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"

in #steemit8 years ago

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.

Sort:  

@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.

I think that technicality would be dishonest legal trickery if it were done and I would have a problem with it.

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.

Besides yes I do have a better solution: The Elusive 1 Cent Vote - Proposal to Scale Down Exponential Posting Rewards

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):

An account can chose to decline their voting rights after a 30 day delay. This includes voting on content and witnesses. The voting rights cannot be acquired again once they have been declined. This is only to formalize a smart contract between certain accounts and the community that currently only exists as a social contract.

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.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.20
TRX 0.25
JST 0.038
BTC 96907.08
ETH 3380.66
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.23