RE: Steemit has problems. I have The Grand Solution.
i don't really agree to this, the reason why steemit is "fading" is that bots are everywhere, trailing bots etc, post are valued by a small number of people with powers or with large powers following them.
The quality of the post is judged only by a few, yet the value or the factor of relationships kicks in and make things bias. I think the solution to this is everyone's vote contains the same value, and no bots/ trails are permitted for voting, after all if you haven't read the post, how can you say you like it just because someone represent you that "liked" it.
You won't randomly like post on facebook without looking into the content, so why is this allowed in steemit, and money is involved?
(but of course we are all here for money right, even the curation teams are just for profit anyway, so steem on~)
Totally unworkable. Bots will happen anyway, and stake-based voting works in favour of the platform. One identity per vote isn't something that can be solved all that easily.
You conflate the two parts of his idea. Stake weighting is killing the platform, not working in favor of it. It is the primary vector for oligarchical concentration of rewards.
Bots are a separate issue, and 2FA can go a long ways towards reducing bots on Steemit. Captchas can do more.
The unworkable thing is NOT taking necessary steps to reduce the financial incentives to ignore posts from authors with low stake. Rewards were intended to gravitate to good content - not deep pockets. Stake weighting VP has failed to do that, and mitigating those failures with more financial manipulation is likely to just make the problem worse.
Delink SP from VP. Make Steemit become what it was meant to be.
Destroy all bots, and make Steemit an actual SOCIAL media platform, rather than a rewards pool mining bot farm.
Edit: need to point out that's an old chart. I think the problem may actually be worse now, as that was from just prior to HF19.
It's rather naive to think bots can be stopped in open, permissionless blockchains like this one. My as well embrace it and develop a culture for good use of it.
As for identity/stake arguments, please check out my sidenote and the top comment in this recent post: https://steemit.com/flagging/@kevinwong/the-value-of-downvotes-explained
How many bots can solve captchas?
How many phones can a botnet have?
Perhaps bots can't be eliminated entirely, but using those two readily available methods, 99% of them would be gone.
@andrarchy didn't address either. Nor did you.
Your solution is predicated on the idea that anyone wants to correct the problem and not just go on milking the cash cow. I don't have a problem with people getting a return on their investment.
It's the pretense of promoting quality content that annoys me.
i.e. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
i was thinking something like each person per day could have 10 votes each worth 1 SBD or something, so either you have good social network where people really like giving it to you or your post is really worthy of that 1 SBD. (if you want to vote more than 10 posts, then you can use the delegated votes from others, instead of pouring all the votes to limited number of post that person could read per day). This should diversify the value being paid for each post, and the content spectrum of the post.
To me right now steemit is like a journal publication group, post are submitted to review (not peer review!!) , get "paid" if pass the "selected" panel (with huge SP), while post that are not within their expertise becomes undervalued and those writers will gradually fade out from the community. As the platform is more like a publication group rather a social media platform for leisure while earning money at the same time.
Bots will happen, I understand but i do believe that there are ways to discourage or reduce the use of bots.
I think we need to not pretend that we're all here for the money, as you say, and provide some monetary benefit for the elites on top, which is why I came up with this idea, it aims to satisfy the rich 1% while also handing it down to the honest portion of the 99%. Removing a whale's power by limiting their vote power would de-incentivize them, I'd guess, and again it would be so much of an overhaul that it wouldn't happen in decades... you know how slow progress is on here!