When I think about the inequality of this system I find the biggest problem is because so few hold the greatest amount of power. Very much like in the real world. The portion of the daily reward pool is unfairly distrubuted to those holding the greatest amount of steem power. If they choose to use that power to downvote they can wreck just about anyones effort to contribute and stop them from earning a piece of the reward pie specific to the post. Is that fixed by removing the downvote?.... Maybe, but I don't think that goes far enough. Huge accounts are still able to consume more of the limited reward pool which has the effect of keeping smaller accounts getting less and reducing growth. I think that would be a better fix by limiting the amount of power one account can use for up or down vote. Put a cap on steem power that is usable toward voting. They could still hold additional steem power but only for the purpose of delegation to other accounts and still profit by selling it based on what the market will pay. Its effect should allow many more accounts to reach said cap. No one wants to hear that said because if would reduce amount of reward earning capability that the big accounts have come to enjoy from all that self voting.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
disagree man, like with capitalism, differntial output should be rewarded differently equal. If it was all equal here the spam would be un manageable. At least the information contained in inequality helps encourage production of good content even if downvotes distrort incentives possibly in negative ways.
Thanks for your ideas, hope things are going well!!
Thank you for the reply. I certainly want to understand what reasons this idea may not work. That said, I don't think I presented enough information for the idea. I do believe in the capitalism model to improve product. The sp cap I had in mind is large, least 100k sp. So in effect we would not all be equal, just the accounts that reach the cap. Those that do hopefully will be productive for an effort of good content production earnings. More importantly they can keep each other in check. Of course people can buy into that kind of power but I think its less likely if they know earnings are capped and they could not grossly profit or control the system for the expense. It would be a goal or incentive for many to reach that amount of power organically, like yourself. And users that have more sp would have incentive to delegate their extra to help other accounts. Of course they could have multiple accounts and just spread their sp among those and then upvote crap amongst them taking a large share of rewards for poor content. Thats where the downvote could be used effectively from other equal accounts once that abuse was identified. Would be nice if 30% or so of the active users were to reach that cap to have a greater portion of the users collect and defend the top end of rewards. Since its believed and proven in many cases how power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts I am suggesting a method to prune those that reach high levels of controlling power yet still operate under a model that encourages good quality and account growth.
Sounds interesting. I know Barrington Moore asserted "No bourgeois, No Democracy." More power decentralization could be good but might also enable the military industrial complex or other interests to coop this platform or do so sooner, assuming that isn't already the case. I like price theory. I think prices hold information so not usually a fan of equality or standardization. So long as there is inequality of effort--and effort that people value not just the person doing the thing, I think best to enable people to earn more to do more. Furthermore your system sounds complex and might make people defecting easier, especially if enough people choose to loot the network just for their own good even though they never actually paid in enough human or real capital to justify the rate at which their payout from the network might be.