His argument has a fundamental flaw: that big investors are not supposed to look out for themselves. That large stakeholders should not have a huge say in a "Staked" economy.
Hence the question. And there is nothing wrong with answering that question.
He lays out his views in a long detailed way. Responding with a 1 line comment to something nuanced is disrespectful as the original commenter invested lots of time to create his thoughts down on paper. If someone writes a deep comment there should be an appropriate detailed response that use quotes from the original comment and explains things with some depth and consideration.
It's easy to try to pick small things from a long comment and try to lead things down to 1 specific path. That is easy to do. Life is more nuanced. So it needs to be handled with some care. And not lead stuff off topic. Since it shows that even if you would get a long depth comment back in return you would probably respond with a short one again. Which shows low care levels in expression. It tries to bring down a conversation to something overly short and too simplistic.
Some person investing a lot of time and energy to develop something proper won't take an overly short response serious as it will be a waste of time.
Oooo. This is what someone was talking about when they said you were trying to control how people comment.
Guilty. Sometimes I only have a few words to respond with. It's sometimes frustrated me that people go on for pages when I have something to say about their premise that would lead the conversation in another direction.
I wonder if we'll ever get past the gap between how we expect to be able to converse and what social media is capable of conveying.
Why would you say that? I actually claim thats its completely understandable and expected.
trying to grab more power for yourself (your right of course)...
The thing is that when everyone else is paying the price, its important to speak up even if it means that Kevin might decide never to "gift " you again.
Seems it's better we all stay in the ditch than give people an incentive to reignite their curating fuck-o-meter which has a little downside of making whales richer.
I'm trying to see your angle here but all I see is prejudice.
The thing is that when everyone else is paying the price, its important to speak up even if it means that Kevin might decide never to "gift " you again.
Voting for someone's post doesn't mean you are gifting him or her anything.
Prejudice? Im not seeing any here. Re-ignite whose curation?
Freedoms? Fyrsts? Cmon.
Im not sure how you arent seeing this, but they want to cut everyones potential payouts by 25%. This means slower growth for smaller accounts and faster growth for large accounts. A gap will widen drastically. Also this essentially kills bots so you cant even empower yourself but are rather dependent even more on a few whales that want to curate.
And you believe Kevin and Traf have MORE to lose if their intentions are "not good" and these proposed changes bring forth behaviors that will make Steem more worthless?
This change wont bring any change of behavior. It will change the way the behavior is exhibited but it will stay the same. As it did always.
This change is incredibly dangerous because its essentially a aggressive move by the curator whales against the community in an attempt to grab more power for themselves which they can do, because "curation" has always been seen as a major strength of the platform and the 5-10$ they drop on your post has a huge impact on an individual. (wow someone gave me 10$ for something i wrote) Therefor you assume these guys can do no wrong.
Problem is that we moved away from the "gift" economy which is a extremely small part of the larger picture.
Not one thing that is written in this post can you hang your hat on and say: Yes this change will lead to improvement in this "area".
Not one thing would change for the better, unless you are a curator large account like Kevins and Trafs, then you would get a higher ROI.
Instead of creating a fairer distribution across the board, creating a middle class, they want to empower themselves to a higher degree.
They are essentially saying that by increasing their returns you will be better off.
That is wrong on so many levels.
Passive investors will remain passive investors since not everyone cares about curation.
The "potential" (and i mean this in the broadest of definitions) for new whale curators popping up from what we have now is close to zero, and the passive whale accounts actually openly admitted they would still look for passive income instead of curating.
And the most important part... There just isnt enough curators to assume they would be able to cover current platform quality creators with upvotes, to justify a cut of 25% from author earnings for everyone on the platform, alienating passive investors and a move to 1.2 superlinear
Curator behavior would not change and everyone else would take a huge cut.
You would be essentially increasing community dependency greatly on just a few large stake holders that already have a great effect on the gift economy.
This is ludicrous on so many levels.
Problem is that we moved away from the "gift" economy
Steem was never envisioned as a gift economy. It was and is based on directing rewards to those who contribute value.
Gifting can be done using the transfer function. That's not ever been the idea of the reward pool and voting.
Though I will say it wouldn't necessarily be an altogether bad idea to design a system around. But it isn't Steem.
move to 1.2 superlinear
Kevin and Traf like ^1.3 or ^1.2 superlinear (which they call 'mild' but I disagree) but very few others do. It isn't likely to happen, so perhaps consider the rest of the proposal without it as a more realistic take.
I might have expressed myself wrongly there, but STEEM being a "gift economy" is the idea being held by quite a few people which was the point i was trying to make.
The whole problem around all and any discussions that take this direction, i think stems from one single thing..
Value.
People have a different view of what value is.
On one side you have people trying to tell you what should and should not be considered value, what should be considered more or less valuable, and on the other hand you have people (and i consider myself in that camp) that say: "What ever you decide."
Responding with a 1 line comment to 300 word comment is a bit waste of time. The original comment goes very much in depth in how he looks at things.
His argument has a fundamental flaw: that big investors are not supposed to look out for themselves. That large stakeholders should not have a huge say in a "Staked" economy.
Hence the question. And there is nothing wrong with answering that question.
No he is not saying that.
He lays out his views in a long detailed way. Responding with a 1 line comment to something nuanced is disrespectful as the original commenter invested lots of time to create his thoughts down on paper. If someone writes a deep comment there should be an appropriate detailed response that use quotes from the original comment and explains things with some depth and consideration.
It's easy to try to pick small things from a long comment and try to lead things down to 1 specific path. That is easy to do. Life is more nuanced. So it needs to be handled with some care. And not lead stuff off topic. Since it shows that even if you would get a long depth comment back in return you would probably respond with a short one again. Which shows low care levels in expression. It tries to bring down a conversation to something overly short and too simplistic.
Some person investing a lot of time and energy to develop something proper won't take an overly short response serious as it will be a waste of time.
Oooo. This is what someone was talking about when they said you were trying to control how people comment.
Guilty. Sometimes I only have a few words to respond with. It's sometimes frustrated me that people go on for pages when I have something to say about their premise that would lead the conversation in another direction.
I wonder if we'll ever get past the gap between how we expect to be able to converse and what social media is capable of conveying.
Posted using Partiko Android
Why would you say that? I actually claim thats its completely understandable and expected.
The thing is that when everyone else is paying the price, its important to speak up even if it means that Kevin might decide never to "gift " you again.
Seems it's better we all stay in the ditch than give people an incentive to reignite their curating fuck-o-meter which has a little downside of making whales richer.
I'm trying to see your angle here but all I see is prejudice.
Voting for someone's post doesn't mean you are gifting him or her anything.
You are one real prejudiced mf haha
Prejudice? Im not seeing any here. Re-ignite whose curation?
Freedoms? Fyrsts? Cmon.
Im not sure how you arent seeing this, but they want to cut everyones potential payouts by 25%. This means slower growth for smaller accounts and faster growth for large accounts. A gap will widen drastically. Also this essentially kills bots so you cant even empower yourself but are rather dependent even more on a few whales that want to curate.
Hehe. Its not about Kevin and Traf making more money. Its about what will happen just so Kevin and Traf could make more money.
And you believe Kevin and Traf have MORE to lose if their intentions are "not good" and these proposed changes bring forth behaviors that will make Steem more worthless?
This change wont bring any change of behavior. It will change the way the behavior is exhibited but it will stay the same. As it did always.
This change is incredibly dangerous because its essentially a aggressive move by the curator whales against the community in an attempt to grab more power for themselves which they can do, because "curation" has always been seen as a major strength of the platform and the 5-10$ they drop on your post has a huge impact on an individual. (wow someone gave me 10$ for something i wrote) Therefor you assume these guys can do no wrong.
Problem is that we moved away from the "gift" economy which is a extremely small part of the larger picture.
Not one thing that is written in this post can you hang your hat on and say: Yes this change will lead to improvement in this "area".
Not one thing would change for the better, unless you are a curator large account like Kevins and Trafs, then you would get a higher ROI.
Instead of creating a fairer distribution across the board, creating a middle class, they want to empower themselves to a higher degree.
They are essentially saying that by increasing their returns you will be better off.
That is wrong on so many levels.
Curator behavior would not change and everyone else would take a huge cut.
You would be essentially increasing community dependency greatly on just a few large stake holders that already have a great effect on the gift economy.
This is ludicrous on so many levels.
Steem was never envisioned as a gift economy. It was and is based on directing rewards to those who contribute value.
Gifting can be done using the transfer function. That's not ever been the idea of the reward pool and voting.
Though I will say it wouldn't necessarily be an altogether bad idea to design a system around. But it isn't Steem.
Kevin and Traf like ^1.3 or ^1.2 superlinear (which they call 'mild' but I disagree) but very few others do. It isn't likely to happen, so perhaps consider the rest of the proposal without it as a more realistic take.
I might have expressed myself wrongly there, but STEEM being a "gift economy" is the idea being held by quite a few people which was the point i was trying to make.
The whole problem around all and any discussions that take this direction, i think stems from one single thing..
People have a different view of what value is.
On one side you have people trying to tell you what should and should not be considered value, what should be considered more or less valuable, and on the other hand you have people (and i consider myself in that camp) that say: "What ever you decide."
Well if they contribute good content AND make money, I don't mind. If they're making money at the net expense of Steem, that's bad.