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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.