After last SteemFest I actually suggested to give stakeholders the possibility to opt out of the reward pool to receive their share of the rewards without having to find ways to farm on posts. I would be fine with that, and still support the content creators with most of my stake.
That proposal didn't get a lot of traction, the general consensus was to try improving Proof of Brain. The EIP is all about that, and all I do is participate in the way the system is set up.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Fair enough. Though I would argue that the term "general consensus" is a misnomer as it really is just a few of the more influential whales and witnesses that decide most of the direction on here. The community was mostly opposed to the EIP when it was proposed, it was extremely lopsided as I recall, though it was pushed through anyways. Consensus is mostly a fantasy on here, stake weighted rules in more ways than one.
Stake weighted consensus is consensus nevertheless. In a publicly traded company it's the norm that bigger stakeholders have a bigger vote, steem is nothing else than that. The idea that the bigger stakeholders have the most to lose when the company/project performs badly isn't silly.
Most people, especially those who don't have much to lose, are for the things that benefit them personally, and against what doesn't. Propose a reverted curve and I bet you'd get a lot of minnows telling you how much they like it, although the doors that would open for abuse would be huge.
Many people who used bid bots defend them, circle jerks complain about the downvotes hurting steem as a whole - not many people are able or willing to see the bigger picture. Having a stake helps with that, although it's no guarantee.