Thank you for bringing this up even though it is all over the platform. But this is good. This topic can not get enough perspectives :-)
I think it depends on where in time and space you put it. I also see that the power in here is just as dispersed as it does out here, that is to say it is merely a reflection of reality. Nobody knows when and if this will change. I wonder all the time whether Members are calling for someone to change this and who that is. The platform operators? They could do something, but it doesn't seem easy to me. I think it is similar to a state where those who make decisions that have an impact on everyone can never please everyone equally. One cannot, on the one hand, do nothing and leave everything to the market and, on the other hand, not govern from above if one wants to achieve something like common good regulation. We have the same problem in the democracies. There should be a referendum here if a consensus is to be reached. An interesting way of getting a referendum would be to ask all members for the least pain point, rather than what would please them the most. For example, by taking into account the premise of the largest possible voting amount and giving all voters several possible options. Like this one:
the highest voting amount should be enclosed:
- 50 SBD
- 100 SBD
- 200 SBD
- 300 SBD
- 500 SBD
- 1000 SBD
- 10000 SBD
Then each individual should decide for himself what sum appears to be the least painful for him. Someone who uses this method is, for example, Christian Felber, the founder of the common good economy. I recently wrote an article about the distribution problem in German:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@erh.germany/das-verteilungs-problem-und-wie-du-es-fuer-dich-loesen-kannst
For me, such a vote would mean that I would have to deal with the question of how much a whale should be able to distribute at the maximum with a push of a button of 100 percent.
It would be a possible approach. But this is not the way it is thought in my government or anywhere else where the levers of power are pushed. Nevertheless, many smart people develop very interesting approaches that should be mentioned. One of these is the Citizens' Parliament. You can find here (also in German): http://www.timo-rieg.de/2013/09/alternative-burgerparlament/
I highly recommend to read it because it offers an out of the box thinking.
However, since Steemit is not a closed system and new members keep coming in, the question of consensus would always arise anew, wouldn't it?
A "maximum-upvote-amount-per-user" will not work. You can just create a new account and delegate it half you power in less than a minute and you would have worked yourself around this.
True, thank you. That pulls the question of limiting the amount of accounts either.
I would like to ask you to remain for a moment at the idea of having conducted a poll. Suppose you've chosen a maximum amount of 500 SBD. Continue to accept that your choice is visible to all system participants (i. e. it is not secret). If you now use the loophole and create multiple accounts to trick or bypass the system, the question arises of how you will react when others will track and challenge your activities.
Without a consensus on an upper limit, it is difficult to accept this at all is a questionable act. For me, this would mean that participants who open several accounts below the upper limit would have to be treated differently from those who exceed the upper limit. Similar to our existing legal system, a perpetrator may in principle be punished for a law offence. Now the individual case is always to be considered and I can disapprove of the act, but understand the background. For example, as a judge I sentence a perpetrator to a one dollar fine, because in this particular case I recognize a motive that would not justify a harsher punishment.
What do you think? Is this approach worth thinking about and developing? I have put in an idea that I find very interesting and would have liked to see whether there is a willingness to deepen it.
So far the Steemit space looks to me as a virtual state where the settling citizens are being asked by themselves to discuss democracy.
I don't exactly understand what you are saying but I will try ;)
So you mean there should be measurments to punish certain users for doing certain things by making up "laws"?
In my eyes making up more laws moves the platform away from what I think are it's core values.
And even if such laws where there, I am not sure about how you would find out which accounts belong together, or how you would prove those findings. And punishment by law without prove isn't something I approve of.
Everybody can express his disagreement by downvoting/flagging, centralised punishment options are nothing desirable in my eyes.
I agree about not centralizing everything. But also not of decentralizing everything. Something in the middle, I would say.
Does that answer your question?
As my approach is not finished and I do just some brainstorming here, I thought it might be good for something. A consensus might change the single interactions as well.
Do you think it would be of some support to you in being asked about a maximum-upvote-amount-per-user? And would it be of use to you to see the results of others, too? ... This could lead to a habit of law and not to a centralized form of legislation, execution, and justification.
I ask myself the question if a poll and the result of it would change my view and habit in flagging/downvoting.
We share the same gusto for out of the box thinking though! :-)
Thanks for your valuable thoughts and links shared. I love your article about 'common welfare economy' (Gemeinwohl-Ökonomie). Do you now Dan Larimer's concept for a blockchain-based Mutual Aid Society (MAS). I think both have a lot in common, especially the idea of focussing more on the overall outcome than on individual success.
Many months ago @dan-atstarlite published a vlog where he underlined the interdependence between the overall growth of a community and the personal success of their members. It requires a lot of commitment since the stronger need to sacrifice parts of their earnings for the group in order to balance out the weaker. But in the end it's all worth it, because if the platform fails, nobody wins.
Again, you made some great points here and I appreciated the read!
Too sad your German article was published 11 days ago, I would have loved to upvote it, too :-)
Thank you a lot, Marly (is that your name?),
I am amazed by the variety of different concepts and thoughts being put here as a reaction to your article.
I think that pins it down to what I meant. Even though the winners might think, they won (for example the platform dies and the ones who cashed out on a great scale saved their rewards) they could lose on a greater scale - because whenever many losers will be left, it could be defined as a loss for the total.
Not necessarily because it would be like this, but because those who were left behind would or could think so. It always depends on what those with the many powers would like to do with this power. When I find myself sacrificing a part of my wealth, it is something different than when I find that I simply give up a part without feeling the loss. Which brings me back to the question of how much I really need personally as part of a large human community.
Have a good recovery from this huge amount of responding to your comments :-)
P.S. No, I don't know Dan Larimer's concept, but will try to find it. Thank you.
Marly is fine :-)