If a small group of people can unilaterally change the rewards structure and centralize it by a whopping 20% ?
This is my initial gut reaction, but it just feels like a bunch of rich people decided that they didn't want to use their own money to develop the ecosystem so they unilaterally decide to tax people to pay for it.
It's not too far off the mark to call this a tax, but with taxes we at least get to elect the people who write the tax law - with Steem it just seems like, the wealthier you are the more governmental power you hold.
This is democracy. It's exactly how democracy works IRL. Read the Stanford study from 2014, and this is exactly what democracy does: delivers the authority and wealth of the public to oligarchs and rent seekers.
That's why I say that SPS should be funded by a flat tax on stake. Any benefits will inure directly to stake via capital gains. All votes are directly based on stake, and the responsibility for funding is justly borne by the authority, which is stake weight.
Sucking from rewards decreases the incentives for the essential creation of value that rewards provide. We're losing authors, not growing, already, and decreasing author rewards will be apocalyptic in the present circumstances. Witnesses are also bordering on breaking even, and decreasing their rewards will see an exodus - which will dramatically decrease the security of the blockchain. We don't want that to happen.
The only rewards that are not creating substantial value for Steem are curation rewards, which are nothing more than rent seeking.
Why can't the just fund their own project like a normal person? Couldn't steemconnect just as easily demand a flat tax? How are people even talking this seriously as two choices they have to make instead if just saying NO?
There's not really two choices at all. Having worked in promotions, I know that approximately 90% of funds raised from donors goes to pay promoters, what's left funds the cause.
@blocktrades really only gave us one choice - taxing rewards.
So, I voted for donations only. That's saying no.
Also, this isn't a binding resolution - yet. That's why I'm speaking up now.
We all need to speak up together or further centralize the steem chain.
Also ignore any bullying from witnesses and people who think their stake % equals their voice.
As a new user, this was my immediate reaction.
If a small group of people can unilaterally change the rewards structure and centralize it by a whopping 20% ?
This is my initial gut reaction, but it just feels like a bunch of rich people decided that they didn't want to use their own money to develop the ecosystem so they unilaterally decide to tax people to pay for it.
It's not too far off the mark to call this a tax, but with taxes we at least get to elect the people who write the tax law - with Steem it just seems like, the wealthier you are the more governmental power you hold.
Honestly I think I prefer democracy
This is democracy. It's exactly how democracy works IRL. Read the Stanford study from 2014, and this is exactly what democracy does: delivers the authority and wealth of the public to oligarchs and rent seekers.
That's why I say that SPS should be funded by a flat tax on stake. Any benefits will inure directly to stake via capital gains. All votes are directly based on stake, and the responsibility for funding is justly borne by the authority, which is stake weight.
Sucking from rewards decreases the incentives for the essential creation of value that rewards provide. We're losing authors, not growing, already, and decreasing author rewards will be apocalyptic in the present circumstances. Witnesses are also bordering on breaking even, and decreasing their rewards will see an exodus - which will dramatically decrease the security of the blockchain. We don't want that to happen.
The only rewards that are not creating substantial value for Steem are curation rewards, which are nothing more than rent seeking.
Why can't the just fund their own project like a normal person? Couldn't steemconnect just as easily demand a flat tax? How are people even talking this seriously as two choices they have to make instead if just saying NO?
There's not really two choices at all. Having worked in promotions, I know that approximately 90% of funds raised from donors goes to pay promoters, what's left funds the cause.
@blocktrades really only gave us one choice - taxing rewards.
So, I voted for donations only. That's saying no.
Also, this isn't a binding resolution - yet. That's why I'm speaking up now.
Thanks!
We all need to speak up together or further centralize the steem chain.
Also ignore any bullying from witnesses and people who think their stake % equals their voice.
Realistically, stake does equal power, and not just on Steem. It's the way of the world.
But, no bully please!
Thanks!
If I could upvote this 10 times I would. Best comment yet 👌
Posted using Partiko Android