i expressed myself in an unclear way, i apologize. my point is that there is plenty of content, most of it better, elsewhere on the internet. The key differentiation steem has is the money aspect.
I think his point is that people need/want money, and to call that greed is somewhat disingenuous, especially coming from someone who does very well out of Steemit. I know you do amazing curation work for Curie as well, however I'm sure you can see how it might frustrate, to invite people to Steemit to make money, and then call it greed when they do.
I'm pretty sure you were talking about a particular set of people, for instance I have seen big accounts that pretty much only vote for themselves, and that does seem greedy.
I guess we will always get these issues where money is involved, if you took the money element away I think we'd lose about 75% of the platform, so I guess the rewards debate will rage on and on :-)
Ah, I didn't catch the later comment, it's getting harder and harder to navigate comments and replies on Steemit. I read something this morn about Chainbb being better for that. :-)
It is, particularly on comment rich posts, like this one. Clicking on a reply used to take you to that exact reply. On this post, it takes me to the post where I am currently searching for a specific comment.
It will literally take hours, because I keep getting sidetracked like this =p
This is one reason I developed the SteemSwitch plugin. Easy to switch between steemit, busy, chainbb, steemd and steemdb for viewing same content. At least on Firefox.
If the system allows self-voting, how is that greedy? It might be more altruistic to spread the wealth, but it's no more greedy than picking up a $20 bill you found on the ground and putting it into the pocket instead of donating it. Sure, it would be very good to donate it, but greedy not to? Why?
I didnt mean it the way I said it, I apologize. My point is just that the only thing that distinguishes steem from any other platform like it is the fact that you can earn money with it (there is a side benefit of not being censored, but that is tangential and certainly not the motivation of almost anyone to join).
Thus, to call people greedy for using the system legally and in the way that it is currently set up is not accurate in my opinion.
I'm not upset. You just won't be here long if you came for a flood of riches. That doesn't anger me at you, as I understand the motivation.
And, I literally came here to escape the censorship and propaganda I could no longer tolerate on Fakebook and Youtool. The only reason I care much about rewards, is that it's a powerful motivator for people to interact civilly.
The potential and prospect of gaining - or having flagged away - some cash transforms trolls into polite interlocutors.
However, just because code exists doesn't mean it works how it was supposed to. The white paper reveals the devs expected ~30% of rewards going to ~90% of the community. While this is alarmingly skewed, it's not even close to what is actually the case.
Less than 1% of rewards goes to 99+% of the community - orders of magnitude worse. Call it greed if you want. I don't. I see no point in a pejorative term.
I look at it as financial prudence, where foregoing potential income is contrary to the skillset that gained the stake to begin with.
It's short-sighted, and killing Steemit, however. We need 'Helicopter Ben' up in here to create a market that can make Steem a nominal currency. Not flowing rewards adequately to those without Steem fails to create more users of the currency. Median payouts of $.01 is not adequate flow.
Votebots help a given post gain rewards. But profit concentrates Steem even more via votebots, and actually makes the GINI (a measure of financial disparity) of Steemit worse, even though the bots may be intended by their authors to disperse Steem more broadly.
These kinds of unintended consequences have convinced me that ever more complicated mitigations to the unforeseen problems of stake weighting VP are flogging a dead horse.
The problem is stake-weighting itself, and the cure is rep-weighting.
Rewards work. Greed is not good, and profiteers eventually demonetize those that play fair, destroying the market itself. This is what is happening to Steemit, as the GINI continues to get worse.
Be well, and my your fondest dreams pale beside the amazing actuality of your future joy!
I dunno how I upvoted this comment. I didn't mean to, and only now have discovered this, too late to 'unvote' it.
For anyone that cares, or finds this to be probative I am unprincipled in my frequent rants against self voting and bots, I will welcome any flags that reference this example of self voting, I am not presently capable of fixing.
I am actually glad I found it, as I saw some days ago that self voting had somehow occurred, and I have been mystified as to how that happened. At least the mystery is solved.
Apparently, the tangled complexity of this post and it's replies has either confused me when I voted on another comment, or the UI/UX somehow.
There literally is. Content.
i expressed myself in an unclear way, i apologize. my point is that there is plenty of content, most of it better, elsewhere on the internet. The key differentiation steem has is the money aspect.
Of course, there's a slight difference for folks wearing a watch, or rings. We know what happens to metal in microwaves.
I appreciate your honesty. However, there are plenty of people here to create and consume content.
I think his point is that people need/want money, and to call that greed is somewhat disingenuous, especially coming from someone who does very well out of Steemit. I know you do amazing curation work for Curie as well, however I'm sure you can see how it might frustrate, to invite people to Steemit to make money, and then call it greed when they do.
I'm pretty sure you were talking about a particular set of people, for instance I have seen big accounts that pretty much only vote for themselves, and that does seem greedy.
I guess we will always get these issues where money is involved, if you took the money element away I think we'd lose about 75% of the platform, so I guess the rewards debate will rage on and on :-)
Cg
Earning money and greed are entirely different concepts. I'm sure we can easily differentiate the two. You gave pretty good examples for both above.
Either way, my statement about greed was clearly in jest, something I clarified explicitly in a later comment.
Ah, I didn't catch the later comment, it's getting harder and harder to navigate comments and replies on Steemit. I read something this morn about Chainbb being better for that. :-)
Cg
It is, particularly on comment rich posts, like this one. Clicking on a reply used to take you to that exact reply. On this post, it takes me to the post where I am currently searching for a specific comment.
It will literally take hours, because I keep getting sidetracked like this =p
This is one reason I developed the SteemSwitch plugin. Easy to switch between steemit, busy, chainbb, steemd and steemdb for viewing same content. At least on Firefox.
If the system allows self-voting, how is that greedy? It might be more altruistic to spread the wealth, but it's no more greedy than picking up a $20 bill you found on the ground and putting it into the pocket instead of donating it. Sure, it would be very good to donate it, but greedy not to? Why?
Then why did you bother to comment without self voting, and buying a bot vote to bump up your rewards on the comment?
NM. If money is the only reason you're here, you won't be here long.
Nice to meet you! Have a nice life =)
I didnt mean it the way I said it, I apologize. My point is just that the only thing that distinguishes steem from any other platform like it is the fact that you can earn money with it (there is a side benefit of not being censored, but that is tangential and certainly not the motivation of almost anyone to join).
Thus, to call people greedy for using the system legally and in the way that it is currently set up is not accurate in my opinion.
I'm sorry if I upset you.
I'm not upset. You just won't be here long if you came for a flood of riches. That doesn't anger me at you, as I understand the motivation.
And, I literally came here to escape the censorship and propaganda I could no longer tolerate on Fakebook and Youtool. The only reason I care much about rewards, is that it's a powerful motivator for people to interact civilly.
The potential and prospect of gaining - or having flagged away - some cash transforms trolls into polite interlocutors.
However, just because code exists doesn't mean it works how it was supposed to. The white paper reveals the devs expected ~30% of rewards going to ~90% of the community. While this is alarmingly skewed, it's not even close to what is actually the case.
Less than 1% of rewards goes to 99+% of the community - orders of magnitude worse. Call it greed if you want. I don't. I see no point in a pejorative term.
I look at it as financial prudence, where foregoing potential income is contrary to the skillset that gained the stake to begin with.
It's short-sighted, and killing Steemit, however. We need 'Helicopter Ben' up in here to create a market that can make Steem a nominal currency. Not flowing rewards adequately to those without Steem fails to create more users of the currency. Median payouts of $.01 is not adequate flow.
Votebots help a given post gain rewards. But profit concentrates Steem even more via votebots, and actually makes the GINI (a measure of financial disparity) of Steemit worse, even though the bots may be intended by their authors to disperse Steem more broadly.
These kinds of unintended consequences have convinced me that ever more complicated mitigations to the unforeseen problems of stake weighting VP are flogging a dead horse.
The problem is stake-weighting itself, and the cure is rep-weighting.
Rewards work. Greed is not good, and profiteers eventually demonetize those that play fair, destroying the market itself. This is what is happening to Steemit, as the GINI continues to get worse.
Be well, and my your fondest dreams pale beside the amazing actuality of your future joy!
I dunno how I upvoted this comment. I didn't mean to, and only now have discovered this, too late to 'unvote' it.
For anyone that cares, or finds this to be probative I am unprincipled in my frequent rants against self voting and bots, I will welcome any flags that reference this example of self voting, I am not presently capable of fixing.
I am actually glad I found it, as I saw some days ago that self voting had somehow occurred, and I have been mystified as to how that happened. At least the mystery is solved.
Apparently, the tangled complexity of this post and it's replies has either confused me when I voted on another comment, or the UI/UX somehow.
I dunno.
Ok