution of whale rewards depends on the ratio of rich to poor people signing up? I.E. if for every 100 'normal people' who sign up, we have one multi-millionaire haejin clone things just stay as they are?
This would make sense to me. Hopefully this isn't the ratio we are looking at!
Could the fact that the bigger accounts are experiencing that drop be another reason why they are upping the anti on profiting via the self voting etc?
Thanks @taskmaster4450, a thorough response as always.
I'll pick this one out as I think it's really key - we have the chance to bring this age in, but it will need a majority to realise it - old habits die hard as they say. The above names can see what you see, and I'm pretty sure they will all hang on to this vision until all hope is gone - which is not yet.
Signups don't worry me too much at present, but as we saw over Xmas, there is a bottleneck in the process. Bandwidth took a hit then too and so I guess these are related.
Thanks again, keep trucking :)
Agreed. Monetization is an essential part of this platform and why many of us are all here but by overemphasizing it we fail to build a culture of cooperation and honesty, as many people are still stuck in a scarcity mindset.
Steemit does not care.
It did not care before and it does not care that it does not work either.
Just keeps pushing SMTs.
You got a 11.11% upvote from @ubot courtesy of @stimialiti! Send 0.05 Steem or SBD to @ubot for an upvote with link of post in memo.
Every post gets Resteemed (follow us to get your post more exposure)!
98% of earnings paid daily to delegators! Go to www.ubot.ws for details.
This comment has received a 45.45 % upvote from @steemdiffuser thanks to: @stimialiti.
Bids above 0.1 SBD may get additional upvotes from our trail members.
Thanks for this post, @abh12345.
I had read the post and comment section you mention yesterday and I must admit I was all confused afterwards.
Because I inderstand what the guy says. And sometimes I start doubting too. And then I write a post, spend 6 sbd on upvote bots and then I feel guilty about doing so for two days...
Earlier this week someone called me stupid because I did not selfvote.
And he was probably right.
I took away all my delegations to bidbots, and I’m not selling my votes anymore.
I have delegated a lot of my sp, but the only returns I have are the small delegation profits from Trufflepig, and some small upvotes from for example sbi.
i’m hurting myself here financially. I could be earning good money by making different choices. And sometimes I wonder why I don’t just play along and think of myself first.
I’m glad to know I’m not the only fool around here..
And maybe I’m in denial, or just plain naive, by believing that the ‘pay it forward’ mentality will continue to raise a new generation of Steemians with a different mindset. I only hope the platform will survive long enough to make sure these people have a chance to grow their accounts an get a little influence
Yes you perfectly sum of the experience of people with actual moral principles. I keep seeing this problem framed in terms of money you "lose" by not being selfish. But that assumes you actually have, could have, or should have that money. As you point out, it doesn't work that way for people who see the truth.
There is a lot of money in prostitution, so I hear, and few barriers to entry. I have some idea of the caliber of prostitutes in my area, so I know its not necessary to be young or beautiful. But it doesn't fit with the truth of who I am and what I want for my family, so I never think about the prostitution income I am losing. I was never going to have it anyway.
Good point, @wholeself-in.
Your comment was perfectly timed, as I was just starting to doubt my decision to not use the bidbots anymore. :0)
You’vr pulled me
haha :) That was me towards the end of my bot activities - oh the shame! I actually consider myself using them worse than self-voting these days, but each to their own of course!
I think you are at a point where you can still choose which road you want to take, it's not too late to try another way and probably not crash STEEM too much :) You need to do what makes you feel most comfortable, or the fun will fade very quickly.
With the witness thing going (and death threats from @paulag) if I 'turned rogue', I wont be testing the waters unless there is a major swing in feeling from the guys I mention above.
re: the last paragraph, I have the same hopes as you. Which is why I'm still here, doing what I do.
Cheers.
One of the things that keeps running around in my mind is the comment in which was said that there were a bunch of people that maybe wanted to change, but they couldn’t trust each other. I understand, because if some give up, and the other simple keep on doing what they are doing, there is no solution, only loss for the ‘good guys’.
I see this message mainly as a good sign, maybe mindsets are shifting. I hope so, because I can not understand how you can keep on doing things of which even a newcomer can see that those are eventually going to kill the platform, and simply don’t care.
If the platform dies, so is the flood of money these people are taking...
Earlier today, I made my final decision: no more bid bots. Be the change you wanna see - lol
Leaves me with the next issue: community bots and community upvoting ‘requirements’. These last ones are no different than the so called ‘circle-jerks’ everybody is accusing the whales of...
OMG, there are so many things wrong with this platform... it’s sad, really...
It’s a shame so many awesome people hang around here, or I would probably be long gone. ;0)
I wonder if the creators were really so naive, thinking that the peer-to-peer quality reward system would actually work, and that there would be no people who would try to game the system out of greed. I can hardly believe that...
And you see, I've had the exact opposite thought, which might be assigning them more credit than any one really deserves.
What if this was all set up to see exactly what people would do with it? Aside from the code, there really is no governance. There are pages of etiquette, and plenty of users who buy into one philosophy or another, but really, the only tools that we ever get to do much of anything with seems to always put the rewards in the hands of those who all already have it.
So, it's either a grand experiment to see how people, in a rather benign way, rise up against the nameless, faceless oppressors and overcome, or it's just a means by which unassuming patsies can come in and do grunt work so that those with control of the rewards can continue to make money.
In the second scenario, the rats have already abandoned the ship, but they're trying to take as much of it as they can with them. In the former, there's still hope. The selfless still have a fighting chance, we're just never going to know.
Either way, it's assigning an actual formulated plan to what goes on here that someone behind the scenes masterminded. Would I rather believe that there's actual purpose to what happens here and that someone actually does know what they're doing? Yes. But that means either way, we're hamsters on the exercise wheel running as fast as our little feet can fly.
I completely agree. It’s like I said hard to believe someone sets up somthing like this without purpose.
As things are looking now, I tend to say they could have spared themselves the trouble and just could have come over and I would have told them. But of course I wouldn’t have given them such a fat paycheck as they’ve given themselves - lol
But I also believe there is hope -maybe not for the platform or the main goal of the social experiment, but the selfless have a chance to fight every day. If I look around me and I see how many people adapt to the ‘pay-it-forward’-mentality, which is ‘taught’ by the selfless, it gives me hope for the future. Not on steemit, but I like to believe people take that mindset home, teach it to their children, pass it on to others, which will - in the very long run - maybe make the world a better place one day.
Now why didn’t I think of setting up this social experiment myself. I love social experiments. I would love to be the one looking into our hamster cage and watch all those running hamsters ;0)
Too much drama for me. Hamsters don't seem to play well together. :)
Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with the conspiracy theory going on. The alternative, that no one knows what the heck they're doing and we're just on a runaway freight train or rudder less titanic doesn't give me any comfort at all. I'd rather be a part of someone's evil plan, and know it, then be a part of a meaningless series of unfortunate events.
Okay, I'd rather not be either, but... :)
I get ya :0)
I've been wondering the very same thing myself. Is this a social experiment to see how we actually behave given no governance?
It's super easy to draw that conclusion. It's also much easier on the ego to think there's an actual purpose to it all, rather than we've all been duped for the personal gain of some scam artists with computer engineering degrees. :)
I like to believe there's rhyme or reason to the randomness or the contrariness. Things that are supposed to do one thing either not doing it or causing something else to get out of whack. I'd rather believe they're trying to come up with difficult, near impossible scenarios to see what we'll do to prevail. Will we give in to destructive behavior, just quit, or find the sustainable and fair way forward.
As I said, it gives a massive amount of credit and brain power to a pretty select, fairly unreachable few, but when things don't work the way they're supposed to work, there aren't many more options to consider. And none of them are going to be any better than they're doing it on purpose. :)
Never say never, but I'm with you on this one right now.
Honest and correct - sbi, qurator, makeawhale, etc. Whales and obvious larger 'CJs' could point to these and state they are no different.
I'm a fan of all the above, and I don't complain too much about CJs - it's their stake, mostly.
Keep on going though - got to be in it to win it, or place somewhere mid-table :)
One small glimpse of hope: Dinosaurs did go extinct...
The selfish gene is what makes this platform it seems.
And I think it is eventually the gene that will break it as well then the selfless leave and the selfish turn to sockpuppet wars and phishing.
This platform is build by oppertunity hunters, not by humanitarians? Could that be the issue here?
It’s indeed the selfnishness that will eventually cause the death of this platform.
But then a new one will rise, created by people who wan to earn big bucks. As soon as they’ve completed their mission, they’ll abandon the project and more greed will take over.
Unfortunately, that's human nature,
And about the dinosaures: it took them quite some time to get. I don’t think I have enough time in
My life left to see that happen. Maybe my grand-grand children will
in a way i like to think that we 'disobedient steemians' have formed a kind of virtual group in cyberspace. that does not need a discord manipulation channel to think for us what we should be thinking.
The group of people who really think for themselves are just stronger by logic, ethics and the sharing of idea's.
I have experienced the internet before it became 'www' that normal level of communicating is what is missing these days. Not really missing i see likeminded people like us who find eachother. Yet the greedy basterds that have a 'corporate' mindset they really don't see what we see. We cannot blame a blind man for being blind. So we need to let go. Let them be.... We need to form our own steemit somehow. So that they can become circle bottomfeeders (?) I mean, i hope not, but once there are no more minnows to feed on then all they can eat is ... shit...? Not sure...
Once this kind of split happens, then we are no longer an annoyance to them and they nolonger are shitting in our water.
HOW? hehehe... OK i'll admit it. I DON'T HAVE A CLUE. :-D
Maybe the roots of your dreads have and idea stored?
To me it looks like we don't need to abandon as such, we merely need to agree to disagree and lead separate lifes? Sounds just as bad LOL...
Choice is up to them i guess, offer a REAL solution and keep us on board, or loose the very group of people that could have made it work.
I really appreciate this post Asher, but more so I do appreciate the awareness you are trying to generate.
Just so you know, your current payout is: $782/week x 4 = $3128/month
Doing this for 1 week (or more) with full tilt self-upvote might be worth the experimentation, it will mean you might have to sacrifice some popularity for a short time albeit the extra $1852/month income. But I think with sufficient communication to your regular patrons, most would understand, and, since a number are on your curation trail, it should be safe for you.
Unfortunately, it probably will not be for other sizable minnows and dolphins who arrived in the last 4-8 months that have little to almost zero curation followings but have successfully generated about 1/3 your income eg. $1000/month, purely due to have to churn out one quality post after another.
Let me know which week todo it, and I'll participate to proof the point to Steemit Inc. @Ned @Sneak or whichever powers to be.
Once again, do know it's a costly operation for active Steemians who are getting better returns from a base of larger size followers, and don't have curation following/trails auto-upvoting their post.
btw. Great job on the wolfie audit shenanigans, it's Steemians like you who convince me weekly not to totally give up on human (oversight and governance) on Steem
Not everyone thought so, and thus I appreciate hearing this from you. Thank you.
Apologies for the delayed response here, and thanks for your comments.
Honestly, I have no plans to try to initiate the above, but the post has raised plenty of discussion to keep me busy!
For me personally, it would take a group of people (aka the ones in my thank you note above) stating their intentions to go 'FA', before I changed my approach - And i suspect they wont (or they would have already?)
Thanks again.
Thanks for using the #nobidbot tag and raising awareness of this initiative!
I’m still not sure if n2 is the best solution but at least it’s worth discussing again because we really do need something to curb self voting and bidbots. I think a whole week would be devestating to the platform, 2 days maybe?
We should be encouraging people to act altruistically but the whole system shouldn’t be dependent on altruism, even those who care about others should still feel free to work towards their own benefit without it creating new such a massive gap in the distribution of power.
Let’s keep this conversation going!
No worries! I didn't know it was your creation, nice idea I will continue using it for most of my posts.
2 days / a week - don't think it would take long. I guess Steemit inc. are working on SMTs, HiveMind, and Communities as those have been top of the list for a while now.
When released, the next priority to me should be another look at the curation/creator rewards split (50/50?) and the rewards curve - but perhaps not implement them both at the same time eh? :)
I’m worried about a 50/50 split as I think it’ll encourage more curation based on who is popular and discourage whales from upvoting minnows even further when there is so much to gain from upvoting users who always make it to trending.
My creation? I guess! I have a lot of great ideas I try not to take too much credit for because I’d like collaborators more than followers. I also have too many ideas to focus on them all so I try to just put them out there and see what happens. Thanks to @bycoleman and yourself, it seems this one is taking off. I’ve been trying to populate a discord channel where we brainstorm solutions to problems at steemit (and perhaps some off steemit) and ways to help create more dolphins based on organic bahavior, quality content and contribution. It will also be a place for minnows to gather support on any project with greatly benefits other users. #steemitzombies #nobidbot and the Deadpost Initiative are my projects which I started the channel with but I hope to see people coming up with and populating their own chats within the channel. We’d love to have you there.
https://discord.gg/RmE6mG5
Possibly, but the very best curation rewards lie in spotting a post early - most whale posts are covered with auto-votes, which may change a little once the next fork arrives.
Just has a look at the #deadpool post, another awesome idea!
I'll add the discord to my list, I'm not that active there but will try to pop in when I can - thanks for the invite :)
As soon there is a viable alternative, everyone who thought of utopia will be gone. The whales that are not out by then will be stuck here and listen to @jerrybanfield make another stupid "prediction".
I can give a rough estimate from my part of the woods:
Since hf 19, 3 of my regular buddies has powered down entirely, 2-3 are totally passive. 4 has delegated away their stake more than 50%. That is one terrible blow to my neighborhood.
And of course most are more interested in bid-bots than me.
Steemit is or will be unsustainable. But I'm sure some celebrity will pop up shortly and sugarcoat the inevitable collapse.
That's a tough tale you tell man, time to get yourself a new neighborhood I guess.
Best to stay clear of the celebrity hoods though, I can see you losing your temper there!
I'm not down and out at all, just posing some questions to see what others were thinking.
I've been around a little under four months and I've seen the same thing happen with folks who've been here longer than I have. They've stopped for one reason or another, though I couldn't say it's all for the same reasons. Most didn't have a big enough stake to really warrant powering down. So, anyway, I think there are many of us where are our initial circles have dwindled.
I've been thinking about this issue lately - and I can see from the comments that I'm not the only one.
I still need to write a reply to @trafalgar, becuase I still think he's abrogating his personal responsibility for his actions. But I do agree that things appear to have gone wrong at the system level.
My thoughts for a while have been that an important tipping point will be the amount of SP delegated to bidbots. I think that marks a decent into the more purely 'rent-seeking' cycle that @krnel alerted me to. My worry is that once we go past a certain proportion of SP being tied up in bidbots, the associated 'regulatory capture' of witnesses will mean that nothing will change until something really drastic happens to the steem economy. Maybe we aren't quite there yet, or maybe we've already passed that point.
Here's one thing; we need to be aware that our measure of success might not be the same as whatever @ned and Steemit.inc are using. And it certainly isn't the same as some investors, both large and small, who are not interested in content at all and appear to only be interested in making money while they can, (as well as ensuring someone else is left as the bag-holder).
Anyway, I agree that the steem ecosystem won't hit its full potential, or even survive, if things continue the way they are. Will hf20 and SMTs (whenever they actually happen) fix this, or just kick the can down the road? Too soon to say.
I do suspect @ned is aware of these problems - but this is based on him liking my reply to one of his tweets, so I wouldn't get too excited. That said, this should remind us that there are more ways to rock the boat than just go 'full asshole'. Attracting the right investors and new users is much harder to do with difficult questions messing with your social media vibe.
Thank you for this great response, a new follower you have :)
@krnel writes really well, as do you and I can see why you've picked up on his work.
Tough to say, I did report that in-excess of 30 million SP is voting x10 a day if you collate all the Bid-bots SP today. That is rather hefty, but I don't know if it's past the point of no return yet.
https://steemit.com/steem/@abh12345/who-will-create-the-content-for-the-bid-bots-to-promote-in-the-future
Check the links at the bottom of the post - these are my more recent bid-bot contributions.
I think a fair few of us are pinning some hopes here - and why not - the idea behind SMT is totally excellent.
I would secretly be hella excited (but not tell anyone) if that happened to me :)
Thanks for the reply, good stuff!
Glad to hear about the beach @abh12345, coz I wasn't sure at first where you were heading :D ... you know, either there is abundance, or there isn't. If there is such a thing as abundance in the Steemniverse, then stressing over chasing numbers and rep and crypto etc is unnecessary. If there is a perceived need to accumulate, then there is an accompanying fear of not having enough. Wonder what is enough anyway, and whether one can relax when it is reached!
For what it's worth @abh12345: you do not seem to pursue steemitlife in the above acquisitive manner; you also seem to be saying that you have enough for your needs anyway (even without the arsehole income :). Over the past week or so, the posts and comments of yours that I have read seem to have a tone of conflict (RW!) and now, a bit of dejection. The actions of others seem to be affecting your state of mind (ok, this is based on tiny little snapshots) when there may not be any need for it. We don't know where this is going - it's still beta. Sure you have a much longer view of it (technically too), but the fundamental thing is that we can't change anyone who doesn't wish to change (if someone continues to hide/deny something, this is a form of resistance to your pointing it out and fear of it emerging; but what they do is not your responsibility), and perhaps they don't have best interests of the platform at heart. All you can do is state your mind and you do. I respect you for this, and for your position in general, such as I see it. If there is indeed abundance, then the only inevitable/essential is the demise of scarcity think and all the fear-based activity associated with it (bots, self-votes, networking for profit, writing for profit etc, rather than nothing - for free-flowing self-expression and the flowers in the vase :). Meanwhile, not giving your power away helps 🔆
Hi @barge, thanks for the comments you make.
I apologize for coming across negatively at times and hope that this is not the case for the majority of my text here, as it's really not how I want to present myself. I'm still a huge fan of this place, and will kick out the 'shill' and engagement posts too.
I guess a few recent pieces have not been that way, but I just wish for people to be honest here, and with the access I have (that we can all have) to the data, at times this does not seem to be the case - it's hard to turn a blind eye all the time.
I'll be looking into a food/cooking post soon (the first and the last!), and as the summer gets closer, riding the bike and testing the stability of the GoPro :) These post at least will have 0 charts/graphs, or mentions of wrong doings - that will likely present itself on the plate.
Cheers, have a great rest of your weekend.
Hey my friend, I didn't mean to give you the sense of having a go at you, not at all, it came from a place of empathy and I do not consider you to have anything to apologise for at all. You present yourself well anyway, it comes across pretty natural, I don't see you as just playing to the crowd. Not suggesting blind eyes be turned either - just that one's equanimity not be displaced by the actions of others. I think it is important to speak one's mind if the feeling is strong - it's a courageous act! You can wish for honesty from others (I do too), but we can only guarantee our own position of integrity regardless of what others do, and this needn't be affected by their different approach (which is why I was wondering where your post was going :). These post at least will have 0 charts/graphs, or mentions of wrong doings - if you are taking a break from this and focussing on food, bike and GoPro, let it be on @abh12345's terms, and noone else's! Nothing at all to apologise for to anyone IMO!
🚣
I'm positive these were not your intentions - we will both agree to not worry, ok? :)
Thanks again for the philosophical and well thought-out replies, I do enjoy receiving them.
🔆 🔆 🔆
I fully agree with you, the linear rewards have to go. n^2 might be too much, but n^1 is not working properly. That's why I support witnesses like @felixxx who want to change it - and so should any person caring about the long-term viability of our blockchain, imo.
Having read through his work linked by @teamsteem in the references above, I have also chosen to support @felixxx.
Cheers!