You laid out a lot here, and I am hard pressed to disagree with any of it. Every point you're making is spot on. The whales I'm referring to are the people who set the split in motion, advanced it, and/or executed it. Which if they have no plan to grow usership...will in the end amount to a temper tantrum, and another crypto currency that no one gaf about and another social media platform that might as well be a niche message board.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I would wish that the system had another weight between proof of stake and proof of work. I think that is one of the main reasons for a lot of the drama here. Proof of stake are the rich investors, and they have the power... also the power to forge. Proof of work is a good idea but has been treated stepmotherly. Sadly this reflects the real world, doesn't it? The freelancer or little shop will have to follow the prices, the percentage of the large newspapers, editors, distributors etc. An art dealer who split 50-50 with his artists will, if he work for 10 artists, have an income ten times the artists.
Bringing the money is seen as value, the product is downplayed and neglected as a cheap commodity.
I would have liked to see a system where reputation actually meant something. Since Slashdot invented the karma system there has been many tries to value quality, and it can be. The argument that everything is equally good is just so stupid. We humans use a lot of time to evaluate quality in so many things and we have built systems to do the same, like academia. Programmers are just immature when it comes to understanding these things. They have to use a Gauss curve instead of a boolean.