RE: Now you can see the numbers.
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
not at all! I used your innocent question as an opportunity to REEEEE all over the place, precisely because I feel and hear and see your frustration alongside that of witnesses and people who bought steem and coders and newbs alike. We're all standing over Steem right now poking it with a stick saying DO SOMETHING.
So much like chatting with Bluefin earlier, the best I can do is pull some devil's advocate things out that I do think the EIP would be able to do and some truths that would be "for" the EIP, regardless of my personal feelings either way.
- Self voters do have to share. Right now, the worst egregious (important distinction) self voters are getting the majority of their vote back as author rewards without even thinking, and sharing less of it with other people who curate them. In a 50/50 world, the self voter puts more of their cut into the curation pool to be shared between everyone. So if nothing else changes, the people also voting will earn a bit more themselves and the author-self-voter has to share a bit more. Not ideal, but also no worse than the currant 'instant' unshared return with author rewards.
- Curation does go up. When more minnows (or more everyone) votes together, the rewards go up. The stacked effect increases. Smaller schools of minnows will be able to curate, and actually see higher potentials back from their curation. Right now, we teach minnows, hey- you should be commenting and posting because you have to do that to earn since your vote is worth so little and your slice of the curation pie is so small so don't even worry about that! There's the thought (and some truth) that smaller accounts would actually see an increased effectiveness in curating good stuff or in schooling, because the split for curating makes it more equitable for them.
- If rewards for curation go up, then to take advantage of that, you need a bigger vote. The only way to get that is to power up. Now, don't shoot the messenger because this is a 'one size' statement, but we do have a lot of minnows who stay minnows because they pull out everything they earn and love that posting keeps letting them earn more. They're powering down already. Right now. (So are whales.) These same minnows are scared they will have to share more post rewards, but technically could be doing the same thing as the whales right now if they weren't powering down. Powerdowns are rampant already; causing more than an already increasing number is arguably a drop in the bucket of problems we already have and are already going unaddressed. So if people could earn more by having a bigger vote, which requires powering up, then there will be some (whether the number is significant or not) who would power back up to earn more faster.
- There are no rewards at all without curation. Why don't we all buy in initially, then use that to vote our own work, and keep 100% of the rewards? It sounds like a stupid question, but we're actually closer to that than not right now. A curator whale controls just as much allocation of the finite reward pool at 0/100, 25/75, 50/50, or 100/0. Same with smaller accounts. But where smaller accounts have literally only the ability to gain by being curated, a whale may not- so while we cannot remove stake commensurate control from a whale, we can tip the variables to make it harder for them to show up, write a sentence, and upvote it to keep everything. If nothing else, changing that cut actually places them in a position to lose more than say, a minnow, who couldn't just drop a fat vote on themselves and keep it anyways. They need other voters. All content creators need content consumers. If it's less lucrative for a whale to self vote, then it starts becoming just as easy for them to start voting on stuff to earn, and that starts spreading stake to places that wasn't seeing it before, which is, overall a net gain in a lot of cases. Distribution is a huge problem right now.
people won't stay in a place where their former rewards are leaving their meager pockets to enter the very fat wallets of others. (for not a drop more work , mind you.)
- people aren't staying. They already feel like this. They're already leaving. Any curation that leaves their wallets is a DIRECT result of them being voted by someone else already. So if we are pointing out that more curation leaves them to someone huge, it is also pointing out that they got a vote from someone huge. Right now, not a lot of someone huges are doing much voting, and not a lot of someone smalls can curate for a bigger cut. Either the huges get out and vote to collect more curation (meaning they are spreading more voting around than they were previously) or they keep voting themselves and the smalls are able to jump in and take more of that without a drop more work.
On PALnet, people are suddenly excited to curate. Some people are tired of writing but don't beat themselves up over missing a "daily post"... they just get out and vote! People are getting bigger and finding more feeds. 50/50 is looking AWESOME. But PAL isn't steem. The economic context is different. The 50/50 isn't the causation, it's a correlation with a much better distribution. Steem distribution is what it is, and there's no taking what someone has bought, earned, or mined, so we can't expect any numbers to behave the same. There are absolutely some logical conclusions about why it can and should work, but logic means nothing in the face of human behaviour. So the biggest and hardest pill to swallow right now is that the 1% have to change pre or post, yes or no EIP... and while some of those are witnesses, a majority of the green you'll find are actually going to be NON-witness whales, who have to post (and many feel to self upvote) to earn. You and me and all the red numbers... we don't get to touch that right now, and I'm not talking about downvoting (that is a whooooole other essay and I'm all for it. Plus, darling Taraz just nailed it.) They can drop an upvote on whatever they make and happily stay in their own bubble knowing they get most of the value and anything else from others is bonus. Their voters in many cases are just coming around for scraps. In the system that we have, what's better for small authors by some logic is fucking fabulous for the 1% that tend to put a black eye on our economics. What's worse for the small authors by some logic actually really does have a good chance of at the very least redirecting some of that untouchable curation to more people, which doesn't really change us much further from where we are.
The numbers above are an application of future circumstances overlaid on existing behaviour, with no accounting for the fact that attempting to accurately model future behaviour has to take into consideration environmental stimuli. The math in your post just says "here are people who have figured out the best way to do 25/75 for themselves, and let's add some numbers assuming that no one reacts with an equal and opposite reaction to the force of new numbers via 50/50." That's not an accurate picture any more than saying that the EIP is gonna fix steem and it's lambos on the moon in a quarter. But our biggest mistake is assuming that without some change in the top in ANY distribution, and HF, and any situation, that that 1% of black eyes are going to fade out and heal up just because. So slapping pieces of HF together needs to come with cultural change and a lot of that has to start focusing on uncoupling our intrinsic feel that "the money as it is RIGHT NOW is the only thing keeping people here."
Read it all! and i love your passion for our blockchain. Can we just let you vote? ;)
You're right - I'm making assumptions based on behavior that i believe WILL NOT change.
but - it might
because I'm certainly going to change. I'll be posting less. That is for certain.
I don't believe in whats happening, and I actually do believe that the people who are currently curating in the green WILL ABSOLUTELY continue what they're doing and double their rewards.
who wouldnt???
and those who are in the red? need to figure out how to be in the green too. which means - change.
(by the way - you're not in the red hehehe i figured yours out and you're in the green too not by much - but it is a benefit to your account to do the 50/50)
I WILL now be self-voting ALL my posts when I do post. I need to earn some of those curation rewards back.
I WILL not be spending as much time writing, researching, videoing, editing, - to see my former rewards go to people who haven't done anything more to make my posts more valuable. I work hard - as do many many people here. It's not a equitable decision to reward people with twice as many rewards for reading a post (in minutes) that takes hours and hours to write. nope. I will never be convinced on that.
And - I bet... that If I get the ACTUAL numbers - 30 days AFTER HF21 passes? If i redo the chart with the same people..... I bet that its pretty darn close to what I predicted. That's just my guess - but I'm definitely going to be checking.
How I would be THRILLED to be wrong. But I guess we're gonna see.
Personally, I will stop filling my little section of the blockchain with Dreemie posts - and start curating newbies. It will be a better use of my time. better use of supporting the community, and actively refraining from filling the pockets of people who don't need any more curation rewards for doing the same amount of work.
i know - its my opinion... and as I said in the last comment... on Steem, opinions are stake-based LOL
so mine means a whole lot of nothing.
thank you for your willingness to get in the mix. I'll miss the interaction on my posts with people- but I will make up for it by interacting with them on their posts! :) the newbies probably need it a lot more than me .
(and you're right. they are already leaving. and my guess is when they see how much less they're making - MORE will have to leave.)
so sad.
This sounds about right, actually. And I do think that there's a chance that good quality content will rise based on other effects. I am for all the changes, and I can at least tell you that the motivation is that content that pretty much everyone agrees is trash that is trivially upvoted will be downvoted with the new incentives. If the changes accomplish the task of shifting these kinds of rewards, it can really make a difference. Those numbers you pulled are obviously true if everything stays exactly the same in terms of distribution. But the whole point is that the aim is that it won't. I actually think that good content creators will be gaining more when the dust settles. How do I know? I sure as hell don't know for sure though, so I can see why everyone is so hesitant or downright dismissive of these changes. Downvotes need to happen, and distribution needs to shift. Happy to talk more about specifics, but all I really wanted to start with is to say that looking at these numbers based on present distribution is really not helpful.
It's so ridiculous that we are seriously trying to force people to use downvotes because we are taking their money away
People are going to upvote more trash that makes money in the hopes that they can REGAIN some more curation rewards to make up for the 33% loss that the people in green are happy to take.
I write original content every single day
I have a novel and a sequel that I trusted on Steemit.... Exclusively.... Nowhere else.
Because I BELIEVED IN STEEM.
And now.... The proposal is... "Well Dreemie, we know you were making a dollar before on your story.... After working for years to build up a list of subscribers... Interact with the chain .. create a community... Support one another. But now? How about we decrease that by 33% hmmmm where should we put that money? I've got an idea!!! How about we give a significant portion of it to the whales!!!! "
How about no.
I would rather take my content back and give it away TOTALLY FREE to my subscribers than hand over more money to whales who don't deserve more money for adding NOTHING MORE to the mix.
I can use all my time here to curate. Cuz I can tell you... It's a heck of a lot faster to click upvote on whatever trash is trending....than it is to spend hours writing meaningful content for the community, and have a 33% tax (as someone else put it) go to the whales.
No thanks.
I'll play a new game like all the people in the green seem to have mastered.
Less content. More curation.
Can't wait to see how that works out.
Posted using Partiko Android
Fair enough. I was just explaining the rationale. It's clear you don't believe it will work.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yes, I understand the rationale.
People who have invested a lot of money here will now be making more for no additional work.
So maybe now more investors will come when they see how easy it is to make a buck off of other's hard work.
And we will tell the little worker bees "well just work harder and put out more content so you can earn and someday become whales!!! Ten years to become a minnow... So that is...hold on...let me get my calculator"
I get it.
It may work!
It's disgusting.
Posted using Partiko Android
You are too focused on the existing distribution. "Works" to me would mean that there's less content, but better content, earning more. There's a lot that just gets funneled in a dumb fashion so there is room for it. So it's still compatible to a version I suspect you would be on board with.
Posted using Partiko Android
What I'm focused on is the fact that people who currently make a massive chunk of the curation rewards are now doubling that.
And who is voting on that?
Those very same people.
All in favor? Aye. (Let's ignore the masses saying no. They're just upset cuz we are taking the money from them. Conflict of interest??? Shhhhhh!)
The existing distribution is MORE fair than what all the people in green want.
But... Hey. They're all in the green, and they have the money, the voice, and the power.
So I guess we can take it or leave it.
I know what I choose. I will not allow someone to take more rewards for my work when all they have to do is upvote (and take 50% back) They don't even have to read!!!! just drop a random upvote on anything and collect more money. So disgusting.
I would rather they not make even more money on my work. I would rather give it away for free, on principle.
And I plan on that.
Don't worry .. there will still be plenty of content to upvote. The money will still flow. All the people in green can upvote anything they like, because it's their money after all. They can vote all day on trash posts because what does it matter? 50% of their massive votes come back to them and THAT'S what matters to them. The people who abuse the system will STILL be here, and not be as principled as rigid me. You won't lose trash, but you will lose good content creators.
How do I know? Because I'm one that you will lose.
Posted using Partiko Android
I'll let you know when it works out. You and I have different ideas for how this will play out. You think you will leave, and maybe you will. But if it works, you'll see the reason to stay.
Saying the existing distribution is fair is laughable. There's so much wrong with how the rewards are allocated that I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.(Edit: ignore this paragraph. Misreading.)And yet....
I don't know how you can say with a straight face that it's perfectly acceptable to take money from small accounts and put it directly into the wallets of large accounts.
But...you can!
Because that is EXACTLY what is happening. You can deny it all you want, but THAT is what is being proposed. And you know EXACTLY who is going to benefit from this move abd who it will hurt.
And no. I won't create content in a system like that because I don't appreciate abuse.
I didn't say I was leaving. I said I wasn't going to produce content.
I also didn't say the system was fair.
I said it was more fair that what is being proposed .
Careful with what you read...you're starting to twist a lot of what i said .
Good thing numbers can't be twisted. those will remain long after and everyone will see those SAME accounts after HF21 and will see exactly where the rewards went to. Doubled. In large accounts.
Voted on...by people who will directly benefit from it.
You won't have to let me know when it works out in their wallets (and yours)
Cuz I will be able to see it on steemworld just like I saw it yesterday
Posted using Partiko Android
Apologies. I did misread something, and edited accordingly.
Taking from small accounts and putting it in large wallets again is too short sighted. You have to see how the distribution shifts with the change in rules. Again, we differ on how we think it will pan out. So there's not much we can proceed here with.
Yes. Let's stop putting the focus on large accounts making more money.
It's exactly what's happening and yes, the whales will make more money, and yes..hmm we are taking it directly from small accounts... but.... if we focus on "the magic of HF21" it's easier to vote on it that way.
That rhetoric worked amazing for HF20 too.
We disagree.
You will make more money in this proposal as will almost all of the top 20 witnesses. Its easy to see why it's a great plan to vote on for you all.They have the voice and power. And now... More money.
I will lose money as will most everyone here, but again. They have the voice and power.
We get it. No need to continue to rub it in. This is the cost of being here. Bills must be paid, investors must make money, and the little people must be taxed to accomplish it.
In time enough people will forget the old ways and they'll be satisfied, and the big accounts will continue to grow, and they'll be satisfied!
Happy days ahead for all.
Posted using Partiko Android
Comparing to HF20 is useless, it's not even remotely the same. And I'm not rubbing it in, you just seem so set on your ways that you refuse to see the possibility.
Posted using Partiko Android
It is exactly the same principle
They tried to make people "pay to play" in order to stay on the platform
Now they are trying to force people to use downvotes in order distribute money more properly...so they can REGAIN some of what is being taken and redistributed to whales!!! Lolol
And your solution???? Use that little downvote button on a whale, newbie. Don't worry! Nothing bad will happen
People will do what they always do. You can't mandate their behavior by pigeonholing them. They will just leave!!!!
If you outlawed bidbots...abusers would find a way around it.
If you outlawed self voting.. abusers would find a way around it.
The bad principles of both HF20 and HF21 are the SAME heart
You're trying to edit out bad behavior and you will NEVER do that. The only people you hurt in the process are the legitimate users that are trying to.make it here.
The abusers STAY and find new ways of working the system more.
The legitimate people LEAVE because they can't compete.
And now you are taking MORE money from them.
Blind.
Absolutely blind.
Posted using Partiko Android
Right back at ya.
Posted using Partiko Android
Right. I should actually address things. You really make it difficult though.
Pay to play was some silly rhetoric, and I never bought it. It did its job with a better version of bandwidth and definitely reduced a lot of the type of spam it was targeting. There were unfortunate side effects but we got through it. Or finding more ways to accommodate in any case.
My "solution" doesn't call for little people to downvote. They probably won't make much of a difference. It should play out at larger levels of stake, and it should target exactly the kind of behavior that dumb voting / delegations are encouraging today with the current rules. I'm aiming for a cascade effect that can adjust the whole distribution. And admittedly I'm not even guaranteeing it. I'm just saying that it has a shot. But I'm actually willing to throw out the current ruleset to try it out. I know many are not.
Posted using Partiko Android
It almost feels like ...
Theyre creating this place for mass adoption...and then doing everything in their power to make sure it never gets adopted by the masses.
You know why I make it hard for you to make your points?
Cuz I keep pointing out reality. You're focused on pie in the sky "this would be so nice if it worked".... But look at what has happened to steem.
You cannot argue with reality. This place is no longer the same. the people.making the decisions have lost touch completely with the community that they are serving and they are actually justifying what they're doing in the name of "the greater good" when it is factually lining their own pockets with the author rewards.
So...we can stop debating any time you like.
You believe what you believe. You are ALSO set to make more money in this system. (Yes I checked and you are indeed one of the green people!!! Color me shocked.)
So.. congratulations.
I hope that your wallet grows exponentially along with everyone else voting for this.
If it fails, well at least you won't be one of the people who loses money while it fails. Right? High fives all around.
Not sure what else you'd like me to say.
Posted using Partiko Android
Your "reality" has no bearing on what will actually happen though. You don't know, and neither do I. I don't care if I'm set to gain or not, but obviously that's all you're going to listen to so I guess I am done then.
Posted using Partiko Android
Your projections have no context within our community.
A lot of people care if they are set to gain or lose... odd that you can say you don't care.
Maybe you can take what you make and give it back to the community then. Look at your earnings before and after the hard fork...anf then find an amazing content creator and give them a nice upvote with your profits off of this proposal.
Don't worry .. you'll get 50% right back.
Posted using Partiko Android
It won't work! .
Posted using Partiko Android
It seems that what isn't being factored in here is how you get better content. It comes from people who take content creation seriously and treat it as the craft it is.
When they take the full brunt of the changes (funding of SPS and then cut to author rewards) they get demoralized and less inclined to continue to create that better content.
It's a two way street, though. If voting behavior changes then it will reflect this more. I see your point though, you rather need stake backing the good content craft as well. But I do see initiatives that back this, so it's not invisible.
Posted using Partiko Android
Bam💥, you nailed it!
Posted using Partiko Android
I'm sorry, Crim, I appreciate your passion but a lot of this is just flat-out false. Especially the bit about how if the authors were just powering up they would be able to get a meaningful piece of the curation pie. With all of your advantages, and all of your willingness to power up, you've built a top-1000 Steem account and your share of the curation pool is... $1/day. Maybe under HF21 it will go up all the way to $2/day.
And most authors have no hope of ever getting as far as you have! They're not community leaders, or consensus witnesses. They don't have the ability to drive votes to get all the way to 20,000 SP. @elsiekjay may be the single-most-dedicated author Steem has seen in the post-HF-19 world, and she's all the way to 7000 SP, and a curation rate of fifty cents per day. Give her two more years and she'll be as far along as you are now - and still ages away from a meaningful curation income.
It's basically impossible to generate enough Steem to reach the ranks of people who will gain from curation increases without owning and operating some very successful Steem-based business. Authorship will not get you there, no matter how much the rewards pool is optimized. It's counterproductive to moralize at people for making the sensible economic decision not to power up their earnings when powering up gets them essentially nothing.
And twice of nothing is still nothing. You can look for magic motivation of the top 30 accounts if you want, but even if you get it, 50/50 makes it more likely that the top 30 accounts will be the only ones who ever matter.
Thank you for stating what I tried to state... And putting it so clearly.
I tried to show that in my chart...that it is mathematically impossible to regain what is lost
We are losing 33% of something that is only OURS. And gaining 25% of something that is DIVIDED... with the highest stake holders getting the lion's share.
This isn't difficult math.
Even with all the differences of all the people on steem....no matter what strategy they employ.... They have LOST. (Unless they are big accounts)
And i showed that in the chart
And I will show it again... 30 days after HF21 has been employed, when I make the chart of the SAME people again. it's not just a prediction....it's math, people.
Thank you for making me feel less insane. 😉
Posted using Partiko Android
Bribing people to vote has always been a terrible idea. It attracts the people whose only reason for voting is that they're being bribed, and those people are always going to be looking for opportunities to increase their bribe at everyone else's expense.
It necessarily follows that doubling the bribe is only going to double the problem.
I appreciate that you've taken time to respond, and with the greatest respect for how raw everyone is feeling, I'm sure that you read everything I said including my personal stance and previous comments and would certainly never purposefully try to imbue my words with a meaning they don't have, attribute personal beliefs I don't have to me... and I'm exponentially sure that your dismissal of "my advantages" is an unfortunate side effect of our focus on the stratification of the haves and have nots (which is why further above I suggest that we do our best to try to leave that out.) After a literal discussion of why I don't think we can so easily separate most people into classes or painted with one brush, I've just been doused with the entire can, and that's a pretty big step backwards in terms of discussion.
Dreamsteem asked me what some people who are in favour of the EIP are thinking and how they could quite possibly have any justification in doing so. I was quite literally asked to write that stuff out. That is why this comment is here: because there was an ask for the other side of things from the views of those who believe them. I've spent as much time talking with them as I have here with all of you, and I wrote it with the clear caveat of saying regardless of my personal thoughts, here are the ones that are most touted and valid. All of the statements are true. They are not false. But just like magic math and magic motivation, none of them can stand on their own. They depend on human behaviour. They depend on the context around them. They depend on other factors in the ecosystem. Which, since I'm sure you've read in my other responses or heard me speaking passionately about, I don't believe will happen, and why I don't believe the EIP will work or that it is a magic bullet that needs a HF focus right now more than Steem needs something like the SPS. However, I understand that it is easy to see the things that hurt and misinterpret, and that because of my wallet or the "green" for my account that it would be easy to view it through that lens.
With all that, I want to address your "moralization" statement, because between that and your suggestion that where I am today is simply a matter of advantages, I haven't felt so particularly like giving up in a long time. Quite clearly: we are talking about the EIP making people's work feel devalued and that people are feeling as though their effort is being taken advantage of. Your comment does exactly that to me while trying to debate that others will feel that way. One size does not fit all.
I understand that there is some sort of mental line where I became "a have" and that it becomes easier to read what I say as "from on high" and through a perceived lens of classes or wallet size answers, but that is as much a disservice to me as it is to those being disserviced by a potential EIP. I also appreciate that you've recognized another awesome Steem blogger, but not the comparison between us, because it is absolutely irrelevant. In one fell swoop there is the suggestion that "she works so hard, but look, there's still no hope for her," and also that "you've got some magical money making advantages and there's only marginal hope for you". I know what you were trying to do, but it largely falls flat.
I didn't drive votes to get 20,000k SP. I bought Steem, with fiat scrimped from a full time job, that I kept powered up (It's a net loss on investment, and I didn't power it up just to try to earn more curation. I delegate much of it and work towards trying to find people not getting rewarded.) I on average, post once a month, because witnessing and community come first. Because I don't post, I can't ever be "red" in the post's math; I have removed the only variable that can produce a negative result. That's not causation, it's correlation, and it's correlation to a stance that people believe I must have just because now "I'm big." Being a witness and a community leader aren't a magical advantage bestowed upon high, by luck. It has been two years of full time work on top of full time work, being available all day every day, paying for servers out of pocket, giving my time freely and without "return" (which is of course untrue, community is my value, forever.) If you removed what I have painstakingly saved into my account over two years of witnessing and buying, I would have as much as, or more likely, LESS than Elsie. And through that all, a truth remains: if I have some Steem, and then I sell some Steem, the result then is I have less Steem. I didn't shame those people. I didn't say they have to change. To try to suggest that pointing out that if every person sells their stake that they also will not have bigger stake is some sort of counterproductive shaming run is projection. I also think unrelated to the EIP it's a bit frustrating that everyone demands votes, but also shouldn't be expected to power anything up. Who is voting? When an author writes, who pays them, then? Why would any single person hold any Steem at all, ever, if all there are are classes that must buy Steem to pay others who will liquidate all of it? These are not questions or thoughts that are moral, but intrinsic to our blockchain's existence. It's okay to allude to them in a discussion, especially when asked to. I did not in any way, shape or form, say "if the authors were just powering up they would be able to get a meaningful piece of the curation pie."
Regardless of the EIP, let me put my face on it, so that we can try to bring the "haves" and the "have nots" a bit closer. I recognize that now, my face matters less, because of my "class". I only use the terms income and salary, because as long as I witness, they are valid. I am required to run a working server with the proper software, and there is a set amount for recompense if I do. If I do not, or am "fired" by being unvoted, that goes down or stops. Part of that job is being accountable to voters. Despite being exactly the same as other authors in every way, in the last week alone, I've been lectured on chain that as a witness and a community leader that I should never sell Steem or power down, because my responsibility is to the ecosystem around me to power it up to help Steem price and other authors. I received an angry DM from someone who was mad that I wouldn't follow their curation trail because it is my job as someone with big stake to share that with authors. I got another asking me to stop being selfish by holding liquid Steem and instead to power it up and to delegate it to smaller people's projects (which I do, but not this particular one). Somehow, I hit an amount where I went from being "one of you" to "one of them". Somehow, despite everyone saying "hands off my wallet," I hit a mark where mine became community property. Even though I don't get to be an author any more, and the income I am making from an actual set of requirements is not vote or content dependent like an author, no one will come around and defend me for "making the sensible economic decision not to power up [my] earnings when powering up gets [me] essentially nothing."
A lot of this response isn't about the EIP at all, but instead about the way we talk with each other about things like the EIP, and about exactly why I keep saying we have to treat each other as individuals instead of trying one size fits all answers. It's too easy to assume what people are saying and thinking and feeling versus what they are - and I mean that largely in a bottom up sense, but not entirely. It really is a really shitty 1% that will fuck up our economics regardless of the number spread. In any case, this has become long enough and I realize it doesn't any of the points you've made as much as I feel you didn't pick out the points that actually mattered to me. Thanks for the dialogue.
Why not simply disallow self-voting, period, on both posts and comments? Would that do any good?
Oh, and yeah, turn-off the bid-bots, as someone on @dreemsteem's other post suggested.
Would those things help fix the issue, without the 50/50 change being implemented?
Well, I can only trace through the ideas and arguments that are made over time. A lot of people have discussed this as a possibility, and I'm sure there are even forks who have tried it. It definitely pushes us into the area of needing to discuss alts or sock accounts created to do the exact same thing and how best to handle that... which means further curve changes, account costs, or perhaps the idea that there really does need to be more downvoting by everyone... and it gets harder to "see" who is doing the worst stuff because they might actually be X amount of accounts. It means that we have to ask ourselves, "If I expect someone to buy and power up Steem to pay me via voting, then am I myself expected to then do the same for them?". And I think, most importantly, that not being able to self vote to some degree is a pretty discouraging forcing of your hand. If the curation system fails you and you write a great piece that has no recognition or rewards, do you feel that with the stake that you have earned through blood, sweat, or tears, or perhaps bought dearly with other resources you shouldn't be allowed to allocate some value to it? If you write an insightful comment and it is wayyyyyy down on a post and you believe whole-heartedly it needs to be curated up into the best version of conversation on a post, should you not be allowed to use the resources you busted ass for to do so? This is not a flip question. In fact, even without disallowing self voting, these questions are still to some degree relevant.
I'm sure you've heard me say, time and again- voting yourself is not inherently bad. Standing behind your own work and saying, "I see value in this and have worked hard to be able to allocate value towards it" is not bad. I don't care what flavour your donut is as long as it's got sprinkles and at the end of the day you feel good about what you've done and how you're contributing to the ecosystem. The problem with the egregious self voters is the same problem with the egregious bid bot abusers is the same problem with botnet accounts farming rewards without self voting at all. I wish I could say or find that one size fits all easy answer because I would be ready to stand behind it and push for it as hard as I can. For now, I'm doing my best to listen to all opinions and build the best knowledge base that I myself can work from, as an individual, working with a blockchain of individuals.
and the sneak edit: Turning off the bid bots comes down to... how do you turn them off? Do you find a way to take their stake that wouldn't then put your account in the same space? Take the stake of the people delegating without then opening yourself to that form of abuse? Do you use a front end to hide them? (this is happening on Steempeak and on PALnet and others, and I think matters a bit) Redistribute a new asset without them? How do you give that asset value? (PALcoin's new journey.) How do you take a steem account out of someone's hands, or forcefully nullify someone's stake? What does that authority look like? Who can decide? Where is the line on enough? The answers feel so easy when we look at the examples of abuse out there, but unless you can convince a bid bot author to just...stop, or a bid bot delegator to just... stop, then there becomes a whole new HF's worth of potential changes to try to do some of these things (many of which people came to crypto to avoid by bank interference,) and even now- the distribution is done. If all the bidbots stopped today, the distribution is still inequitable.
All of these things are part of the whole- that economic context I discussed above. Were there one, simple, surefire one size fits all fix that we could implement today to turn it around, it would be done yesterday. But that's not where we are, and so now we have to challenge the way we think and the way we all act to try to push things in the right direction.
Thank you, @crimsonclad ~ I value your opinion and always learn things from you!
this change will work only if:
A. big accounts that are selfvoting, bitboting spam or whatever you do (not you as you) to get most of the steem, now start to spend hours on steem looking and reading/watching content to upvote. but that would be hard because on steem you have a lot of #belowaveragecreator s (that are on steem just because they suck and would be somewhere else making a lot more money) that are here just to take money from people that invested and are doing everything to make steem great. not really seeing that happening.
B. enough big accounts start downvoting selfoting, bitboting whatever you do to the point that the other side stops doing that. small acc will have no influence on it and will only be bystanders in everything, as they always were and as the system is made.
When they cut out self-voting...people create duplicate accounts to upvote themselves.
It's what I keep saying, you cannot stop bad behavior. Locked doors only keep the honest out. Criminals will smash the window, taking your purse and leaving you with the window to fix on top of it! Lol
And so... We will make the large accounts happy by paying them more.
Because they have the voice and power.
Posted using Partiko Android
They already have multiple duplicate accounts. That's the real reason the economy is failing. The current numbers are really only about 1/3 unique.
Posted using Partiko Android
Funny you are saying something different than others. Others are saying it will disinsentivize self voting, but you state the correct reality that this will increase self voting, which means more will be curating themselves, leaving less for Others, especially the whales.
This means those numbers shown in the capture above will probably be higher than shown for the big guys.
Then there is the downvote pool. This again only helps the big guy, because the little guy will remain just as scared to downvote as they are currently and has always been. It'll simply fund these retarded flag wars, making it even more profitable for the Oligarchy.
None of this will change a thing. Highly followed accounts will get more empty votes to feed off the higher curation rewards and the little guy will receive fewer. So, these two portions of the HF21 proposal will only increase the bad behavior they are claimed to be a fix for.
The rationales aren't rational and it all sounds like spin from the big guys, to convince their counterparts to vote this in and our opinions dont really matter.
All of our concerns are being brushed aside, even by you with ridiculous spin.
You state, " Something must be done, this isn't perfect, but it's all we got." What a load of shit and is you just trying to quiet us down.
Steemit is just modeled after the failed American Political Template and listening to this bullshit spin just proves it further.
There are always other options, period. You don't just throw new untested, irrational abstract idea's into action in real time just to see the outcome.
You do the math, show the math, experiment and test many times over before changing the code. This is how science works, but you choose politics over science, which will fail.
There are literally 30+ competitor's for Steem right now with more coming. All their TOKENS are worth less, but author's are actually earning more there than here.
All I can do is shake my head and be glad I haven't wasted much of my time here and none of my hard earned cash.... @crimsonclad
Posted using Partiko Android
Again, I appreciate your response, and with respect to the fact that people are rightly emotional about this topic, I'm going to point you at this comment I made so as not to write another wall of text people won't read and then comprehend. That's a clarity issue, but I also think it's a knee-jerk, gut reaction issue.
All I can ask is that people don't assume I'm saying anything.
No. There is no place at all that I state this, and just like I'm here having a dialogue with all of you (the opposite of telling you to "quiet down,") I also won't allow you to misconstrue my clear words- posted multiple times in this thread- because you're angry about the overarching situation. You have all rights to be angry and speak your opinions, but that's simply not what I stated and your insinuation that I am attempting to silence people is unacceptable to me, so hopefully if you get the chance to re-read my comments for what they say, and not what you feel they must mean that will help us at the very least (unintentionally, I'm sure) not put words in each other's mouths.
@crimsonclad, Here's your direct quote, "Feeling that the EIP is a fuck you to little guys misses out on some of behaviors the EIP could potentially encourage that we simply cannot achieve any other way,"
So, yes you did say that... The rest of my statement explaining what I see you saying is simply my take, because I cannot believe you actually believe yourself...
Oh and disagreeing is not being emotional. Please don't try to downgrade my opinion in such a egotistical manner. It's just another smokescreen. You are wrong, period...
I'm not even calling you emotional. You're looking for ways to downgrade your own opinion on my behalf. I'm here answering you completely reasonably. I'm not going to touch the egotistical bits... but please don't forget to include the second, direct quote, directly following your direct quote that you trimmed off and left out. Context does matter:
Followed up by,
Really, here's one, "Again, I appreciate your response, and with respect to the fact that people are rightly emotional about this topic,"
Here's another to another user by you, "I appreciate that you've taken time to respond, and with the greatest respect for how raw everyone is feeling,". Stating it broadly doesn't change the implication.
As for context, adding the second half makes no difference to the portion I was addressing. So, the context I highlighted is paraphrasing, " this is the only way".
Adding the second part you are saying the same thing except your implying something is better than nothing, which is ridiculous...
Posted using Partiko Android
Other people in this thread, including Dreemsteem, have broadly stated they're mad, and I have no issues continuing to address that because I know they are and I do respect that. I also know you feel like you're backing me into some magical corner of logic here, but instead you're basically just repeating things trying to implicate implications and making a muck of it while trying to project I'm projecting on to you.
My actual feelings, which again, I've repeated in many places, are the exact opposite of your badly implicated implication. The EIP numbers are not better than nothing. Now is not the time. They do not solve any of the problems that we need to, and even if it does go through, it won't change the effect of the distribution and 1% abuse, and the price of Steem. Any discussion that does not involve shifting our focus to real problems, instead of debating an EIP, for or against, is not useful in any way to the current real problems of Steem is and not going to get us where we need to go. So yes, you're correct in one thing: there's certainly ridiculous here.