You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Make Minnows Into Whales - Use the Main Steemit Account as a Curation Guild to Elect "Super Curators"
While I understand the goal, I think this plan backfires, as more whale voting diminishes the value of everyone else's votes (not just the whales). For most of us, our already lousy vote value will become worth even less with this plan. And authors who don't win the whale vote lottery will also earn even less than they do now.
I'd rather have less whales voting, or somehow cap the vote of whales, so as to allow the rest of us to have a somewhat more valuable vote. Thousands of users with a small yet meaningful vote (>1cent) is going to do this platform a lot more good than a few more whale vote lottery winners whose payout comes at the expense of everyone else.
Edit/Add: A proposal that would make low SP holders' votes more valuable
Good point but whales are voting already. This may even take some of the strain off them to vote so may not necessarily mean differences in rewards in the long term.
This way we have whales who have been elected and whales who have bought in both able to curate.
I think this gives a fairer system overall even if other people's votes may go down - that happens anyway when more people join or more people buy in. It is the way the system works.
It isn't happening though and this is a potential way of improving things and making them fairer. It also creates aspiration for people who join the platform and can even help create a new role for those who solely wish to curate but can't justify it in terms of the current rewards.
Yes, whales are voting already, but more whales makes it worse.
Many people, incl myself, have invested real money in SP, and will find our vote to be worth even less than it already is and the authors we vote for to receive even less too.
There was also a promise that Steemit would never vote - at least that is what I understood - as an investor who invested for voting power, I'd feel cheated if they came back on that promise resulting in a significant reduction of my voting power.
This change would further demotivate people from buying Steem (another negative for the price of Steem).
Steemit itself would not be voting though. Perhaps you can suggest a better solution for the current problems?
Obviously the promise that Steemit would not vote, meant that Steemit's voting power would not be used. Delegated voting is just like Steemit voting it's just letting someone else do the voting for it. No difference, and would break the original promise to investors.
Besides yes I do have a better solution: The Elusive 1 Cent Vote - Proposal to Scale Down Exponential Posting Rewards
This proposal would also have the effect to increase the value of most peoples' votes and reduce that of the whales.
@ottodv Sorry about posting here but the nesting issue is preventing posting directly. Thanks for the extra info. I was wondering what the reason for the declining voting power issue was in the update.
I can't find the Steemit account not being able to vote in the white paper but I may be missing it or it may have been state elsewhere but @smooth is saying this too and he was there at the start so would probably know.
The alternative would for the the Steemit team members to delegate their voting power as an alternate source that doesn't break any prior agreements but obviously that would be up to them if they wanted to do that.
The thing I liked most about this idea was having elected high power curators and if we get some kind of voting delegation system- even having a proportion of all delegated voting used in this way could work well.
@plotbot2015 Some actual figures would be great but I am not the best person to provide them as I don't know the details of how everything is calculated code wise. A member of the team would be best placed to do that.
That is your opinion. I am not aware of any legal contract in this regard. This is a constantly evolving platform that is currently in Beta so I don't have problem with it.
Technically it would not be that particular account voting so I don't have a problem with it. I don't know what the exact promise was so I can't comment on that.
It's a good idea but I prefer this one.
I think that technicality would be dishonest legal trickery if it were done and I would have a problem with it.
Yes correct my opinion is my opinion, and yours is yours. ;-)
There was a change implemented in the latest hard fork precisely to allow @steemit to formally decline its voting power: https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/324
See also release notes for version 0.14.2 (emphasis mine):
Opinions matter less to me than data. Could we see some numerical simulations of the two proposals to see what they would do? The verbal descriptions are not detailed enough for me to cost/benefit either proposal.
Some numerical simulation would be interesting I agree.
I don't see the two proposals as mutually exclusive by the way, they might even be complementary.
@thecryptofiend I am posting here, because of the nesting issues. And then upvoting your comment screwed up the order.... so my comment would not appear under yours there.
Delegated voting would be a great feature, it was discussed somewhere already. One way was as the possibility to loan voting power to someone else and collect interest in exchange or part of the curation reward.
Lol that is another issue I hope we can get fixed. Yes I have heard it discussed (DV) a few times. I think the team are probably working on it. I'm not sure on the ETA for it but it would solve a lot of these issues and a global option would mean there would get around the Steemit account problem.
good man! following now as you get it :) if you have time look back on some of myposts about that..also, I am a strong supporter of a #whaledayoff idea :)