You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Lambos, Beaches, and Mansions?
The best is "the numbers don't matter, people will game it eventually". This place is sometimes quite depressing.
The best is "the numbers don't matter, people will game it eventually". This place is sometimes quite depressing.
Ah, I see you have reached the same feeling I had some 16 months ago about changing the ecosystem :-( I've been following these posts without comment for precisely the same reason. But (perhaps) the climate has changed.
If the Steem ecosystem is truly up for discussion then let's blast it fully open! The various tweaks will not, in my opinion, help much, if at all - they arise because of the unwillingness by the coders of the blockchain to see beyond the parameters they have set.
The problem of creating a functioning ecosystem with a native cryptocurrency is not trivial - and, from my research, has not been solved... by anybody!
The really deep problem is that real-life transactions are asymmetric. Any blockchain transaction, in a like-for-like ecosystem, that is asymmetric can be made symmetric by having one real person own two accounts. The mathematical problem is to retain the asymmetry in spite of this.
In answer to your quote, the originator is partially right. Perhaps I haven't seen it, but what is needed is a stress-test of your proposed changes; not just words, or people pretending they understanding news-headline economics, but some simulations, either by computer or a very small group of people role playing. The point is not to find the equilibrium, but how it can be gamed and corrupted - coz it will be, hence test for it.
This ended up longer than intended. I'll expand on some of this, perhaps ;-)
People will always try to game everything that can be gamed. You really think this only accounts to steem(it)? It says more about our human nature than blockchains.
point is, align the game or greed with the good of the network.