As much as I'd like to help distribution on the platform as you probably know by now with my efforts, I don't believe this is something that will be fair. There was a lot of drama from investors last time steemit decided to delegate to dapps which in turn rewarded accounts all over the platform and helped distribution for those that stayed powered up. The investors were promised the stake would not be used to affect the reward pool yet it was because let's face it, no one else would've stepped up to delegate to these projects when there was way more roi to be made by delegating to bid bots. On the other hand many investors also feel that even though it helped some dapps get started and going much of the stake was used poorly either way, for example dapps curating just for curations sake or as you so mentioned Dlive being malicious with their intent.
If Steemit were to again go against that promise I think they should work on a much better way to apply for delegations and the community to make sure it is being used in everyone's best interest. Just giving users 5k sp will mean there will be a lot less interest of those 10k users to buy Steem, jealousy and drama would occur and on top of that it's 10k accounts you have to monitor and check they aren't sockpuppeting and self-voting, etc, which already with only 5 people when @ned was giving out delegations became a big dramafest.
Other than that they should check that dapps and projects applying for these delegations have plans in mind that they'll become self-sustainable ASAP without the delegations, make the projects and communities increase the activity of our users, not free delegations.
Having said that I fully expect to get a lot of hate for this opinion. xD
Without a doubt there would be !drama associated with a proposal like this. Although, as we know, on here, there is drama with everything so we are accustomed to it by now.
As for the points you raise, that is why it is not a forever, guaranteed delegation. If one opts to stray from the parameters, there is a good chance the delegation is not reupped the next quarter. It would take a bit of monitoring by 50 or so people, but it could be done. I am certain there are 50 people on here who truly care enough to invest some time checking out the habits of 25 or so people who received delegation.
Plus, if Steemit Inc would step up and expand the program you are talking a lot more than 10K accounts being affected.
Finally, I disagree about removing buyers from the pool: users do not buy tokens for the most part, especially Planktons. If they did, for $125, they would be Minnows.
Make it a contest. First 1000 Planktons who buy the amount to be a minnow within a certain period of time get 5k delegation for a month.
If you like this, you can update your post.
Say I'm this dolphin who nominates some deserving individuals. I think they deserve it. Then suddenly I'm seeing some funky business that doesn't sit well with me. This could be someone I've known for a long time, and care about, as an individual. How do I break the bad news to them? "Sorry, you're cut off and you'll most likely hate me now." Why would I even want to be responsible for that? How would I look, if who I choose turns out to be a bad idea? My reputation is at stake, I can't screw up, but I also don't live inside their heads to know enough about how things will turn out. What about the others who I don't select? They would feel like I'm picking favorites; left out. I don't want to leave people out, which is why I don't like picking favorites. Those feeling left out in the cold aren't going to like me too much. Money does strange things to people. It can break up families, ruin relationships. I don't want to be responsible for something like that. Let's say I'm chosen to be one of these dolphins and I refuse. Then, again, I look like an ass, because I don't want to hurt someone.
Some drama can be good entertainment. This kind of drama though? Turn this place into a reality TV show? That concerns me, a bit.
I'm not really a fan of handouts either. I think people should be investing time, money or both, especially when it's a big business they want to run. I'm far more confident about a project when I see an investor plop down a nice chunk of change, build something, and operate it, on their own expense, then turning a profit. That makes the place look shiny to more investors.
I'm already seeing one comment here where an individual is already concerned about how they've been here for a long time, working, like they should be doing, and someone could potentially take the helicopter to the top, while they're still stuck climbing the rocks.
What's Steemit going to be known for after all is said and done? The welfare state? We're so damn poor, and nobody was interested, so they had to just give it all away?
"Users do not buy tokens," you say. Well, let's give them a good reason to.
And just know, I'm not trying to be hard on you. It's nothing personal. That's just how I feel.
TL;DR = The idea makes me feel uncomfortable. Don't give up though, maybe give this some more thought.
To start, how would your name be tied to anyone. The list compiling would be done by a number of people, with many individuals overlapping.
How is delegation considered welfare? Do you really believe that?
If the person is below 5,000 SP, he or she could still be the receiver of the delegation. As for the rest who are above it, this is no different than any larger account delegating. Steemit Inc has the largest stake sitting there helping nobody. We have a distribution problem with the token that is changing very slowly. By putting that to work, targeted at the smaller accounts, it could spread the payouts around, especially with the 50/50 payouts coming up.
After two years one, there was little reason to buy STEEM by users. While I like your post about the business of blogging, this simply is not how most look at it. So while I am in agreement with your views, the masses say otherwise.
Okay, good point. Anonymity.
To an extent, yes. I'm certain if I wrote a post every few days asking for upvotes, I'd be considered a beggar. Some delegations can be helpful, I get it. Many content producers struggle these days because like you said, "Half is delegated away." I think if more removed their delegations, we wouldn't need to be asking Steemit to delegate. Kind of a vicious cycle, not really helping things in the distribution department. It's up to us stakeholders to help distribute but if we remove our ability to do so, we're not exactly helping. I'm comfortable with taking some of the blame there, since I'm part of the community, but I have full control of my SP. To each, their own.
I've always believed building a strong middle class is crucial to our survival here. I know that extra could help, but I'm old fashioned I guess and think people should have to work for theirs. I'm flexible though. People will need to be out helping during this 50/50 change, yes, and I'd like to see everyone doing their part, not finding a way to continue sitting on their hands, as they pass the responsibility over to thousands of "lucky" low SP holders.
They'll catch up soon enough ;)
*edit: And I should add. This:
I don't believe it's full on welfare, but I'm showing how no matter what someone does, it's easy to spin things and make a good thing look really bad. It was more of a question. How could it all really improve the image, when people will do and say all kinds of nasty stuff to tarnish that image, regardless. So there's the spin and there needs to be a counter for it prepared in advance to negate the effects of said spin.
I can see your points. My feeling is that many of the "bad actors" will jump ship after hf21, if they haven't already. Granting curation powers to long time Steemit advocates will do good things for the platform, I know I would be delighted if even one of my followers suddenly became a dolphin.
When I first joined Steemit, I got a free temporary 200 sp delegation. It only took a few months before I bought my first Bitcoin, traded for Steem and powered up. The delegated sp did not discourage me from buying at all, it actually encouraged me to buy.
Posted using Partiko Android
well unless I read his letter wrong, @taskmaster4450 is not suggesting it go to Dapps. He's suggesting that 30-40 dolphins be able to direct the delegations to minnows to help them grow on the platform. If the changes in HF21 are all they have been promoted as being.. then those accounts with the delegations will be actively growing and curating.
The biggest problem the program is going to run into is smaller accounts going inactive and the delegation sitting there unused to any benefit. That is where the program can get time consuming.
I help a project on the platform by delegating to their trainees until they reach the same amount of SP I've delegated to them and can start growing on their own. I do have to periodically review the accounts I've delegated to pull delegation from those who are inactive.
IIRC @surpassinggoogle did admirable things with the @ned delegation, even if the others didn't. Science is a process of testing theory, and building on experimental results. I'd strongly advocate even random delegations and immediately withdrawing them if the delegates began extracting rewards for themselves rather than upvoting others.
Delegation is practically a no risk undertaking, and even if only 1% of delegates prove worthy, that's a significant benefit to the platform.
I do not expect such delegations, because Stinc serves the whales, and those delegations would cost the whales money. Wish I was wrong, but don't think I am.
While I follow @taskmaster4450, this indicates interest in his posts, not trust in his judgment. No disrespect intended, but I'd actually prefer the delegator to choose to whom to delegate, rather than availing any outside party of the authority to do so. Neither do I think Dolphins particularly appropriate targets for such delegations, for reasons.
I recommend modest delegations, in order to create an effectively better distributed stake, precisely because it would cost the whales money. Either stake gets distributed better, or Steem fails to grow. If Steem grows, capital gains will result, and whales will be but temporarily discomfited. Cash being king, I know of no whales that will endorse this, and the present state of bidbots and rewards extraction is a better gauge than my opinion.
Sadly, I am pretty confident nothing will prove me either right or wrong, as it would be necessary to do some delegating to do so, and that's not gonna happen. EIP seems certain to eventuate, however, and that pudding will provide proof when it's served.
I'm not gonna say he's completely worthless, but citing him as the paragon of using @ned's delegation is a far stretch. VERY far stretch.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@littleboy/how-surpassinggoogle-s-showing-love-impacts-negatively-on-the-steem-blockchain
Eventually, he did take steps against abusers, but hey, the gravy train was great while it ran.
I reckon he undertook to distribute Steem to the best of his abilities, rather than seek personal financial returns from that delegation. Given his situation, education, and abilities, it would be unreasonable to expect flawless execution of curation. He began several initiatives and Ulog continues to be used on Steem. #steemgigs was a great idea, and it's really too bad it's not today providing a gig market of consequence.
He wasn't trained in business, and I reckon he was biased in favor of 'the little guy' due to his experience with corrupt government, and this made him vulnerable to scammers. We all have faults, but I see no basis for claiming that personal aggrandizement was one of his. With better help, I think he'd have been more effective.
But then, we all would.
No worries, haters ( read as 'people who criticize steem')....are comic relief for eli, apparently.
Are you expressing the belief that someones occupation somehow denies them legitimacy to an opinion
Or is that a really weak insult? lololol.
(or just being pathetic ?)
To drum up shit would mean there is actually shit to drum up.
Good to see you acknowledge the shit.
I was merely repeating the shit, not creating the shit.
Nice to know that I'm still living rent free in your head.
lmao.
The amount of energy you put into my posts and comments (and it's the only thing you'll ever be putting into me, btw- sorry to disappoint), speaks volumes.
Scared soy boys/girls are a vicious, nasty, lot.
Turn you predilection for masochism, to the positive.
(My rates are very reasonable, if you want me to teach you how.)
It is abundantly clear you have absolutely zero idea.
(about so many things, btw, not just masochism).
You're funny.
@steemflagrewards does this but for a very specific purpose that is, of course, fighting abuse.
A Steemit Inc. delegation would go a long way in supercharging that activity and improving content discovery on this platform.
I think we have established ourselves as a community that are good stewards of the Steem power that has been entrusted to us.
I only wish we had the potential to reward more flaggers intent on fighting blockchain tomfoolery and misappropriation of the reward pool due to irresponsible vote selling.
As such I think will produce a change in culture. More engaging, thoughtful and funny posts on Trending and less banal drivel.
That would be nice.
Posted using Partiko Android
I was thinking the exact same thing. I can see smooth losing it over such an idea for example, he's been very vocal about Steemit's stake affecting the reward pool.
The truth is that as much as this could work, policing it, because it would be necessary in order for it not to be abused, would take lots of work, and it would not be something people would want to volunteer for (policing it).
I'm sure the list of steemians would mainly be of people seen as good, and I'm sure the majority would be, but... If you leave your bike in the park leaning against a tree, the first one to see it normally takes it.
I don't think you're wrong overall, but I can see a very simple algorithm being employed to immediately withdraw delegations if certain actions were taken by the delegates. What concerns me about the prospect is more the perspective of the potential delegator: there's a reason Stinc has that stake, after all.
The spectrum of principles of Steemers ranges from the utterly rapine to the completely sacrificial, and current substantial stakeholders are in the former camp. Were such delegations to be undertaken with the intention of increasing selfvoting and bidbot delegations, this would not improve the society upon which the Steem economy depends.
Because of this, I remain ambivalent about the proposal under consideration here.
I think your opinion is spot on, it’s been done before (many times) and nothing good came of it. Just because someone thinks they can pick better people won’t change anything.
I’d rather see the stake used to build this community overall as well as things people actually want to use (well designed front ends etc) rather than continue to have the mentality that we have to bribe them to use it, while hurting the overall value of Steem.
It’s a nice idea.. let’s just give all the small accounts free SP, but at the end of the day it solves nothing imo. I’d rather see the ninja stake burned or sitting idle rather than this idea or how it’s used currently.
If there was some way it could actually be used to grow, develop and build the Steem ecosystem that benefits the price of STEEM long term, I’m all in.. but I haven’t seen that at all.
No hate, sir.
@DSound and @DTube. No drama, just large communities of creatives with both a social and economic incentive to post. Absolutely 0 percent chance I would still be around here without the communities that sprung up around judicious use of Steemit's delegated voting power.
Drama cannot be avoided when there are dramatic people online.
!dramatoken