Sometimes, especially when the witnesses start finding ways to screw over content producers so they can build a basic dime a dozen crypto currency concept, I begin to feel like I shouldn't be creating content. They have a fancy way of making the future seem incredibly uncertain and investing more time and money in this concept seems like a bad idea the more they want to change things.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think what you're doing and what I'm trying to do is the best that can be done and I do think it ultimately works. If you think something is a bad idea, call it out and say why. Propose better solutions or introduce alternate paths etc.
I think that idea really harms the main thing that draws people here. I think there are a TON of ways we can improve on this system that will make this whole thing work better. For those 4 years that were referred to, there's been almost no progress or innovation on the layer that matters the most for prosperity for a social blockchain, the application layer, you know, the one ALL the users actually interact with. So saying it doesn't work when it JUST made the first significant change in years doesn't make sense to me. Also that change was only the beginning and now we've had a wrench thrown in the progress because the brains behind the whole thing all left their posts at STINC(with good reason of course).
So now we've got this cool but incomplete feature with nobody at the helm taking it to the final destination. To me, that's a good area to focus on some problem solving instead of changing the whole system.
You're right! It's rare we've ever been given an opportunity to take what we have, fine tune it, and make it work. And there's no reason why some of what he's proposing can't simply be added in as an OPTION for those who would be interested. Not completely change things and force everyone to be interested, or leave.
That savings account feature sits idle. There's no reason why that can't be used for an investor to collect interest at a higher rate than one would holding HP. But that interest should still be a lower rate than what one receives for using HP to actually contribute and earn rewards. I understand that investors want options, so give them options on top of what we already have. Then take what we have, make it better, and market the living shit out of it.
There you go, that's one of literally hundreds of things we could try. To say, we've been trying for 4 years and it hasn't worked is to suggest that there's actually been iteration, but there's only been stagnation. We need to ACTUALLY have some time to try things and now with STINC out of the picture, that's a real possibility.
There's definitely massive potential here with this concept and I've known that for years, but for years I've watched that potential being squandered by people who simply refuse to look past their own self interests. I don't want that to happen again.