So to make it short you are taking funds from authors and curators and creating a fund to get stuff built ? But I mean look at the millions of bucks that where thrown away last year with no result and still no SMT. Leave it to the authors and curators thank you, at least they market and help the community grow.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
no, the SPS is important. It will give developers a chance to get their projects funded and the community opportunity to vote on what will be funded. I don't have a big issue with giving up some author reward to fund that.
I have an issue with giving up author rewards to fund the SPS AND then getting the remaining rewards cut again.
I absolutely agree. I think the SPS system is ridiculous and controlled by a few. How is going to encourage external investment?
SPS is not controlled by a few. Every single Steem stakeholder gets to vote on proposals, just as they currently get to vote on content. Sure the stake distribution isn't all that flat to say the least but this applies equally to the existing reward voting. To the extent that it has any validity at all, your comment is more about Steem in general than about anything specific to SPS.
Sorry, I thought I read 'based on Stake weighted voting' ........and the comment is regarding SPS and not content so despite the outcomes being similar, SPS is a much more important issue and as such, the comparison is false. Don't try and even insult my very low intelligence by making by trying to sell this a democratic process. A few huge stakeholders control Steem, simple. The larger the share, the more disproportionate the influence.
Aren't all these changes an attempt to improve Steem in general? If so, does that give it any further 'validity'?
Don't bother replying.
Yes the SPS will be stake based voting and yes the most stake is in the hands of a couple dozen people. Yes technically they could decide what is funded to a point, but I don’t think that makes it useless as most of those accounts disagree and will just counter each other if all else fails. Plus there is a burn post mechanism built it which pretty much burns the funds (good for the ecosystem) in the event that a proposal is submitted that is not beneficial or just that nothing good is there.
Honestly the original idea behind the community foundation and the SPS working together was that the foundation could actually take that input from the community and ensure their voices were heard in the proposals themselves. I’m hoping that still happens.. as while maybe the smaller accounts don’t have the SP alone, when organized together they have the numbers and with a foundation they have a very loud voice. 🙂
Who makes the decision on which proposal is beneficial or not while the large stake holders are arguing over it? Will there be a committee or body that will handle oversight function on the proposal voting process?
There isn’t any arguing, it’s an automated system based on stake based voting. The votes decide. If there is nothing in form of proposal that the majority of stake holders sees as valuable they can vote the burn post etc.
There is a community foundation that has been in the works (@steemalliance) And part of the idea was for the human aspect (foundation) to work alongside the automated aspect (SPS) to balance and help the community’s voice is heard (through organizing etc).
oh that's cool. the community foundation would not be run by witnesses, I hope?