Was Hardfork Intentional To Get Rid Of Users?

avatar

200.webp

Could there really be a hidden agenda behind the recent hard fork? Running down a few comments in a thread the other day I came across an interesting analysis I wouldn't have ever considered for a social media site. The fact the person who responded back didn't refute it mixed with another comment made that many have established a living off of steemit and those people need protected it only reinforces the analysis as a possible reality.

The statement:

Here's the other problem.

The more people who post and vote the smaller each share becomes.

I'am stealing from you right now simply by posting and voting.

The reward pool (including your fractional share) would be larger if I walked away from steem forever.

If we magically landed some big fish off utube tomorrow that has over a million followers, steemit's existing 30,000 users will have their steemit-rewards-pool-percentage cut by at least 66% and many will be diluted down to almost nothing. (below the minimum payout)

It's like the bitcoin miners. Fewer miners means bigger rewards. (each gets a share of the pie) zillions of miners means tiny-if-not-non-existent rewards and only the largest mining farms can afford to stay in business. (business always creeps toward centralization) Recruiting top tier talent would spell doom for the top tier-dogs. (as far as reward pool percentages) although it would very likely boost the value of steem back up above $1.00 USD (by boosting the market cap)

**

To which the reply back was:

For someone so new here, you seem to understand Steem economics better than myself!

**

To which I admit I was a bit taken aback by the admission that it's highly likely the move made during the last hard folk was to encourage the loss not gain of people to the platform in order to increase the percentage of rewards loss due to the drop in steem price to the upper tier, especially for those who have afforded themselves of making a living off it. Basically anyone caught between the lower and higher tiers who were earning enough to subsidize their income a bit that income was considered a loss for the survival of the fittest and the lower tier was considered totally dispensable. That totally made sense to me when considering the call out whatsup was making several months back that they needed to form groups to survive when the price was dropping. So it's sort of funny that ended up coming to fruition, giving the above statements some validity.



0
0
0.000
8 comments
avatar

Technically yes but at the same time a scarcity of STEEM would increase the market value and still allow you to earn from less STEEM. That and the other tokens that you can now get through the tags.

Your theory is true though as there is only so much STEEM each day and that is divided between all of the vested shares. More people with vested STEEM, less for each person. It's more to do with steem power than people though.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for the reply, it wasn't my theory, being I am so use to social media blogs having a more the merrier attitude I don't think I would have thought of it that way....then most blogs don't have money involved either.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I've never earned a cent anywhere else so I always wonder about people getting angry over rewards. For me it's all a bonus getting to have a hobby that i can earn from. I've never sold yet but hopefully will sell some STEEM in the future for profit.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That's how I look at it plus I've always had the rationalization from the beginning I wasn't going to get rich off it but none the less you got a bit of something out of it. Now if I was still in my twenties then I'd considered that by retirement it could have added up to a nice sum if it stayed a viable platform for years. Without investing more than just time though I hardly doubt I'd accumulate enough for it to even to pay for funeral expenses at the cost of funerals now a days. lol. Who knows though what the future holds, if it stays viable and crypto's become a thing that shoots to the moon my kids may find many years after my death that all my blogging finally paid off. They'd get a kick out of that and maybe a small bounty.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I personally got a problem with this situation. Not because I get less payouts (well that's a little part of it). But because it's obviously a complete takeover by the whales. All the while they claim that it's "for the good of the platform" and they are cleaner than clean. Those ugly motherfuckers prefer to let the platform die instead of throwing a bone to smaller users. They prefer to share votes with other big whales and get payouts for shitty blog posts that's multiple times higher than any of the posts that used a bidbots.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I don't know, I've been a huge critic on some of those bid bot post, some raking in eight hundred bucks on a regular basis. This is a situation where a number of people wrecked it for a smaller majority not abusing it to the extreme. I don't agree with the new circle jerking either that essentially locks out new users unless you join their clique(s).

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yeah it was misused by some. But I think it's wrong to downvote people using it (not to the extreme) when the content they post isn't bad. Right now they don't look at the quality of the post.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

The "whales" are simply the "people behind steemit" don't you guys get it yet? Sheesh. Of course it is a whale takeover. This is their puppy. We are all just fleas they caught along the way. But instead of us leaching off of them, they blood suck off of us.

#OldSteem8.14 #NewSteem0.13 #yuck

Whats worse is the people with this mindless need to "fit in" go along with the bullshit just to have a "tribe" to call their own. Like a bunch of baboons hitting their chests, and flinging their poop.

0
0
0.000