I'd heard the name steemit in a youtuber's content that I subscribe to and it piqued my curiosity. I have been browsing this site since last night, and my acct just got approved this morning. My initial impression as a noob is that the economy of the steemit community is mirroring the offline world. Whales=elites, dolphins=middle class, minnows=peasantry. Therefore, I'm led to think that what's being attempted here is a form of regulation of this market with a veneer of cyber-socialism, if you will. Seems as though an attempt at raising the "minimum wage" of the minnows is the goal of HF19. Then again, I'm a complete noob... literally my first interaction with the community here, so what do I know? Perhaps I'm just unaccustomed to the politics of this economy and will pick up on the dynamic through my own involvement.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
its something like that.
If my assessment is close to target, why is it we wouldn't expect a decrease in new authors finding their way to the top? If this economy seemingly mimics our own real-world economy, at least on a macro-level, why wouldn't it stand to reason that the unintended consequence of this change would be LESS new trending authors? If we decrease the amounts of upvotes allotted isn't that crippling our ability to spread the wealth? If we limit the supply of upvotes, its similar to limiting the amount of currency in circulation. We get a stronger upvote, but at what expense? Everyone seems to be so happy about the stronger upvote and values that they aren't considering the outcome may be that there is less ability to push minnows into the next bracket due to the short supply of upvotes by active members. Less upvotes, less curating. Less curating=more of the same. If the community can't shop for new authors with their upvote, the whales thrive, no?