Here are some facts:
- No one knows how it will affect behavior. Whether there would be more or less shitposts from large stakeholders and their friends is unknown.
- Bots can easily adjust costs to stay profitable. There is zero reason to believe they can't adjust how much they charge and the vote they dish out.
- Several whales have made it clear (or insinuated) that they will utilize the subsidized downvotes. Even some bid bot owners will also drop flags when that becomes a reality.
- How beneficiary rewards, siphoned from the dapps, will affect its users' sentiments to continue to stay using them is also unknown.
- Auto-voting is nothing new. Plenty of people are on curation trails and already milk them excessively by posting multiple nonsense a day.
- Whoever saying you are wrong is also making conjectures. There are so many factors at play.
Here are my opinions:
All the extra stuff about how people behave is moot. Many people, across different communities, have different beliefs of what is the best for Steem.
You have folks who believe bid bots are the true incentives for people buying Steem while many feel they are destroying it. I won't get into the details of those fallacies. Economics is definitely not most people's strong suite around here. I would read everything with a grain of salt.
Curation rewards take time to liquidate. Expect services that will provide liquidity. In fact, they already exist. One that already exists is @likwid.
The fundamental issue with Steem is that one can easily do well by playing solitaire. It can be with your own stake or through bots. There are plenty of people whose posts have only bot comments on them, but what do they care? They continue to create for nobody and vote for nobody but themselves.
I would bet anything that most people have no idea some of the tactics used by people to reach ROI around here. One great example is someone continually babbling about the 15-min wait. Nobody waits for that. More and more people vote around 8-10 minute mark to accrue some potential losses in exchange of actually earning curation.
Thanks for the input and your clarification re the various points above. While I find much of this entire HF discussion far above my head, it's good to read well-reasoned comments such as yours.
Thanks for the compliment.
We won't know until we get there. I think we can all agree on that the status quo isn't working.
Whilst I was cracking my head wondering how to comment given the so many unknowns, I came across your well reasoned comment. This is probably the most sensible comment.
The investors and the authors+curators group are in a symbiotic relationship feeding each other here. If one of them benefit excessively at the expense of the other, that will be the beginning of the end of the steem blockchain.
However, I think the investors have more to lose than the other group should steem flounder.
Let's get one thing straight: Everyone (I repeat) EVERYONE who contributes here is an investor of some sort.
Do you see up-votes on your posts by any whales on a regular basis? I can't say that I do any more. So what does that mean?
It means that I don't rely on whale votes. I'm here and earning my little bit from the little fish like myself. Does it make any difference at all if all the whales leave? I really don't know! I expect the price of Steem to drop as they pull out, but eventually it will return to something stable from the value of all the OTHER investors besides the whales. Those doing statistics have already shown that the middle class is growing and whales are becoming less relevant as far as SP goes.
Will a 50/50 split hurt me? I don't know that either. I cast votes and I receive votes, so one may balance out the other.
Do I think changing to a 50/50 split will solve Steem's problems? Not at all. The goal-posts will have been moved, but the rules of the game are still pretty much the same and those who game the system will continue to do so; they will just find new ways to do it. What it will do is to disrupt all the calculations of programs like SBI and other less-known programs. MANY people have invested into these programs (note the word, 'invested') and could end up being badly hurt by the change. HOW MANY PEOPLE need to be badly hurt before they stop messing with the rewards system? What will the whales do if everyone else pulls out because they keep getting hurt here? Do you think Steem will survive with just whales attempting to outwit each other to grab the biggest piece of the pie?
+100. man. your deduction is so clear. @happyme
Thanks.
As far as I can tell, Steem NEEDS the small investors as much as it needs the big ones; perhaps even more. Can you imagine what Steem would be like with just a dozen people making content?
Love that comment. Very well said @happyme
I completely agree with @happyme, in any community it is necessary the participation of all, large, medium and small, but we must think about helping the youngest ones grow, if they grow, we all grow and we have the satisfaction of contributing and build a better future for everyone.
Problem is, many people don’t have an investor’s mindset. They have the speculator’s. Hence why everyone feels “stacking coins” is the most important and profitable thing to do at all times.
Dear @enforcer48
What an amazing comment. One of the best I've read so far.
Thanks for sharing your opinion on that particular issue.
ps. thx for introducing me to @likwid
Yours,
Piotr
You've made some fine contributions here, friend. Your points are well received. Thanks for stopping by.