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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Sounds good!!!!!

Posted using Partiko Android

Wow that far hey.

I will be in LA as well.

Will land in SD, drive to LA for sight seeing, stay for 2 nights at least, then drive back to SD

She's in San Diego. When are you in Los Angeles?

Posted using Partiko Android