RE: Improving the Economics of Steem: A Community Proposal

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Improving the Economics of Steem: A Community Proposal

therealwolf in #steem • 7 years ago (edited)

I hear you, I spent way too much time and energy trying to preach to people that their greed was destroying a potentially world changing technology .. and the people that had the power to change it did what was in their best interest, just like they always do.

Are you really surprised that people did what's in their best interest? Humans always do what's best for them. Greed is pretty much a natural incentive. Similar to the need for power. From my perspective, what you're doing is shouting at the water for being wet, not seeing that it could be poured into a glass and shaped. Or in relation to Steem: you want people to behave in Steem's best interest? Then align the incentives that Steem's best interest equals the individuals best interest.

7 years ago in #steem by therealwolf

0.00 BPC

2 votes

Sort:

Trending

[-]

lordbutterfly 7 years ago

Humans always do what's best for them.

This is an entirely false statement.
The true statement is:"People generally do what they THINK is best for them and people are generally idiots."

There is a huge distinction here.
For example:

A vote seller thinks that he is doing what is best for him but the fact is that by acting in such a way he only achieves a short term perception of gain while in reality greatly hurting his investment.
If the time frame is long enough the person will be unable to even realize that fact due to seeing his stake increasing.

0.00 BPC

5 votes

[-]

valued-customer 7 years ago

Quite prescient. You denote the difference between profiteers that dismantle businesses to sell the parts for profit and investors that grow the investment vehicle to produce capital gains.

Cash is king all too often, IMHO.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

iflagtrash 7 years ago

I flag trash. You have received a flag.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

bil.prag 7 years ago

not really possible, greed and best interest for community does not go together in whatever combination.
who can imagine a whale that is selling votes or just selfvote, looking through steem posts to find good content? I can't.

Posted using Partiko Android

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

valued-customer 7 years ago

This is exactly why tweaking curation and author rewards and splits won't work. Nothing makes curation - actual curation for content quality - more important to substantial stakeholders than their stake. As long as profit can be extracted by corrupting curation for financial maximization, @therealwolf will do it.

We need to eliminate mechanisms that create financial incentive to corrupt curation completely. Tweaking them won't ever work. We need to create a dividend stream from funding development of Steem and the ecosystem that will provide better profitability to that ilk, while making curation unsuitable for extractive profiteering.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

iflagtrash 7 years ago

I flag trash. You have received a flag.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

clayboyn 7 years ago

Agreed but waiting years to do that BECAUSE it was in the self interest of the people that had the power to change things (vote out witnesses/fork the chain) didn't leave the majority of users with much of a choice now did it? Yes we could have all just been independently wealthy and paid whatever ransom to liberate a system from the control of the people keeping it that way, but it literally makes zero sense as I'm pointing out now, because they didn't do anything to deserve the wealth but pay themselves for the privilege of being wealthy. Easier solution, fuck STEEM and fork.

0.00 BPC

1 vote