How many people here think Steemit Inc is incompetent in many ways, and through their action/inaction caused the monetary value of the network to crumble? There are quite a few, but how many of those people also think this is a good thing? Sometimes I feel like the only one.

Silver Lining.

When Stinc makes financial mistakes and has to dump coins on the market, decentralization increases. As the biggest stake holder on the platform by a huge margin, no matter who is buying up those coins ensures that the resources of the network are slowly being spread out. In the short term it looks like the network is dying, but in the long term action like this increases strength and trustworthiness.

Prototype for corporate ownership of community.

We've all heard the "Blockchain not Bitcoin" mantra. Of course, it's all propaganda, but it's still very important. If the powers that shouldn't be are running around saying stuff like this we shouldn't believe them, but it would be foolish not to listen.

DPOS provides a template; a bridge from decentralized idealism to centralized corporate totalitarianism. This is a good thing. While there are those out there who would argue that this is war and that no quarter should be given to the enemy, that is an uphill battle that could be avoided altogether.

At its core, what 'blockchain not bitcoin' really means is that 'we want to maintain control'. Not only does DPOS provide the bridge that bonds decentralized monetary policy to a centralized one, it also provides the bridge for the entire republic governance structure that they've already been so good at manipulating in the past.

DPOS is a republic just like the majority of other governments out there. These systems get manipulated in a way to make communities think they are in control with their vote, when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Steem and other DPOS projects providing this template for the establishment is a good thing. It means instead of trying to fight crypto directly they can clone a project that they like and tweak it to their desire. Rather than trying to stop other people from forming the communities they want to form they'll be busy brainwashing their own communities into thinking they are the best option.

The very interesting thing about DPOS is that the more corrupt/incompetent it becomes, the more power gets decentralized through the system. You can only sell your stake once, so even if one person started out with 100% ownership of everything, eventually they're going to cash out or be forked out by the network.

Compare this to fiat and we see a superior system. Not only does money buy you a bigger vote (obviously the elite loves this) but fiat can be corrupted almost indefinitely. How many fiat currencies around the world have hyper inflated but the citizens were still basically forced to keep using it? Crypto provides the healthy competition that prevents this from happening with borderless open-source solutions.

With a product like Steem, hyper-inflation is impossible. Even if the code was changed to generate 100% inflation per year every user with stake would still be able to curb that loss by simply upvoting themselves and doubling their stake by the end of the year. Because stake-holders control inflation this makes the devaluation and theft via hyper-inflation much more difficult, if not impossible.

Remember this the next time someone says that Steem's high inflation is devaluing the currency. No, it isn't. 10-20% inflation caused Steem to drop by a factor of 50? I know math is hard but GD. Come on now.

Steem lost 50 times its value because it never should have been valued that high in the first place. We need to stop looking at the spikes in price as a good thing. These are attacks against the network; speculative bubble attacks that are seeking to buy the network in a similar fashion of a hostile takeover.

The only way for the establishment to control these markets is to have skin in the game in the first place. They can't manipulate the price down without first manipulating the price up. The ultimate game is to cause a frenzy that allows you to sell at the top and then cause another frenzy that sends the price nose-diving so you can buy in even cheaper later. The elite has been playing this game for quite some time. The economy gets exploited exactly like this every time there is an economic crisis.

HF21

I was vehemently against the hardfork. I thought it was the worst idea ever. However, now I see that it wasn't that big of a deal, and it promotes the whole idea of bridging centralized architecture with DLT. Steemit Inc is just that: an incorporated entity. They aren't looking to attract a million red fish. They are going whale hunting. It's more the job of the dapp devs to cast those red fish nets. I still strongly believe that Trickle Down economic theory could work as intended when implemented in these new economic paradigms (cooperative capitalism).

You can't see the forest from the trees.

In one or two years we are going to be having a vastly different conversation accompanied by vastly different opinions than we have now. This is problematic considering how little fundamental developments will have actually changed. We desperately need to divorce ourselves from the concept of equating speculative volatility to fundamental value.

And you can't smell your own shit on your knees.

The irrational speculative market combined scarcity mindset blinds us from identifying and contemplating the real issues. The best advice I can give is try to fake it till you make it. Perhaps that push in the right direction will yield positive results sooner rather than later. My rule of thumb is that I'm living in scarcity until I can afford to support myself for a full Bitcoin cycle (~4 years) without any income. Until then I have to fake it.

Conclusion

DPOS is easily corruptible, but that corruption faces checks and balances when housed in a transparent system. In comparison, fiat is a dinosaur that can't evolve; sucking up all the resources until it eventually starves itself out of existence.

Steem has sacrificed some decentralization and immutability for speed and scalability. We shouldn't blind ourselves to this fact. We need to embrace it and build/invest in the projects that best fit this niche. To do anything less would be to cheat ourselves.

Stinc still has a ton of stake and influence on this platform. While some think this is a bad thing, it also gives them the most incentive out of anyone to bring value to the network. Who captures that value? Everyone. The old centralized systems take everything for themselves and more. This is where the real competition lies: not with blockchain vs blockchain but blockchain vs the established meta.