STEEM's Biggest Villian
We have to settle this once and for all. There's been a lot of big talk, a lot of shit slinging, and a whole lot of grandstanding, but there can only be ONE.
Who is STEEM's biggest villian?
You can nominate anyone for any reason. Did someone downvote your post? Did they blow you the fuck out in your own comment section? Did they passive aggressively talk shit on their own blog about you without mentioning your name, but you know they were talking about you and they were just too chickenshit to say anything?
Now is your chance to get back at them
You may nominate ONE, only 1 person in the comment section below. Let's end the debate for good and find out who wins STEEM'S Biggest Villian.
0
0
0.000
You. Definitely you.
Bold move ole chap, we'll have to see how this plays out.
!dramatoken
Such drama, you've earned a DRAMA!
To view or trade
DRAMAgo to steem-engine.com.!dramatoken
Going to get in here with the first.
I doubt many will see this, and even less of them will be brave enough to nominate someone, but I like to be proven wrong.
It will be seen, I assure you :)
I have been assured, thanks.
Out of everyone, I swear to God it’s @torico with her passive aggressive ass post about us she just had to message me about.
Between that and her constant complaining and playing victim in everything while pretending to be a STRONG (insufferable) proud wymn hahahahahaha
I know most of PALnet agrees with me but you don’t wanna get banned for doing so, and by all means bitch out.
Our first real nomination, and it's a real dark horse bunny puppy. If you want this wild card to take the spot of STEEM's Biggest Villian, you're gonna have to really sell it. Perhaps show us on the doll where @torico touched you.
Accused me of threatening rape, then recanted and claimed it wasn’t a lie but a stretched truth.
I sought peace but now I want war.
Flag me Shane. Flag me Isaria. Do it! It doesn’t make it less true!
Edit: oh and she’s a DM creepo
https://www.palnet.io/palnet/@nathanpieters/torico-lies-to-gets-her-metoo-moment
It’s not a doll. It’s an accessorized companion.
And yes I upvoted my comments cuz fuuuuck uuuuuu
This should stir up some shit.
!dramatoken
*damn Marky beat me :D
Already like 3 drama tokens on it haha
I'm the new villain it seems.
Pirate's are natural villains...... right? :)
You were definitely the person I was thinking of nominating.
What? Because you don't believe the global warming hoax? That shit's weak.
Avatar checks out!
Good guy, bad guy...
I'll be the first to nominate the obvious...
Haejin, with his constant self voting, scammy dstors, dcommerce, extracting Steem value to whaleshares, revenge downvoting, but all off that aside the most frustrating part is how much he sells. I would be willing to put up with the rest of it.
Anyhow, totally buying into this drama post and I'm not afraid to be the first to say it.
And a strong nomination from the Steem Drama veteran, WU. This Could be a winner, but we'll have to defer to the wisdom of the crowd to see how it plays out.
Relevant data
What site is that? Looks useful 😀
Posted using Partiko iOS
It's one of my private dashboards.
https://dashboard.usesteem.com/dashboards/614149/5d8236dd74f50101421189855757
LMFAO, how much he sells? Oh snap, I get a kick out of the downvote posse and how they get perplexed by revenge downvotes, and stake selling done by those they target. Did it ever occur to you that respecting the upvotes of large stakeholders would cause them to hodl more and sell less, effectively securing the market value of Steem? Oh and don't bring up the nobility of it by pointing to trending. Yes, trending needs to be fixed, but it doesn't need to be fixed by turning everyone into a bunch of psychopathic downvoting brownshirts.
Steem is niche AF and almost impossible to explain to the uninitiated. So how are you going to CONvince capitalists to invest when you won't let them eat their own stake? It's like a BYOB party but if you bring too much beer you'd better share with everyone else. Fucking commies. And don't even bring of PoB we know this thing has been proof of wallet from the jump. PoB was the pipe-dream and then reality happened.
I give you the #2 spot, we all know Marky is das fuhrer.
After the initial rumors about a new Steem government, I was against this centralization effort immediately. This is because I knew that it would in some way shape or form translate into new taxes. I don't know if the alliance is responsible for it. Or if they are in some part responsible for it, but after that happened, we content creators got hard fucked by another 25% tax on the fruits of our posts. In addition to the new taxes, you've got the downvote posse, because that'll make steem great? Seriously, if I wanted to destroy a blockchain social network, I would do all of these things. But keep calm, carry on, things will happen, people will post less, perhaps a blockchain will get it right some day... Or maybe the game was honked from the start.
I don't make the decisions I just react to them and adapt.
blah, blah, ... Taxes. that's hilarious, you can't be taxed on money you never owned.
So according to your own logic then, retaliatory downvotes shouldn't be an issue?
Agreed. Downvotes are a normal part of the system. It matters a bit more when the big guys use them.
However, in general I agree.
I think they became more normalized when Steemit added in "reward disputes" as a reason to flag. They did this knowing full well that they couldn't control the abuse of the flag mechanic. So basically, they washed their hands of the problem by implementing a top-down culture change.
Besides that, changing the GUI to show the flag function as a downvote on par with upvotes was also a move to change the Steem culture. It's clear to me that they're trying to control our ethics to accommodate the inherent flaws in the platform. This isn't necessarily a good thing. If a system is broken it should be fixed, you shouldn't break the way people behave to accommodate a broken system. I mean you can try, but in the end, it won't work.
Now because of all the downvotes, it appears that Haejin is flagging people with his full steem power. He was just minding his own business before, but the system turned the people against each other and have divided and conquered. For the "greater good" of course, that's how it always starts. That is almost always the beginning of the end. Better on the blockchain than IRL I say, lets see the experiment out to its inevitable conclusion.
This place is so dumb and doomed. ;)
Everyone else is dumb...
I got it. I've heard it. I stay because of accounts like yours. :)
Moon Soon, doesn't matter about the petty.
Bahh, my FUD is so much
more classy than everyone
elses. You know you love it!
;-)
I submit you do not grasp the governmental mechanism: inheritance taxes. VATs. etc... Almost all taxes are on money you don't - and more to the point, never will - own.
I agree with everything you said here. Proof of Brain would require a system sort of like Minds.com has where every account is tied to a phone number that is anonymously turned into a hash and so is able to do 1 account = 1 vote.
Steem is not and never has been "proof of brain" but more proof of stake. Then, it turns around and alientates its stakers and its authors (which it already severally lacks).
Then comes free downvotes, which is a terribly stupid idea. Now every account has more power to do harm than it has to do good. In the past people had to ask themselves if it was worth it to them to take a hit in order to be a dick to someone, but no, now the dickslaps are free. We just made it so accounts can put more negativity into the environment than they can positivity, great plan...
The value of Steem, as I see it, is the immutable blogging space available to a person online. I think the more logical path for its design is to give SP a cap on all accounts, and that SP is not reclaimable. This means that for an account to have SP you are effectively burning that STEEM, or at least making something fungible into a non-fungible asset.
That way no single account could be 1000x the vote influence of another account, and owning STEEM would be more about owning decentralized "digital blog property" rather than some currency. The currency could be like potential parcels, very much similar to Mana/Land with the Decentraland project on Ethereum.
But its current roadmap makes no sense to me. Why do SMTs at all? From the standpoint of any reasonably funded project I would expect companies to fork Steem rather than make an SMT. Steem accounts are a barrier to entry and if a project wanted to create Steem-like token it makes much more sense for them to fork Steem, ninja mine like Steemit Inc. did, and use their god-like SP to generate the most amount of accounts per day just like Steemit Inc. does.
Steem is not a huge community (when counting active accounts) to tap into, so I see no incentive for serious, well-funded projects to buy a ton of STEEM to power up to make their SMT when they can fork Steem for so much less and have a much easier time onboarding users.
You raised some good points here, and some not so good points here, so I would like to address some of them:
I can agree with this to an extent. I would personally say it's more of a hybrid, since it's still individuals deciding what they're supporting, and those decisions are weighted by how much skin they have in the game, but I can see the argument both ways.
With 10 free upvotes and 2 free downvotes a day, I would say each account has 5X the capacity to positively affect someone's rewards than negatively affect them. From my perspective, this has worked better than predicted. Bid bots are scrambling to react to the new market, the trending page is looking much more usable, and Steem's biggest reward pool abusers are finally getting their posts drained. Has it been perfect? Absolutely not. Is it better than it was? I can say without a doubt that's it's much better since now we don't have to ask our biggest stakeholders to choose between losing curation rewards or fighting abuse.
I have been running a flag neutralization service, named @freezepeach, every single day for over 2 years now. I did it because I hated seeing people being driven off the platform for having the "wrong" opinion, and I wanted to do something about it. Flag abuse is real, and it hurts steem, but we need flags or else the shared reward pool becomes exploited in a classic case of the tragedy of the commons.
I don't know how I feel about a cap on steem power, that doesn't seem logical to me but I'd have to think about it more. The never powering down option is interesting though, and definitely needs more exploring. That would radically change things, but I'm not sure in what ways exactly. The devil is always in the details.
What's inherently wrong about having 1000x more influence? What about 999X the influence? 500X? 100X? What makes any of those other figures better or worse? If you own any amount of Steem above 50 SP, then essentially you have a working blog and have "digital blog property" as you put it. It's the influence that comes with putting your money where your mouth is, and that's important in structuring things like resources, rewards, and future forks of the platform.
Plenty have forked Steem, but you may fail to realize like I have done in the past what a pain in the ass it is to be listed on exchanges. You think it's hard to turn your hard earned cash into steem, or vice versa? It's way harder for forks, because you need tons of money (not just minted shit coins) to get listed. We take for granted the few exchanges that support Steem and usually want more, but the reality is it's not a trivial task to get listed.
SMT's are going to be something like the tribes you see popping up on steem-engine, but with the added advantage of being added to exchanges that already support steem with little effort. This is essentially going to allow tokenization of Steem, much like ETH, but with the benefit of the 3 second/free transactions, and its own proof of stake algorithms.
Steem accounts are a barrier to entry, but a very small one that's getting better and better. New tools still need to be made/refined and put into place to allow the masses to join easily, but even now it's absurdly cheap to get started with just a little bit of cursory reading.
Steem is not a huge community? Relative to who? Facebook? Because as far as crypto communities go, this is the biggest one I know of. Bitcoin may have more users, but they're not really a community in the sense this place is.
I’d like to know if the reward pool increases or decreases based on the total of powered-up Steem? If this is the case, then chasing off stakeholders no matter how good or bad their voting history will affect the total amount of rewards in the pool. We see people try to protect the commons, as you call it, with flags. Now if this results in dejected stakeholders who feel disenfranchised from their investment, then the next logical move for them is to go liquid by powering down. In this scenario powering down will cause a smaller reward pool. Even worse, if those little piggies as people see them, go to the market, it’ll cause the value of Steem to decrease. If the premise of this commentary is untrue, then why distribute unequal votes at all? So yeah, folks like Marky mean well, but I wonder if he understands the equal and opposite market reaction that it causes, and that’s outside of all the interpersonal turmoil that flagging does to self and others. If you ask me, this behavior is on par with measuring the efficacy of a carbon tax without taking into consideration the cons. There might be a net gain, and a net loss, or maybe they both cancel each other out making it a fruitless endeavor in its entirety. Imagine if STINC and other condensers or wallets implemented a power down quiz asking people why. This, so we can gift the community with feedback concerning the main reasons that people power down and sell.
We definitely need more market research in understanding the reasons for powering up and powering down among other things. This type of data is gold for every other social network out there, but nobody seems to care or have enough time to be bothered about it here. This is exactly the type of insight we need to stop stabbing in the dark and start informing our decisions for building a better platform.
AFAIK, the reward pool is based on a % of the inflation, and the inflation is determined by total supply. The inflation % changes year to year, steadily declining, but as the supply keeps rising, the effects of the percentages are compounding.
I do think there's a bigger cost to some flags than people realize, but without any regulation (flags), we've seen how much the reward pool gets abused. I think the community can find a balance if the right incentives are baked in, but it will be a bumpy ride there.
I sure can't wait to see how the #newsteem folks plan on marketing the platform to prospective investors. One of the big incentives in investing in Steem is having more control over the reward pool. However, once people learn that it's unethical to reward yourself, then the only benefit in buying into the blockchain is the prospective of becoming either and unpaid reward poolice officer or and unpaid content curator. That's a hard sell.
Content curators get 50% of the rewards now since the last hard fork, so it's not exactly unpaid. And "reward policing" pays as well, just not in the same sense. It's more of an abstract payoff in the same sense that keeping a clean house doesn't provide monetary returns, but still provides value.
Oh, that's a fair point about the content curation! The other is abstract indeed, I know some are really getting jollies from it. May they live in interesting times. Steem really needs to define itself concretely in an easy to understand way before pitching itself to investors. It seems after you join it becomes very commune like. But the idea is to sell capitalists on the venture. Not sure how this plays out in the long run, but it'll be fun to watch.
Well even if you're not a content creator, or a curator, and just want to earn a passive return, delegation rental is still a thing as well. I agree though, steem really needs to define itself as a brand in a clear and concise manner, then the userbase will have the necessary means to go out and spread the word.
True that, and the big obstacle there might be, will the user base embrace said brand.
Thank you for the thorough response. I have a few things to answer back.
This is an incorrect interpretation. The 10 "free" upvotes are not free, they cost mana. Before HF21 there was one (1) mana bar, and this bar required for you to choose between positively voting or negatively voting on someone's content. This was even, everyone having the equal power to do something positive for someone's post or something negative. However, negative actions resulted in lessened ROI for yourself, thus in order to harm someone you had to be self-sacrificing.
So, the entry of a new mana bar for downvotes created a free 2 downvotes. Now there is an imbalance, because you do not have to sacrifice anything to harm someone, at least twice per day. This is not true for upvotes, because the original mana bar is still equally for upvotes and downvotes.
Maybe this will drive home the point. The community dislikes bidbots, but what about a downvote bot? See, downvote bots are more powerful than ever now, they can receive compensation through transactions or SE token sales, and nobody can stop them.
You can damage the ROI of an upvote service, but you can't do anything to a downvote service, and they now have 2 extra downvotes per day available to them.
Valid point, maybe the max SP should be 50 STEEM. But there is no logical reason to give any person 1000X+ the influence of anyone else, and maybe no one should even have 2x the influence of another person. True proof of brain requires 1 vote = 1 person.
An environment of whales and minnows creates an oligarchy, which is not a good thing, especially for the purpose of Steem. While I get the skin in the game concept and respect it, you don't have to have STEEM powered up to have skin in the game, you just have to own a lot of STEEM and be doing something to make it successful.
Ned himself commented in one of the Steemit youtube videos that it would be ideal to adjust voting to be essentially 1 vote per person. This is because people do not enjoy an overly hierarchical social environment. Sure, elitists get a kick out of it, but most of us that enjoy human-to-human interaction to be a matter of free and equal exchange as peers do not like such concepts.
Dan Larimer has also rejected the oligarchy of Steem's design for something less hierarchical and more social in nature for his later social application Voice. This social app is much more similar to Minds.com, an Ethereum-based social site that has attracted Youtube celebs much more effectively than Steem.
My favorite would be Steem, though, because the data is all on the blockchain. But not in its current design can I say it is my favorite. I sincerely do not believe this whales and minnow environment will be adopted by the world.
Sure, you can attract the most impoverished of communities that are willing to do whatever whales want to get some tips, but it will not work on the masses in the US, UK and Europe, people that are quite conformable with telling tyrants to fuck off. These communities have a strong sense of what they believe is equality and they care about such things.
Based on what metrics? When talking about what blockchain has the largest developer community, Ethereum is a massive lead ahead of everything else. From the aspect of 24hr user activity, a dapp on EOS named ADM is quite ahead of Steem according to dapp.com.
Steem is a social media blockchain, so even if you can say that it is the largest community, well, its expected to be. But your definition of "community" matters here. Who count? Because Bitcoin most certainly has more hodlers than Steem does.
Steem is a location where people can talk about cryptocurrencies, and as a location for that it could be said that it is slightly more popular than bitcointalk.org, but not by much. However, I most certainly believe that Twitter is more used for cryptocurrency conversations than Steem is. I'm not making a comparison of Twitter vs. Steem, I'm making a comparison of #cryptotwitter vs. Steem.
Most of the other blockchains have many social presences and are not congregated in one single place online like Steem users are. Reddit is hugely popular for blockchain communities, with Ethereum having over 400,000 users in their main subreddit, excluding all the other additional subreddits like ethtrader.
Actually, this goes along with my point. I did not say that small community hosts would not go with SMTs over forking, I said "any reasonably funded project" would likely prefer forking rather than doing an SMT.
So, it really comes down to what you think SMTs are going to be used for and if it is the right path. SMTs make sense for small niche communities that don't plan to be on public exchanges anyway and are used for in-site stuff. Another beneficial use for SMTs is as a currency meant to specifically target Steem users as customers in exchange for STEEM or SBD.
This is because when you have 10,000,000 users or plan to have 10,000,000 users for your coin/token, you're going to try cutting costs and RCs will add up. You have to spend RCs to get them accounts and spend RCs to allow them to interact. Its much more economical for a sizeable project to fork, ninja mine and directly sell tokens to users like Minds.com does.
However, I would argue that truly good projects do not need to be on the exchanges right away. The fork of Steem I would do would have STEEM only be used to purchase your immutable blog space and be burnable for network-wide feed display. Your 50 locked SP would be your witness vote influence, reward pool influence and RC pool.
The token would have utility and be primarily held for the use of it in promotion and in speculation that demand for immutable and decentralized blog space would go up.
Why do you believe this would be so? I do not expect that to happen. Steemit Inc. is designing an ICO system for SMTs and while they will likely create a dex similar to Steem Engine, I would not think most SMTs will be permitted on the major exchanges.
Look at BCH, right now you can make SLP tokens, but that does not mean SLP tokens get to go on the exchanges that BCH is on. They have to pay the exchanges for their listing the same as a Steem fork would, and so will SMTs.
Ethereum is unique, because smart contracts can be created on Ethereum as a dex, and because the dex is permissionless any token creator on Ethereum can get their token on that dex. This is very different for Steem, which does not actually have that capability built into it.
Check the time stamp on this post.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia
haha
Here's your
DRAMA. Don't spend it all in one place!To view or trade
DRAMAgo to steem-engine.com.You have
DRAMA!To view or trade
DRAMAgo to steem-engine.com.Ima light this dumpster fire. Come get some
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Ned!! Totally kidding! 😂😂😂
Posted using Partiko iOS
SteemCleaners come get this fake fuck!
😳🤣
Posted using Partiko iOS
Nomination accepted.
!dramatoken
I should've nominated you. Damn it!
:(
You blew it Dag.
You've got
DRAMA!To view or trade
DRAMAgo to steem-engine.com.@ned / @freedom
Only one submission because I think they're the same people.
Greedy but inconsistent and unprincipled.
!dramatoken
Will the guitar strumming super villian and his alter-ego @freedom take this one? Stay tuned folks, because this is sure to get spicy!
You have
DRAMA!To view or trade
DRAMAgo to steem-engine.com.It's totally !ned.
Enjoy your ned and don't forget to recommend nedcore!
I have a nicer watch than he does :)
This is the correct answer.
I actually asked ned once if he knew the identity of freedom, he said he didn't. He suspects it's someone from the bitshares community. Who knows. 🤷
I am pretty lame when it comes to following the drama on the chain. I have enough headache happening in my own personal life that I try not to add unnecessary stresses by getting wrapped up in the batshit insane stuff that has occurred here since I joined about 18 months ago.
I will however say I shared this hoping that perhaps some of the folks that might be "nominated" might see this and have a moment of clarity. Seeing how their actions have had negative consequences. I know I am probably being naïve here, but being a complete nerd and comic book guy...I tend to hope or believe there is still some good in people...even when they have mostly shown nothing but vile rottenness.
Nonsense!! None of these people will change. Once a douche always a douche!
Posted using Partiko iOS
This is mostly just for fun, and a little bit of internet drama never hurt nobody. And if it did, they're obviously not fans of the teachings of tylerthecreator:
Sup Dork?!? Enjoy the Upvote!!! Keep up with the dorky content for more love!!!
You can choose me. 😁
Steem biggest villain is Steem Inc. for selling Steem like crazy causing the price of the coin to plummet, scaring away the other big wallets to do the same, and not being able to deliver what they promised (SMTs) amongst many other things.
Not sure if Steemit Inc is a valid nomination, but we'll let the crowd decide.
I'm voting for @andrarchy no one gets shat on as much as he does every time he puts out any sort of communication.
The first nomination for @andrarchy has been accepted. What do you think his super villian power would be?
His a super spin doctor, Able to find the silver lining in every comment thrown at him!
Also his impervious to online trolls and has the distinct ability to only use one AirPod
Can anyone tell me where @andrarchy’s other AirPod is? Should we send out a search party?
Mainstream Users maybe?
It seems we could fight them of for a long time now..
I haven't heard of @mainstreamusers, but it's anybody's game at this point.
IMHO, the biggest villain would have to be the dev's who did all the pre-mining of steem!
that seems to be 1 of crucial issue,ive heard about effecting investors.
But what do I know ;-)
namaste
It wasn't just devs, there were a few that got in the "ninja mine" as well, but we're looking for STEEM's Biggest Villian, so I guess we'll have to see if this qualifies.
Ned
And we have a 2nd nomination for the debonair of hair, @ned.
Upvoting this cause of the engagement it is generating.
I'd nominate bid bot owners still clinging to their "business". ;)
Anyone in particular come to mind?
Nobody has said @sammosk.
Why?
Posted using Partiko iOS
Because you have to be relevant to be STEEM's Biggest Villian.
That is true. Maybe he will ask Partiko to ban me again.
That was fun. Lol
Posted using Partiko iOS
I'm the biggest asshole here!
I'm sorry to inform you that you have not yet been nominated, but stay tuned for my STEEM's Biggest Asshole contest coming soon.
Well this an outrage! Do I have to flex my ass muscles just to prove a point around here!
No sir, dporn is that way ----> https://www.dporn.co
I hear they're giving away free accounts to all steem users, now's your time to shine.
Oh. Sorry.
Wrong door.
Lol😂😂😂
Posted using Partiko Android
uh, nice. Cant wait for that one. haha
Circle-Jerk networks //No I am not talking about OCD group only ;)
When @backscratcher?
@jerrybanfield anyone...?
Surprised it took that long to mention him, but I believe he's starting to be less of a villain and more of a distant memory at this point.
I would nominate aggroed, He builds platforms by lying to investors and somehow is able to spin it, making himself look like a community hero.
First one for @aggroed, but I'm going to need 1000 ENG to accept this nomination.
haha, why not some other shitty derivative
The above user has been rate-limited.
To increase their limit, please pay 1000 ENG.
I have a list.... But srsly, why has no one nominated @markymark yet? Or @berniesanders? Or @therealwolf? I just dunno... Imma take back @markymark because he never flagged me, neither @therealwolf. @smooth is just too reasonable, and @sneak inconsequential. @pumpkin is only in charge of who gets to be witness, so, again, inconsequential. We all know witnesses don't matter, eh?
Ok, here it is: @bloom, the first paid flaggot. It's a sign of the apocalypse. Let the flagging begin!
I nominated marky in my reply to whatsup. This because he seems like the ringleader of the downvote posse. Steem is already too niche as it is. Having someone like him running around turning stakeholders against each other and souring people to the platform seems like a terrible idea. What it does is discourages those folks from HODLing their steem in favor of an alternative investment. Over time, this kind of behavior will have a real impact on retention of stakeholders. There are not enough altruistic capitalists that will keep this strange platform afloat, so by chasing off the capitalists (profiteers or what have you) that we do have invested in the platform will only end up hurting the market value of Steem.
Well, good on ya mate. Personally it's his bidbot that offends me, as all do. Society is not bots, and buying votes is not curation. If Steem can empower people to interact while enabling them to reward one another with votes, Steem will succeed. It has not, and bidbots - and flags - are a big part of why it has failed to do so heretofore.
People have social value, not bots. Social value is where financial value comes from. One without the other has no value.
Well, maybe someone can take this model and since it is open-source, fix it. It inspires a lot of creativity, but also plenty of discord too.
@l0ki started to do exactly that, but @berniesanders was part of preventing him from succeeding. Personally, I think @l0ki was the biggest opponent of his success, and @berniesanders just had some fun while he blew himself up.
I actually don't mind disagreement. Disagreement can result in discussion that revolves around facts, and that can be a very good thing. Enabling people to just financially crush those they disagree with doesn't improve society, and stake weighting does not promote prosperity as a result.
But, yeah, I agree. It might even happen here on Steem, if the code promotes society instead of draining it.
Yeah, disagreement is fine but the unclear rules of this system are strange. For example, the code encourages both stake weighting and downvoting by not disallowing these operations. It's all very subjective and open to interpretation.
When they are cashing out faster than people can generate value, it's a problem. Profiteers are great when you actually have businesses and an economy.
What capitalistic thing has these profiteers done besides cashing out faster than people wanting to buy?
Did most of them run businesses? If you call a bot a business I guess. Did they offer products? Not really. They are just glorified "mining rigs". Steem Monsters is probably the only legitimate business you have on the chain. What else is there to invest on this platform? Nothing.
When the purpose of having stake is "be your own mining rig", that shows how little this platform offers. Steem is just that, "poor man's mining rig". No fancy tech or knowledge needed. Just have some stake and click buttons.
I see Steem as the foremost product to consider. A stakeholder secures the value of Steem in the marketplace. This is because, when stakeholders dump to market, it causes downward pressure on the prices. However magnificent or minuscule the selling, it causes the market to respond in kind. So when someone like Marky says a massive downvote on a whale is like a mini upvote for everyone else, what I think he does not consider is when he drives this money away from the platform the market will respond in kind by downgrading the value of steem. There are not that many altruistic capitalists in this world, let alone ones you can sell on blockchain social media. So when profiteers are part of a select few who prop up the main product, can beggars be choosers. Or should we respect their stake and appreciate what they do for the value of the token?
And what product is that? You mean the tokens? Like every bloody crypto project? Wow, Steem is so special.
There's no such thing as altruistic capitalists. Everyone is here for their own benefit. Period. Capitalists actually build things for profit. Simply holding tokens is not being a capitalist. Simply stacking coins is not being a capitalist.
Again, what is that product? They are here for themselves, not for whatever altruistic reasons you keep citing, but not providing. Oh? You mean propping up tokens? They bought in once. They started non-stop selling. That's not propping up anything. That's called priming their own pump. Or in crypto terms, priming their own mining rig.
And what type of whales was he speaking? All whales or just some bad ones? Because I don't see him openly tell people to take on @theycallmedan or @acidyo, etc. You know who he's referring to.
Respect what? Your right to be the last bag holder?
I can concede that the initial distribution and reward mechanism favor those unsavory behaviors. The way Steem is set up, it makes no sense to vote for anyone else.
That’s pretty much my point, there are no, or very few altruistic capitalists. The combination of the two words is mostly an oxymoron. So, what reason does any capitalist have to buy into Steem? When you buy Steem and power it up the math dictates the influence your SP has on the reward pool. If people like Haejin are doing something wrong, then maybe the math in the blockchain didn’t adequately account for human nature. Why not consider human nature and the fact that some people will capitalize off of their stake to its maximum potential and then work to get the numbers right? Having the coding accommodate for human nature makes a helluva lot more sense than trying to get people to change their behavior to accommodate some random coders failure to predict the inevitable. People with a low stake upvote themselves at 100% all the time, I do it. So if someone gives up their standard APY to invest in the blockchain in a large quantity, then isn’t their stake in and of itself meritorious enough? At the very least, shouldn’t they too be able to upvote themselves at 100% if they value their posts? If not, please show me how you plan on pitching new capital investments.
Instead of posting nonsense just to vote for themselves, what they need is an option for them to burn VP and receive the equivalent in rewards.
It’ll look less spammy and ridiculous that way. It doesn’t sit well for any content creator or potential investors to see whales posting nonsense just to reward themselves in public.
There are ways to do things without a complete overhaul, but STINC and the witnesses aren’t in a hurry it seems.
Yeah, I suppose if everyone had that option, in theory
it would clean up a lot of the spam. Disingenuous
posts might become a thing of the past.
I think it will help with the perceptions a lot.
People will feel less agitated with bs being upvoted to kingdom come.
I recommend capital gains. That mechanism has caused investment to build businesses since time immemorial.
Hmm.. does that mean that when a whale engages in stake weighting, the net result it is not a capital gain?
Correct. While the whale gains more capital, their peers do not. That gain is not derived from increasing the value of the underlying investment vehicle, although the ROI of investors derived from increase in value of the underlying investment vehicle is proportionate to the capital invested, stake weighted, in other words.
Investment for capital gains has been the primary incentive for literally untold millenia. Profiteering, of course, has been undertaken as well. However there is an intrinsic difference between the two methods: one builds value into the enterprise which increases the value of the investment vehicle, such as stock or tokens, and the other extracts the value of the production before it can inure to the investment vehicle.
Financially manipulating rewards mechanisms via stake weighting on Steem extracts rewards that would otherwise inure to creators and encourage growth of the platform, which would in turn put upwards price pressure on Steem. This is tantamount to selling the forges and presses of a factory. Both methods produce ROI, but profiteering destroys, while investment builds. Both whales gain capital, but profiteers decrease the rewards of business, decreasing the value of the investment vehicle and preventing gains of capital by their peers, and investors increase those rewards, and all their peers holding stake benefit as well as the investment vehicle grows in value, increasing their capital too.
It's not a mystery to me why we are in this strait.
If both gain capital, you might need a different
word than capital gain to distinguish the diff
between profiteering and "ethical gains?"
You know what the funny thing is, outside of the whales who ninja-mined; Most people who bought their whale status bought in as speculators and speculators are profiteers. Their goal isn’t to add value, but to get in and extract value and then bail. But nobody predicted the BTC bubble collapse or understood how it would take all the crypto down with it. So they just stared at the falling prices pot committed certain that it would go up again because Steem is awesome, more specifically it’s awesome at profiteering off the creativity of others. Steem WP Zipf’s law [Page 16 of 32.]
Do note that the values expected in the White Paper are 30 times higher than actual results.
Sadly, language is art, not science or engineering. I tried to address that by noting that stake weighting is relevant to both investment and profiteering. I don't actually consider financial manipulation of rewards speculation, but profiteering. Speculation is just bad investing IMHO. Warren Buffet is not speculating when he buys stake in a company, although the ROI is a result of an increase in the price of the asset. He generally sets out to improve the business to produce that increase in value.
Speculators are folks that just watch Warren Buffet and buy what he buys. They just expect an increase in price without doing anything to improve the business. However, doing so puts upwards pressure on the price, so it's not profiteering.
Sorry if my writing doesn't convey well the differences in methodology and impact the practices under discussion have. I don't know of any better words for the job.
Sorry if that came off wrong; I'm not trying to have a gotcha moment with you. It's just perplexing for me to comprehend the difference between the two. This especially when the blockchain considers both actions legitimate, the coding doesn't address morality at all. Whether it be "abusive downvotes" or "abusive self-votes." The abuse factor is subjective enough that it leads to so much drama. You know what I wouldn't mind seeing, is if the sum of "free downvotes" were distributed equally among all Steemians. It would at least give people the opportunity to defend themselves against abusive downvotes.
With your perspective on the matter, if you invest in Steem for the perk of the extra reward pool control, then the only benefit in that is that you get to become either an unpaid curator or and unpaid reward poolice officer. It changes slightly with the recent hard fuck, but this too is a very discouraging change for content creators. We were already fighting for scraps, but now the scraps just got scrappier. Meanwhile, trending is full of shit, all about Steem selling Steem to Steemians, preaching to the choir. It'd be nice to see a trending page that shows the top articles from several popular communities.
Society is far more valuable than mere money. Focusing on adding numbers is the main flaw in Steem IMHO. Sure, we need goods and services, but that's only a fraction of what we need, and devaluing a social network to such a tiny fraction of it's potential is the start of the slide down the slippery slope to irrelevancy.
Folks have lots of really interesting and socially valuable things to share with us here. IIRC, you and I are both opposed to rampant corruption, and strongly support individual freedom. I would part with all my money to be shed of the former and to gain the latter, and I bet you would too. Our ability to bump each other a bit financially encourages each of us when we upvote our posts. That social blessing is not the purpose of social networks, and failing to consider the far more valuable networking as more important than extracting a few coins retards Steem growth - indeed, causes it to shrink.
Social media isn't a token mine. It's real people interacting regarding real issues that really matter. Unlike money.
When you examine the history of business, even cursorily, you will find examples like Warren Buffet, who does not diminish the finances of his purchases while he does improve their business operations, and is rewarded for his investment when the value of the stock rises. You will also find examples like Bain Capital Partners, who have bought companies, sucked the last pfennig out of their coffers, and left them dead in their wake, leaving their stock worthless. Buffet's business model not only profits him so much that he has been the richest man in the world, it also profits the companies, and all his fellow investors in the asset. BCP profits themselves, but destroys the companies, and their fellow investors, for which they are constantly the subject of legal tort actions.
I note that code isn't immutable. It allows or does not allow whatever coders decide. It's not proven by eons of natural selection, or written by folks with competence in every known field of human endeavor. Good thing it's infinitely mutable, so that when facts are discovered that recommend changing the code, hard forking, it's a simple undertaking, if fraught with complexity. The Steem devs either originally created a golden parachute that transformed all the Steem they mined into fiat and making them rich, or simply didn't understand that difference between profiteering and investment.
After three years of evidence I find it hard to accord them the benefit of nescience regarding that. The code seems to constantly get forked in favor of profiteering, and never enables capital gains despite their protestations they seek higher Steem price. Self votes, bid bots, circle jerks and the like are never going to cause the price of Steem to rise, because they don't distribute Steem to a wider market that creates demand and raises the price.
Considering curation as a profit center is redefining curation. Curation is recommending good and interesting stuff, like a museum curator does. Paid per item, curation as rewarded on Steem more resembles Payola, where 1950s DJ's were bribed to play songs instead of actually curating the field and playing those the kids wanted to hear.
Payola turns out to be a crime.
Just sayin'
Points taken, I'm going to respond here maybe not
point by point, but to at least get us in one thread.
This is factually correct, and you do not address that fact. You bring up another aspect of such acts that @markymark did not address instead.
Steem does not need profiteers. It needs investors that seek to build value into the endeavor, and this is done by encouraging creators that market Steem with their posts and comments. Profiteers are poor substitutes for that. In fact, they are not similar at all in their effects, and should be eschewed even absent angel investors. Sucking value out of the platform does not benefit it at all.
Okay, so let us assume that it is correct. Let's assume that a massive downvote on a whale is a dusty upvote for everyone else. We don't know what the size of this dusty upvote is and the people who receive it aren't going to notice because it doesn't register on their account as an action. Even if it did, it would show as less than 0.01.
So, in essence, he's going around and bullying large stakeholders for using their stake on their posts. I'll tell you one thing, one of the few motivating factors causing people to buy a larger stake in Steem is to have a more powerful vote, and this gives them access to distribute more rewards from the pool than if they invest less. In this, the coders convey that because of the amount of steem you hold, your vote is more meritorious than someone else's.
I'm not talking about moral merit either, I'm speaking to fiscal merit. These investors in the blockchain chipped in more for the pie. Ergo, they get more slices. Now that makes sense to me. It is logical, and it is sound. Yet, it is only within the realm of upvotes that this is logical and sound. John and George both invested $5.00 in a twenty-dollar pizza. They can take their slices and give them away, or eat them, and that makes sense. However, when you throw downvotes into the mix, you're saying; Or they can have a pizza fight, ruin each others respective day(s) and make a mess of things.
@valued-customer, I do realize that you're stuck on the notion of morality as it pertains to stake-weighting. It's a fair thing to consider, and to some degree, I see and respect your argument. However, keep in mind, I'm thinking from the perspective that the value of Steem is only possible because of investors who create demand and value when they both buy and hold steem, this is why I believe the coders gave larger holders more access to the pool.
However, if you want to get into the notion of morality; You must realize that all of this bickering is over an inflation pool. If it's not right or moral for the federal reserve to inflate, or create fiat currency, then what are we fighting over? A corrupted pool of wealth of which each newly generated steem further goes to devalue every other steem already in existence.
Is the reward pool the swamp? Are we like congress critters bickering over pork-barrel spending? Can anything be moral in this regard? Can the use of the currency itself be any more moral than using any other fiat in existence? If you have a million bucks in a high yield savings account and collect a generous APY, because that's how the system is set up, is that moral?
What if every other customer at the bank had a balance that doesn't exceed 50k; and then suddenly they were informed of how much your APY is in comparison to theirs? Does that make you the bad guy for doing business with the bank? If you uproot your money and leave after the mobs get their pitchforks and force you out, that'll be fewer loans that that bank can lend to that community.
I very much appreciate your considered and substantive reply. However, you have misapprehended my purpose. Money has no value intrinsically, at all. It only has value in relation to people. People are generally morally motivated, with ubiquitous tendencies to vices, I do admit.
Considering Steem only as a financial mechanism renders it devoid of value. It is the people that use Steem that give it value.
Who cares if they self vote? Stake weighting enables substantial stakeholders to manipulate the rewards pool and take from it for themselves. This does not increase the distribution of Steem and does not put upwards pressure on the price of Steem. The reverse is true, because users that post and see @berniesanders self voting an insulting and inane comment for 30 Steem (Bernie, don't pretend you don't) while they get nothing, or only pennies for an hour or more work go away mad.
That decreases the market for Steem, and puts downwards pressure on the price.
I am not extemporizing morality. I am advocating sound business practices. Chasing away the market is not a sound business practice, and user retention to date reveals that Steem is not executing sound business practices in this regard. [@smooth and I discussed retention. He feels it is 7% or more, and I feel it is 5% or less. Either way, it sucks]
Build up the people using Steem, and you will build value into the price of Steem. HF21 does the opposite, and we are observing the results today. I elsewhere (replying to another comment of yourse) discuss how investment and profiteering differ. The former is a tide that floats all boats by increasing the value of Steem, while the latter only profits the profiteer, while decreasing the value of Steem, decreasing the ROI of the entire community as a result.
As to morality, I account the former good, and the latter evil, but no one cares what I think is right and wrong. The concept of fairness exists, and is not merely a human cultural construct. Octopi, crows, and dogs act way out of proportion when tidbits are not fed fairly to them and their peers. Hell, dogs will fight to the death over scraps - because it involves their social standing.
Steem is primarly a social media platform, and social media has proved to be the most profitable business model on Earth, so the FAANGs demonstrate. Steem, due to the encouragement of profiteering and focus on financial rewards, has failed to benefit from the socia media business model nominally, and here we are.
Build up the users, and you will increase the value of Steem. Put the horse before the cart and we'll get somewhere. It is people that have value, and money is worthless without people to value it.
Let's assume that is correct because it probably is to one degree or another. There is no promise of rewards, and the Steem white paper pokes fun at that suggesting that people will get under-rewarded in comparison to the work they put in because it exploits human psychology in the same way that gambling does. However, wouldn't it also be true that if we had 5 aspiring whales who bought into Steem today at 500k each, just so they could self vote, that that in and of itself would drive the market value of Steem upwards?
I don't think that would much affect Steem price for long. Extant whales would get fiat for their Steem, which they would not reinvest in Steem, but spend on hookers and blow (at least that's my assumption based on my knowledge of extant whales), while the SP of the new whales would not encourage anyone and would have a negative impact on user retention as normies fumed at the shitposts making $200 on trending while they got nothing.
The White Paper assumed that 30% of rewards would inure to those normies, who are presently only getting around 1% of them. Casinos don't long survive and profit if they don't parade some winners from time to time, and 1% is woefully inadequate to lure in gamblers.
I don't think 30% is a joke really. It's far more than most folks get IRL, compared to banksters.
Distributing Steem to ordinary folks and great authors would encourage them to post, comment, and interact, and ordinary folks are innately social - they want to benefit others. It's why upvotes on Fakebook and Reddit exist. Handing out 30% of Steem as rewards to those folks would distribute Steem more widely, and they would gladly upvote their friends and good authors more if they could. They're not spending it on hookers and blow, like whales. Those that do never become of greater import to the Steem society. Some folks need potatoes more than they need bigger upvotes to hand out. I am glad if I can help them with my upvotes, because I want them to have potatoes a lot in that case.
Potato buyers would not have ire at Steem as a result, and would be likely to invest in Steem if they become sufficiently potatoed, and also to recommend it to their friends, putting upwards pressure on the price.
Angry folks that see the $200 shitposts on trending while they are reduced to eating recycled food will never invest in Steem, and never recommend it to their friends, and they will leave, putting downwards pressure on the price.
User retention rates indicate the latter is happening a lot more than the former. That's bad business.
I've concluded that we need to admit to ourselves that the whitepaper got it wrong. We can't get any good measure of a post's value based on the weight applied to a post or the number of votes. This, because the stake-weighting is real, and so are the bot armies and vote trails. That said, first thing needs fixing is the trending page to hide problems like $200 shit posts. Algorithms will do it better than the community can. It's not optimal, but it's the truth. I'm just talking about the way things are presented on trending. The page should show multiple popular tags which include the best of the newest articles in each.
I reckon the White Paper got some stuff wrong, too.
Whose gonna choose the 'best'? I reckon trending will work just fine if we eliminate profiteering, which isn't that hard to do. The Huey Long algorithm will fix it quick. Prolly plenty of other ways to do so too, and if better minds than mine set about figuring them, better proposals than mine will come up.
You know what, after reading the whitepaper; I’m no longer opposed to Marky’s actions. I want him and his downvote posse to get the lid on this bucket of crabs and jam it on tight. This is because Steem is a trap and we’re all doomed. If he can win big enough at flagging, it will prevent new stakeholders from falling for Steem’s machinations. I find the crabs in a bucket mentality disgusting and systems designed to get people to operate in such a manner is a trap. The fewer people who fall for it, the better off they’ll be in the long run.
The communal downvote mentality is a communist training program. Set these folks loose in the real world and they’ll eat each other alive. Steem got some things right in the realm of gamifying content creation, but the whitepaper is using all the wrong analogies. It’s clear to me the authors of the whitepaper are the real profiteers, and everyone else pushing the dials and turning the gears are fodder for their end game. Guess what’s for dinner, we are. It is heartening that other systems are taking this open-source model and running it in a better way regarding distribution, and also by not encouraging a culture of rampant flagging.
Going forward, I will stop orbiting Steem in favor of WeKu. I’ll still syndicate to Steem, but they’re only worthy of my sloppy seconds at this point. Perhaps I'll make occasional exceptions for contests. One need only need look as far as the WeKu whitepaper to realize that they’ve done a complete overhaul of the Steem model. I think they’re pulling it off, and when BTC rises, the smarter money will settle with the sounder whitepaper. Whereas, the intention behind Steem comes off like a scammy, cruel, joke. Next time I’ve got to approach the unknown with a bit more skepticism.
As far as your observation on who will choose the best, it doesn’t matter, and this is because the system never worked. I’m not saying an algorithm will fix the problem in its entirety, but it can make it less imperfect by judging content (not based on stake but) based on quality, syntax, grammar, spelling, and the length of an article. The video content would be more tricky. There would have to be different algorithms to satisfy the order in which videos get listed.
You’ll never eliminate profiteering. The ninja miners have that secured from the start. While you add content for peanuts, your adding value to a platform that the profiteers have already owned, increasing the value of the shares which belong to them. The best way you can stop profiteers from profiting is to stop giving the platform content. If that were my intention, I wouldn't publish on Steem at all.
All of your points are well taken. I am aggrieved to think I may have imparted my cynicism to you in our conversation. That's why I don't talk religion LOL.
I haven't been to Weku in a long time. My first visit there did not inspire me, but I do hope they're improved.
The only profiteering I have considered on Steem is regarding rewards, and that's not that hard to make uninteresting to stake weighting manipulation by simply reducing post and comment rewards below a cost effective level.
I also feel that the ninjamine deeply devalues not only the token, but the platform and community. Maybe I should have another look at Weku now, and see if that community has grown where Steem has instead shrunk.
It's not so much your cynicism, and I do like to think about complicated topics like blockchain, politics, and religion too; But the more I read the whitepaper and see the direction Steem is going, the more it annoys me to no end. There are two analogies in particular which are stacked back to back in the whitepaper, and thinking about them in conjunction with one another lends some insight into the mindset of the developers.
I read that before, and I was okay with it; Mostly because I like how Steem draws creativity out of people. Also, this can help individuals realize the dormant potential that they might not have known they had, were they never challenged by the baked-in gamification. So, that was mostly forgivable as the net effect is something one may consider a positive. Anything which is not too negative and makes people get better at creating seems like a good thing to me. Granted, you may have those who up and quit out of sheer disillusionment because they do not see a return, or because they dislike the challenge; And perhaps these folks would be better off visiting a bonafide casino.
And this is where I begin to question the intent of the developers. I mean, it's almost like they're trying to create a Casino Hotel California. Picture this; You go to the grand opening of the Casino HC. You put a quarter in the slot, and much to your surprise you win the jackpot. Woohoo! Knowing what you know about odds and statistics, you cash out and make a b line for the doors. Only some random patron thwaps you over the head and snatches your winnings, returning them to the cashier. You're like what the fuck, I won that fair and square with my money, why did you do that?
The guy is like, I've been here all day pulling that their lever. Meanwhile, you just waltz in with your fancy pants and try to do a hit and run. Not on my watch, he says menacingly! So you go to file a complaint with security. The security team responds: It's not our problem, those are the rules, Sir. So you stalk this asshole who ganked your shit. You follow him around for days; stealthily lying in wait, and hoping that he strikes it big. Finally, when he does; You treat him in kind. Revenge for the sake of revenge, because nothing is quite as sweet. The abuse and cycle of abuse repeats ad infinitum.
At some point, you've got to ask yourself: "What the hell kind of Casino is this?" And in the question lay the answer, it is hell. Steem was designed to keep you trapped, the developers say as much in the whitepaper. And what better trap is there than the cycle of abuse? I was pro-Steem when downvotes were shown as flags, and this is because people were less inclined to abuse and use them.
I know we've got different ideas as to what constitutes abuse with regards to the reward pool, and that is fine, it's whatever. I see merit in both content and stake because the purchase of stake causes scarcity which generates demand, and this demand is what drives the market value. HODLing also maintains scarcity which secures market value. Whereas you see merit in only the content, but without the carrot of extra control over the reward pool, there would be no market value because there is little to no incentive to purchase Steem.
And why do people desire extra control over the reward pool? They want it to reward themselves. I mean it's the fucking biological imperative at play. We can't just drum this out of human psychology, and every time people try to on a grandiose scale, systems fail. This is part of the reason why Steem needs to define itself and demystify all the elements.
Instead of rolling out free flags which is immensely destructive and encourages this crab mentality where everyone hates and envies each other right up to the point where they are boiled alive, they could have simply modified the rate-limited voting accordingly if there was a problem, but I don't think there was a problem, outside of the people who feel entitled to the stake of whales who use theirs on themselves.
So I like what WeKu has done; The whitepaper mentions nothing about crabs in a bucket or gambling for starters, and this lets me know they’ve seen the value of steem regarding content creation and want to harness the open-source model more positively. They still have a flag button, but they haven’t added a downvote button to normalize the destructive behavior. I’m hoping they will go their own way with it, and not mindlessly adopt Steem’s destructive HF. The social media/blockchain marketplace needs some healthy competition. This will help them all to get a bit better.
The IW has a WeKu community presence with a sizeable delegation provided by the WeKu team. That said, if you want to mirror some of your content over there you are more than welcome to. We have at least one curator who watches for new IW content, and he rewards it with the group’s upvote. I’m hoping if BTC moons again, the choice will be clear which is the better crypto to invest in. I hope that Steem will get its shit together, write a less offensive white paper and implement a hard fork geared more towards harmonious human behavior. I’ve not read WeKu's full whitepaper just yet, but it comes off far more respectable with the simple omission of destructive elements like the ones I mentioned above.
The italicized bit above is why I stopped worrying, wash my hands of the politics, and learn to love the activities of people like the downvote posse. If the folks who wrote the whitepaper see us like crabs in a bucket, stuck in gambling psychology and that’s the atmosphere they’re trying to foster, then the intentions are Mal from the beginning, and they don’t deserve to win in the marketplace of ideas.
On the other hand, if a company like WeKu, for example, can run with the positive elements, harness a different spirit, and lead by example, then perhaps they can either avoid or transform the negative into something positive.
So the “extreme measures” of HF21 and the downvote posse have become humorous to me. They may as well cut off their nose to spite their face because they are without a doubt in my mind hoisting themselves on their own petard. But give it time, we'll see how it all unfolds, absent a BTC moon it's a bunch of speculative meandering. If we get said moon, it'll be up to BTC holders which chain is lackluster and dilapidated, as opposed to which one is shiny and new.
What did I not address?
So when someone like Marky says a massive downvote on a whale is like a mini upvote for everyone else (what I think he doesn’t consider is when he drives this money away from the platform, or when people sell their steem) the market will respond in kind by giving the value of steem a mini downvote. The #newsteem culture has been live for about 3-4 weeks. So far, the price went down two cents. I’m not saying this is only because of you per se. But are you also taking responsibility for the harm you may cause to Steem’s value in your “virtuous” flagging adventures?
What if the main condenser or exchange conducted anonymous exit interviews asking people why they powered down and sold, maybe we could nail down the retention problems to a handful of reasons? If you learned that your actions are causing people to sell, would you be willing to change your behavior to accommodate disenfranchised stakeholders? When all is said and done; Which is more important? Who rewards go to, or that people are willing to HODL? Is there anything meritorious about being a stakeholder [/FULLSTOP]? Or, does steem only have room for the stakeholders who upvote according to your standards? These are some honest questions rolling around in my head.
You can call me crazy, but I don’t think there are that many people with large quantities of cash willing to invest in exchange for the honor to be a full-time blockchain curator or reward poolice officer. God bless the people who are HODLing and positively curating; these folks are angels. They don’t have to do it, but they choose to of their own free will and accord, that’s what makes what they do special. You seem to want this special attitude to be the prerequisite, and I think this mentality belittles the efforts of those who are already doing the thing.
Besides that, it’s a big ask when the platform needs new investors. It wouldn’t be a bad idea at all to hammer down how you plan on pitching the new money before you drive away all the old money. It was after rumors of mobs and pitchforks that caused STINC to sell to the market, and now you’re just going to double down. Keep in mind that whales like yourself will end up holding the bag, so I hope you know what you are doing.
If the people I flag sell and leave, GOOD.
I flag spammers, plagiarists, scammers, and abusers and in the rare case people who libel me.
I don't go around flagging people for opinions or because I don't like their content, I have far more control with my flags than most people on the platform but I will flag abuse.
The price went down because BTC dropped 20% in a day. All altcoins are bleeding as a result.
I take your point on the BTC plunge, that is likely the reason Steem dropped as much as it did. The notion of abusers is the questionable one. The blockchain affords people special privileges based on their investment in Steem. When you prevent people from exercising SP to their benefit, you give them a reason to dump to the market. The big question is, which is more valuable; Retaining them as stakeholders and allowing them to draw the rewards that the coded rate-limit voting allows for, or send them packing in hopes that someone more virtuous will take their place? I know your answer to this question, and I'm only guessing that it's predicated on the idea that these folks are replaceable. So surely you've found a way to pitch the virtuous capitalist, yes? You can chase away "the profiteers" all day long, but if they're not replaced, the platform loses investors, and as selling happens prices trend down.
What do you think the price of steem would be if we continued to have $200+ shit posts on trending.
See? You make way too much sense. At least you're using your SP to try to build Steem into a better place for people to associate with your flags. Doing that promotes capital gains.
It’s tough to say; Trending is a problem, I think it’s solvable with creative coding. If the size of an investment doesn’t add to the value of the crypto; Then why are larger stakeholders afforded a bigger vote?
Does the math need to change to accommodate thousands of years of human evolution? Or can we drum out self-interest via operant conditioning? I think the most natural systems are those that account for human behavior. If Steem doesn’t take that into account, in the code, then what are the chances it will thrive as opposed to dying on the vine?
If I buy 1k steem and give myself an upvote at 100% how does that make me any more or less moral than a guy who does the same with 3 million steem? Does the amount of stake a person holds have any merit in and of itself? If not, does the rate-limit voting need to be adjusted, perhaps on a sliding scale based on stake weight?
If self-voting is discouraged after a certain threshold, maybe this should be fixed at the level of the code. Why not find a way for the blockchain to police the blockchain? People can respect that and live in harmony with others. Anything has to be better than pitting people against each other and relying upon the frailty of human subjectivity.
It isn't just trending. Seeing stuff like this (previously with $20-100+ rewards before I started flagging the account) makes people on the outside think this place is a joke. There are tons of this going on.
If you think flagging shit like this is bad for steem, we have nothing to talk about.
Yeah, that is spam. It’s the same 7 minutes, and 54-second video posted every time. I think an algorithm should hide it from trending, but STINC is a slow evolving platform, perhaps another condenser will need to solve it? One thing is certain, showing people posts based on value and or based on the number of votes doesn’t cut the mustard. This is because people can manipulate it with voting trails and stake weight.
The bot armies are real, and so is the stake-weighting. Therefore, nothing we see on trending can be an accurate gauge of whether people like it. It’s a sad state of affairs, but I think we need to admit to ourselves that the system is broken. Imagine a condenser that has algorithms which judge an article based on its uniqueness. This has the potential to eliminate spam automatically. Other parameters can get programmed in there too; The quality of spelling and grammar, readability, and originality, etc.. etc..
Imagine a trending page which shows the top articles from either the most active or popular tags on the platform. We may be collectively suffering from either a lack of ingenuity or creativity. I’d like to see STINC set a new standard and pave the way for more radical change. This will cause the other condensers to get bold and experimental. We can’t do any of this until we concede that the system is broken. The only way for crowd wisdom to work is for equal votes and no duplicate accounts. We know that this will never happen.
I know that you've got good intentions. However, when all we've got to work with is a hammer, it turns all the problems into nails. The truth of the matter is that life isn't that simple, and some problems require a bit more finesse to resolve. Steem is that problem, and the sooner we can admit that the whitepaper failed us, the sooner we evolve from that mess and transform Steem into something that will draw the eye as opposed to the ire of would-be investors.
Your nomination of @bloom has been accepted. And on a personal note, good taste VC.
Snibby the Cat
The first nomination that I want to pet, interesting choice of villain. What are sniibby's superpowers?
He is a master escape artist and thief of catnip.
I nominate @skunkape
He blockchain bullies me all the time and tells me I'm a crypto poser.
I investigated him because he is mainly anon and found out he has a criminal record. Here is a picture of him I found online.
This is really hilarious 😂😂😂
Criminal record?
Posted using Partiko Android
Highly rEsteemed!
We be chill'n like Villains a time or two...
We are all equally guilty.
Bottom line is there is no common goal community. There are many individual communities all seeking to grow. No one is doing anything that will accommodate for future needs. Blinded by what is now.
I have stated for a long time here on Steemit and on Discord, Even in the PAL server and in many DM's to many there and other servers. I have talked about this openly and various ways it can work to benefit the Steem chain and Steemit platform 1st and then proceed to assist others.
None of you can hear what I try to say or simply. just do not want to listen to someone who has a smaller stake.
We are all as guilty as any other.
why do we always need more? My answer would be. Cause we did nothing for the future or others, everything was for individual or group benefit.
We should have created a demand for Steem each month of 2K minimum, just over the last year. It does not do much at 2,000 a month, What about in another 3 years when that amount would be closer to 7,000 a month, and then turn to 7,000 a week. Then keep growing.
Just what if something like that could be achieved. But yup every seems to think that would be bad for some reason.
Oh this is tempting, i feel like flagging the whole bunch here! Trying to refrain! lol
I nominate @mack-bot and that cute little bitch narcissist chick that runs it, what's her name again? (can't flag her cause she don't post) lol!!
Our first robot villain nomination. I for one welcome our robot overlords.
I welcome them, just not so much on my ass!
Posted using Partiko iOS
I vote for @camillesteemer and their band of merry downvoters. Also watching the silence of @chbartist since the HF.....
Posted using Partiko Android
Their entire combined .001 downvote is pure evil
I don't care about the amount. It's that those accounts look so fake, and of course there's no recent posts being made by them so I can't return the favor...
Posted using Partiko Android
Haha
Posted using Partiko Android
@Manniman o.c. - that titel belongs to me
I miss all the drama,...:-(
!BEER
View or trade
BEERat steem-engine.Hey @r0nd0n, here is a bit
BEERfor you. Enjoy it!@ned / @freedom
Only one submission because I think they're the same people.
Greedy but inconsistent and unprincipled.
One and only @themarkymark
I doubt he invest singl penny is STEEM.
thanks for being my biggest fan!
12.7 ( 7.87 % self, 320 upvotes, 103 accounts, last 7d )
All $1.50-$2 votes.
None of my accounts spam. Unlike yours
fminerten1
gaba
maarko
boosta
sir
teleskop
drazenc
freepress
legici
marinko2
prirodno
smallpusher
brickby
fortyshades
legostar729
naturno
yan-kovalenko
Yes you are a spammer @memesplease and one of the biggest selfvoter. You need to add your spam accounts for full picture. In 3 years you manage to find 17 accounts that supposed to be mine. Congratulation! How much STEEM did I still from your rewards pool?
How is posting original memes a few of times a week spam? One of the few meme posters on the platform that actually made memes instead of stealing them from Reddit.
Biggest self voter? LOL Not even remotely close.
13.4 ( 7.52 % self, 334 upvotes, 103 accounts, last 7d )
I understand you are mad that Steem Cleaners blacklisted all your alts and flagged you for self voting all your comments before HF21. Need to put your big boy pants on and grow up.
The Steem Torch, original memes, original automated reports, shit posts... LOL. Your circle jerk network is in full swing. What a witness! Congrats. You must be proud.
Steem Torch offers a very valuable service and I don't even vote them. The Steem Torch Experiment is very popular but it is impossible to view for the average user. So I made a bot that creates a post whenever the torch is passed to a new user.
In fact, it's so useful you gave it a $10 vote thinking it was until you figured out it was mine and you removed the vote.
Most of the time it has like 1 cent in votes and doesn't pay out anything.
You forgot about ProposalAlert, another one of my accounts that offers a valuable service of allowing users to easily know of new proposals. Another automated "shit post" I make that I don't vote, but it is extremely valuable. Otherwise, most people would never know there is a new proposal without going out of their way to check every so often.
And yes, I have Witnessupdate, which provides good information daily not found anywhere else about witnesses activity in the last 24 hours. I voted this for a while because I wanted it to be seen and I was getting 200-400 flags a day from fulltimegeek because he insisted on spamming 16,000-36,000 times a day and I had the stupidity of trying to do something about it.
OMG, I made an account that posts memes once and a while, holy shit I'm so evil. I guess the 1,000 users posting memes that they actually stolen are all good guys.
I post a few automated reports, the buildawhale one is an audit of the thousands of hours I have put into abuse fighting, and although the report is automated, the labor and effort behind it is far more than most posts on the chain. They irony again here is you voting $10 on some of the 60-210 automated comments Steem Cleaners post daily. All of which I had to flag because $10 for a comment is insanity. Yet you voted as much as 10 times a day on their comments.
Why would I vote for Steem Cleaners? That vote is to trigger you. Thanks for helping me to prove my point. Enjoy in downvoting. That comments are supposed to be there for collecting STEEM and fighting abuse. You are in fighting abuse business obviously for a different reason.
What is your message to the investor: Don't you dare to buy STEEM for selfvoting. You need to vote on my reports and 'original' memes.
Did you ever bought a single STEEM?
I don't even understand half of what you said. Not sure why you think I was triggered I know you were trolling, I flagged all your votes off because they were ridiculous. They already make 60-210 comments a day for 40 cents. $10 is insanity.
There is no "abuse fighting business", a business implies I actually get paid for my effort.
Not sure what you are talking about with self voting.
This was your activity that got your blacklisted with Steem Cleaners, one of the many accounts.
Not even sure I understand wtf you talking about with buy steem for self voting.
I bought a lot more than a single steem. You keep bringing that up because you did too and your butt hurt you lost money and think you are the only person to have lost money and couldn't self vote all your comments to try to 'make it back'.
I'm really looking forward to the day you( @themarkymark) and @boosta would shake hands and become friends 😂. This your fight is becoming unbecoming.
Everyday, there's a new argument on flagging blah blah blah. Who's at fault? Why can't you guys just ignore and move on?
lol, I'm not the one talking shit and maliciously flagging all someone's content.
Do not believe him @abdex9 he does exactly what he just claimed he does not do.
He is a rapacious flagot. A Very Very malicious person who tries very hard to hide that fact.
He even goes back just to take away any rewards the people he targets would have got.
A clear violation of the terms of service agreement.
This is amazing 😮
@themarkymark really?
Posted using Partiko Android
He goes around libeling and spamming someone, he is going to get flagged. There is a reason he is -2 rep before I even flagged him.
But you and your alts believe what you want, so why ask me?
Hmmn. 🚶🚶🚶 I'm outta here
Posted using Partiko Android
Yea really.
Underneath that carefully crafted friendly, supportive, clean cut image he like to portray himself as, is just a mass mass of bitterness, corruption, violence and deceit.
Just check out the people he attacks.
I must admit I did find one of his victims a day or two ago, that was justifiable. But the vast majority like myself are completely unjustifiable.
He plays the game of a Politician, say what people want to hear and doing the complete opposite. Did you ever see a comment of his speaking out against the many abuses of bernie? no he was trying to legitimatize his unjustifiable attacks, spamming, self voting with thousands of account. After all they are business partners
I fail to see how any of this is productive. I don't have the full perspective here between you and @themarkymark, but I see you going after @steemflagrewards for not doing your bidding against accounts they clearly don't have the steem power to handle. I asked several times about flagging whale abuses, and their answer to me on flagging large accounts has always been consistent. If they actually had more support from people like yourself, that would be more of a possibility.
All that being said, this is a big playground. Just ask yourself, is what you're doing the best for your steem wallet, or is it just satisfying your baser instincts?
How can we set aside petty differences and form alliances that keep the ball moving forward and our STEEM to keep growing in value?
I'm guessing he thinks SFR is my project.
Strange considering you've been noticeably absent from its discord.
I left both of them a bit ago. I still donate a free server to help run the infrastructure but that is all of my involvement.
Lol. I nominate @berniesanders and @themarkymark. Both were mistaking my account for one of their target @boosta who's just my friend on steemit. Even after i clarified them, @berniesanders still went ahead to flag my account anyway 😂. But he later stopped Lol. I love you guys anyway.
I never flagged you, but do think you are boosta, or at least do his trolling for him.
Lol. Well you're wrong. @boosta is just a friend here.
Have a wonderful week ahead. @themarkymark ✌
Posted using Partiko Android
Will be our little secret ;P
My biggest Steem villain is not a person but a concept.
ROI or return on investment. It has given all of us a reason to justify bad (or on the grave good) behaviour on a very short 7 day time scale with little vision for the future. Projects that actually build out the infrastructure for Steem to have real long term value have little to no immediate ROI. This is measured on time scales well beyond the numbers that people bandy around for their ROI.
There are many here who behave like they are investors... But what VC investor would be bragging about the return on investment that he gets in a week's time. Let's not kid ourselves, the only investors that have such a short time scale of thinking are corporate raiders.
/ crank....
@themarkymark is single handedly destroying steem!!!!
hey @nanocheeze
He has some help. He is just an order follower. He does what he is told because he knows nothing else. He is just an afraid little boy.
Here is a picture of his wife lol
https://steemit.com/technology/@themarkymark/q0ezfw
haha, we come for the steem but we stay for da clown... gee I've missed this :P
edit: should I bring popcorn?