You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: OFFICIAL CALL FOR STRUCTURE PROPOSALS | STAGE ONE
They should eliminate stake weighted voting and have one account = one vote with AI weeding out users with multiple accounts. Wont happen the decisions are made by people with lots of SP and they benefit by self upvoting and circle jerk voting and renting out steem to bidbots. There are other ways that could be developed to profit off SP like just giving a percent of rewards to SP holders like interest on a bank account. I don't think radical change like that will ever come to this blockchain.
You seem to have little faith in actual intelligence and lots of faith in artificial intelligence. Personally I think this is backwards.
I don't think eliminating stake weighted voting is necessary or desirable but protection against Sybil attacks is of interest. It would be a tough problem for an AI.
I mean most users can identify patterns that indicate an alt intuitively but it would be tough to translate all that into code. Betcha whoever pulls it off is going be one rich son of gun!
It's an interesting idea to think about but not sure it could be done in a fool proof manner. Maybe. 🤔
Think this right here could be the fatal flaw of the system. The ones that are the most ruinous to Steem are generally those that gain the most influence.
The bad is just too deeply entrenched that it seems a fools errand to try to fight at this point. Guess that makes me a fool!
I am careful though. I deploy my time but not really a lot of capital as I work hard for that shit unlike the rewards some many lazy assholes and vote buying participation trophy winners.
Because of these things, I see Steem more suitable as a hobby than a serious investment platform. It's hard to take serious when so many treat the reward mechanism as if it were a joke.
It's not all bad though. We got a handful of good people around here that I care about. I just hate our kind being at a disadvantage to these ever growing assholes seemingly with little scruple bypassing ethics for profits.
If I had a magic button to fork this chain, spontaneously manifest an infrastructure, and airdrop only to users that don't fit the douchebag patterns, I would do that shit in a second.
We can probably fix a lot of the issues on this chain but, unless we can fix the distribution, they are pretty much just Band-Aids over a festering wound.
Posted using Partiko Android
It was a mistake, in my opinion, to not have moderators who could actually delete spam, not hide it but delete it, and shut down bad accounts. Expecting users flag and use their own SP to get of spam is kind of idealistic. The whole "no censorship" thing has resulted in lots of problems. Once again just my opinion. They are are other pay you crypto sites that are development now that have learned from steemit's mistakes. Someone will do it right.
I have to pretty strongly disagree. Given how censorship has, and is now burgeoning, across the entire web, that kind of power to censor would certainly bite us in the free speech. Particularly considering the very abuse you guys are discussing, and much else presently impacting Steem.
The last thing we need are censors, because that will be the end of Steem, IMHO.
one account one vote wouldn't work most of the old top 20 witnesses have thousands accounts they used for farming you dont want increase their stranglehold unless you like to choke to death
Were those accounts to remain considered individual users, you are absolutely right. However, you neglect that was not the case under discussion. @ned, as well as folks here, have discussed means of discovering sock puppets and preventing folks from 'double posting' using them.
Were there a means of limiting folks to one voting account, which was the situation being discussed, that would no longer be a concern.
the problem with that is changes were made to the system to ensure against a solution to single person verified accounts and the powers that be dont want that anyways they collect rewards effortlessly from bots posting
steemit inc has 100's of thousands of accounts to choose from since they were the main creator since the beginning, who knows how many are real( considering over 90% were made in one month very little + conveniently only opening up proper when bitcoin's price rose 10 times in 2017
changes were made already to system to ensure accounts could be created free of charge (to high sp holders that is still costs the system to create)
its too late to discover and discount sock puppets the majority of steem ever created already lies in the hands of those who created thousands of accounts heavily exploited the system created upvote bots to collect liquid rewards and sit in the top 20 witness forever would be impossible to change.
you really think someone will invest millions into a faux decentralized/democracy to change here to do what exactly? run their own scam
if you had millions to invest you could make your own platform a lot easier and quicker than trying to change another
Well, we seem to be at a crossroads that offers a path to an actual decentralized democracy, and the failure of Steem to moon heretofore presents a dilemma to those whales that have premined stake: either continue to milk at current levels (at best), or allow real decentralization to deliver actual distributed value to Steem and reap capital gains.
Capital gains is far more potentially emunerative than votevending scams for most, and the few satisfactorily rewarded presently yet will be further enriched if Steem moons. There's no downside to stakeholders for capital gains, and only reasonably expecting to continue to mine Steem via votevending is a motive to prevent actual decentralization.
The platform is not the hurdle to surmount. It's the community. Steem has tens of thousands of users, and that is the real source of it's value. Weku isn't creating the kind of returns one would expect if your assertion that simply erecting a new platform would be preferable financially. Neither is Steem increasing in value and exponentially enriching whales.
They are able to extract streams of wealth presently, but only some of them are in positions that consider that stream nominal, and all of them could benefit from capital gains - even if the cost of those gains was disenfranchising votevending.
There's certainly potential for support for both resistance and encouraging adoption, and nothing is cast in stone or determinant because we can't read minds of substantial stakeholders.
Thanks!
As I see it, those with vast amounts of SP (other than perhaps the odd few) do not understand the concept of capital gains. They can only see the revenue stream that is directly in front of their face and therefore do not want to alter anything that could potentially rob them of that revenue stream. They wish the status quo to continue until the entire platform has been squeezed of every drop of its life. Then they can take their money and look for another project to kill.
I agree, and this is because ninjaminers weren't investors, but nerds, and they don't understand how to build value and create capital gains.
Thanks!
It is very true. Being exceptionally clever in one area of expertise doesn't mean you are clever in all areas. This is why people use teams of people in order to gain the best from each team member. The make-up of the team must be inclusive of all factors required for the expected outcome.
why would they stop if they make money for free ?
they dont care about development or price they got the most value out farming rewards and selling votes and cashing out the last few years,
i highly doubt they will turn around and start burning what they've cashed out to support the platform,
there was a good reason for flags now we see the effect
You're absolutely correct. Despite the fact that the ninjaminers aren't investors, but techs, the fact that successful investing produces increase in the value of the investment vehicle remains. Extant circumstances indicate that sound investing won't result, but reason and experience may yet change the paradigm.
Either it will change, or Steem will be eclipsed by a platform that actually produces sound investment.
Thanks!
A person can only "ninja mine" if they have insider information.. which means they would have to work for steemit inc etc. The term you are looking for is "early miners" and they took a chance on steem and it worked out for some.. not sure how that can be used against them now. Many do quite a lot for this place. This constant need to blame high stake holders is really quite silly and not beneficial.
We have an opportunity to make a difference with this foundation. Maybe you could give some feedback on the proposals and encourage others to do the same. We can make any changes if we don't actually try, this is a chance for the community to make the changes that they have been vocally saying need to happen.