It appears to be the way the system was designed.
Is it perfect, no.
Is it better than linear rewards, i think so.
We see what ned gave us, i say we give dan's design a chance.
Will some whales have to be the adults, yes.
Will the 1.4 million accounts be better off, i think so.
We have to solve the abuse of the less than 70 accounts that are still abusing us somehow.
I say make downvoting equal to upvoting and lets find out if the abusers will push us off the cliff or if the community will defend itself.
I'm pretty sure a combination of empowering users to reject content they don't want via voter muting and also improving curation rewards should be enough to tip things towards organic post discovery and proof of brain.. but ultimately, we won't really know until the different options are tried out since there are so many variables involved and so many different people. It would be good if the new foundation made plans to find ways to experiment with the different ideas that people have to improve these areas.
Muting just pushes abuse off the radar.
Instead of confronting, and resolving, abuse, hiding in a safe space is not a viable means to ending abuse, imo.
Excising cancerous stake needs to be discussed.
Especially if the n2 is to return.
Look what proposing a fork got us.
Steem was doing just fine with the n2 until an appeal to authority rekt us.
All hail, stinc!
My vision for voter muting (which is not the same as normal muting) is that it would result in everyone being empowered to just negate the entire net result of using bid bots. Partiko already does this as i understand and so does steve. All it takes is for this kind of feature to be popularised and it becomes the norm and now there's no benefit from an exposure perspective to using bots. At that point the users of bots might still continue to some extent, but the margins are very small now I think and ultimately we can probably never stop private agreements to upvote each other anyway. From my perspective, as long as proof of brain is working again, many problems get fixed that are absolutely essential for Steem's survival and usefulness.
The justification for bots is based on ROI and those magical 'market forces' - so I think it's appropriate to use those to negate them.
Ned has stated that he is all for forks, just not ones that split the chain deliberately. SMTs could absolutely provide a framework to try out many experiments - so it's very unfortunate we are having to wait so long for them. We are in limbo right now really.
All because of an outranking.
I agree that proof of brain is the desired end goal.
I just think that the abusers that have brought us here may not be the optimal choice in counsel.
Obviously, their opinion comes with bias.
Unfortunately, our world's inherited, general model of 'success' involves domination and maintaining that position. I see the solution as being whatever empowers as many people as possible to create the experience that they personally prefer. We can't necessarily please all of the people all of the time, but we can open the space for them to please themselves without getting in each other's way!
Rule by force is the disease,...
I think we might get some movement this year.
Much better than this dead in the water thing, imo.
yes, the global energetic purge continues on all levels!