RE: Block-Change You Can Believe In!
While reading this I was reminded why I've always liked you. There is no sugar coating, just the "World According to ATS" direct and clearly stated.
Regarding the outrageous lack of diversity in the initial mining, I fully agree that nearly any problem I attempt to analyze ends up being the lack of distribution. - As you stated there isn't a fix to that. (delegation mitigates it in my opinion and could do so even more if it was the desire of those who hold stake)
After that though I just don't have your faith in protocols. The values of the handful of stakeholders are already reflected in the economy and I maybe I am being a pessimist when I say it is my opinion you could allocate rewards in any manner you want and we will end up funneling all the money back into the same hands.
If the large stakeholders were motivated and interested in building a social media site we would have one. Many of them hold plenty of stake to make that happen or at least to drop a few improvements to the Github and ask them to be included in a drop. Doesn't happen. Witnesses who swear they have "Coding Companies" haven't improved a thing. They just run around and complain as if they are powerless minnows. So Stakeholders have failed, the community has failed and developers have failed to bring anything new to the platform.
I think most agree it isn't working great right now, and my point of view is we are churning along waiting for something to change. Most likely outcome SMTs and Communities. Based on SteemIt, Inc's stake and desires I see that as another way for this to work out well. Let developers and community leaders create and develop/fund/enforce their own protocols.
In the meantime, delegation has brought about the most surprising positive change I've seen since the beginning of the project. The Bid Bots. Finally we have a system in place that allows serious content creators to promote their own work without needing the support of the tiny group of people who own stake. Bidbots are risky, and require investment and cause people to pay attention to the type of content that is being promoted. Try to step back from how they were delivered and look at the life they have given to diversify the site. While I admit it isn't always in deserving hands, but it wasn't before either. It seems to me to be improving. While many don't want to spend thousands of dollars to improve their stake a little and still be "Outweighed" by the large holders, many will spend hundreds to get some attention and visibility. It is a model that current, serious conrent creators understand and are not triggered by.
The bots are the greatest equalizer I have seen since the project began. The content issues are starting to work out, because for the first time, non-miners have some say in how the rewards are allocated. I'm sorry this makes some mad, and I am not saying it is ideal. I am just saying it is working.
I am not arguing with what you see as the solutions, but as you stated I think it is highly unlikely any of the suggested changes will take place.
With that being said, I am okay with where we are right now, and I think the community is starting to do a better job of handling content with the bidbots in place.
As someone I respect who is running for a witness position, my questions to you are:
What will you do to try to implement the changes you have suggested?
If you fail, will you adapt to what the current situation is and try to help others learn to cope in the environment we currently have?
How are bidbots risky?
I meant the "Content Creator" will take a risk. Most will not take investment risks on shitty content if they have a reasonable chance to be flagged down.
I love that it is expensive to exploit them continuously, and those who are using them have to face the rest of the community in order for their investment to count. Yes, a few users are taking some undeserved rewards, but for the sake of distribution, I've decided not to be troubled by that.
Don’t they make the money back, though? Doesn’t sound too risky to me.
And getting flagged isn’t a big threat since no one even looks at the trending page, let alone moderates it.
I can’t comment on the quality of the posts - whatever that is - since there’s never anything I’d click on.
Others might. Or otters.
I do think we need more otters.
The bidbot owners in many cases are not the stakeholders. They are merchants, and if you glance through all the different bots, they are varied in who owns them and what they currently own. (new hands)
So, we are basically creating a merchant class. Some might call it a middle class. If your goal is to stop a specific group of people from earning... I just don't have anything to say about that. My goal is to see as many people as possible generate as much money as possible whether I like them or not.
Due to those "middle (wo)men" new people are being rewarded. They are not being rewarded because Ned likes them. They are being rewarded because they were willing to back up their content with stake and put it out there for the community to judge.
Those who are paying attention to trending see what we have a much better selection of content. Much of it doesn't interest me either, but I don't think I am the target audience.
The owners are stepping up the criteria for who can use the bots and who is abusing the bots. The community is flagging more and in some cases have talked the bot owners into removing their votes. It is slow and painful, but I think we are making progress. As ATS states it is a mess and it isn't going to be unraveled quickly.
Otters... You are correct, we are lacking Otters. :)
The disconnect between you and I on this subject is that I never saw a ”need” for a ”fair playground” for everyone. As in I never saw a need for minnows to have that shot to get their stuff to trending right away.
The way I saw it was you were supposed to work hard on your content and network.
Trending was a lot of the same people every day, but legit stuff rose to the top every now and again, still.
Now no one curates and everything is next to pointless.
Unless you’re a stupid bitch who takes her clothes off on a platform full of crypto nerds who like to masturbate to you, that is.
It just comes down to personal preference. I understand that you like the current, sort of more business-oriented direction better - I originally joined for the social media direction.
When it comes down to preference, neither is right or wrong.
But the fact of the matter is that Steemit no longer represents what the original idea was.
Edit: I also think it’s possible that our views are affected by the fact that I was doing well in the old model, while you weren’t.
That makes us prefer one model over the other.
I agree with some of what you said, because the content side will take care of it's self. I am not worried about it... Yet.
I do want to be clear on one point. I also don't care about fair. I don't care about a minnow getting to trending. I care about a content creator getting to trending. Professional, mature content creators are used to this model.
Also, I don't mind if a minnow gets to the top if they can handle the scrutiny.
You are correct, I care about the business model first, because the content can be corrected at any point. If we don't have an audience, content creators will not stay.
I agree that delegation can provide a lot of good. It allows the creation of things like utopian.io which is one of the most interesting thing steem has going for it in my opinion.