You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Winter Update: 2017 reflection, our Vision Statement and Mission, and a look forward
Sorry, but I get the feeling that you are arguing against these things without really understanding them. Have you read the community specs and SMT whitepaper? I’m not saying that these two things are going to magically solve all our problems, but they do provide a framework for solutions.
One really important thing to keep in mind with SMTs, is that STEEM whales will have zero influence over SMT rewards, unless they actually invest in the SMT. Communities really will be able to form their own independent rewards pools.
One last point, what I have suggested as a solution to steem abuse could still be implemented and could make a big difference even if you believe SMT's and communities will work as intended. As you acknowledge yourself, SMT's and communities are not going to magically solve all the issues. Given that most of the issues stem from the incentive model and steem distribution, I assume you acknowledge the importance and validity of addressing them? In the end, that is all I'm suggesting. Address the distribution, improve the incentives, before (my preference) or in parallel with SMT's and communities.
Can I ask, do you think the distribution of steem contributes to the issues on steem? Do you think it's worth pursuing solutions other than SMT's and communities? What is your view of the steem controlled by steemit.inc?
I acknowledge that the distribution of STEEM is a large contributor to many of the issues we face today. I have been looking for solutions and discussing it with a lot of developers, witnesses, and stakeholders. So far nobody has come up with a workable solution to the problem. If we can come up with a good solution that stakeholders can get on board with - I’m all for exploring it.
I am currently OK with the distribution of Steemit’s stake. They are primarily using it to fund things that are improving the platform. Their total ownership is also going down over time, and I expect the trend to continue.
Just in case you don't know what my solution (which is cobbled together from the ideas I've picked up from others, probably much of it originating from dan) is and just in case there is some value to it and your disussions, I will outline it here. Before I do, please understand, I can imagine how hard everyone is working and I believe steemit.inc, many witnesses, many whales have the best intentions and the majority are way smarter than me. If this solution for steem has been considered and discarded....absolutely fine, I care nothing for it if it is of no use to us. I would appreciate an explanation if one exists....if only to ease my troubled mind!
The steemit stake was always created to nurture steem. Abuse resulting from the distribution is, in my opinion, the greatest threat to the long term viability and competitiveness of the steem blockchain. Could steemit.inc amalgamate their stake, take a massive percentage of it and make it available to the steem community. The community would elect curators with the sole purpose of moderating abuse (that is defined by the community.) The community would also elect arbitrators to address disagreements. The steemit stake would be awarded via delegation and the curators would earn something from their efforts, commensurate with it. All actions of curators and arbitrators would be transparent and accountable. Their curation could address the "abuse" without fear of effective reprisal and they would not need to be concerned with the lack of flagging rewards. The steemit stake distribution would potentially accelerate but that is not necessarily a bad thing. No-one gets a hand out.
If I can hear your thoughts on this, better yet, something from those you discuss such things with, I will be satisfied I've done everything I can. Thank you.
Well, Steemit is a privately held company, so no matter how good of an idea you and I think it is - it is 100% up to them what to do with their stake. We as a community (even as stakeholders) actually have no right to tell them what to do in that regard.
With that said, I think it would do a lot of good, but it would do a lot of harm too. No matter how 'fair' they are, there are going to be disputes over fairness. It is also going to put a huge burden on Steemit to have to police and manage the whole thing. It is also going to put Steemit in a position of picking winners and losers on the platform. It is also going to make the people that are buying SP in order to have influence feel like their purchases are being invalided, because why pay for SP if you can just get it delegated from Steemit for free. So in my view, while it would do good solving one problem - it would create others in it's place, and I don't think the new problems would put us in a better place than our current problems.
Steemit is using their stake to help projects like Utopian.io be successful. There has been a lot of good to come from that, but there are actually also a lot of people that are complaining about the unfairness with that. In my view there have been some successes and some failures with that. I'd like to see it continue, but it would be nice if there was less unfairness in the distributions, and abuse on behalf of the people receiving them.
I completely agree, the steemit.inc steem is privately held, making it their choice. However there is simply no getting away from the fact that the only reason for such a massive advantage was nurturing steem and to date, best intentions aside, they have not (in my opinion) been able to deploy it effectively. Who can blame them, they would need massive help.....which they could get from the community. They have a duty to honour that genesis and we all share an obligation to hold them to account for it.
Steemit.inc would be no more responsible for picking winners and losers than anyone. The entire solution only works if it is driven by the community and the community take responsibility for its effectiveness. The only large holders of SP that would be disincentivised by a community led abuse prevention initiative of this scale, I submit are investors no-one wants in steem anyway. There will always be disagreements...humans ;) that is why arbitration is necessary. It is also why ensuring the definition of abuse has broad community consensus and is as clear as possible. Ensuring those entrusted with delegations act with integrity is critical and no easy task....but it can all be done. Just because it seems difficult is no reason not to do it. Both steemit.inc and the community could mobilise to build tools that further support accountability.
All of this solution is what we are all currently doing in a fragmented inefficient manner anyway. If steemit.inc agreed to this, if we deploy it effectively, in the end steem would be far less abusive, there would be a greater consensus that the steem community was more aligned, those outside would get a far better impression of steem, the chance of SMT's and communities working better increases dramatically and hopefully that would translate (once sign-up is improved) into massive growth and increase in steem price.
It's a win-win for steemit.inc as they are only delegating stake. That would still leave the issue of further decentralising it but that is for another day! Have a great weekend bud! I'm working the whole weekend but at least the sun is shining right now :)
I have read the white paper. The bit I most certainly don't understand is what happens to a successful SMT if Steem Power's influence is degraded or abuse in the Steem based economy continues/increases. None one has been able to explain that to me plainly. If you can, that would be great. If not, I've said my piece, I could be wrong to be concerned, unless some new points are raised or understanding comes to light, I think I'll leave it here. Thank you again for you time.
If you completely ignore the ‘mess’ that is the STEEM distribution and rewards pool, SMTs offer a brand new rewards pool, with brand new distribution - independent of the distribution and rewards of STEEM.