Was it designed like that?
Yes.
Is that design flawed?
Yes.
Or you mean to say a design can't be flawed?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Was it designed like that?
Yes.
Is that design flawed?
Yes.
Or you mean to say a design can't be flawed?
I mean to say as far as @ned and Steemit Inc are concerned it's not flawed at all. As far as @kevinwong is concerned it is. It's a matter of perspective taken from one's ideology. This is not @kevinwong's idea of a "good" economy. But would @kevinwong then be sitting with the likes of Karl Marx, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, or perhaps even Wilhelm Weitling?
The Steem ecosystem is very new and unique. At the moment Steem is going through a trial and error stage. We are all in the process of discovering what works well, not so well and not at all. Steem should be considered flawed from everyone's perspective. As a community we should work towards reducing those flaws or the impact of those flaws.
New? How is it new? It's been on beta for almost three years now. I've never heard of a product being new three years later or still in beta lol.
It is in beta this long because it is new and unique. It is expected to take some time to get it right. Let's see what Steem is like a year from now.
No it isn't new. Crypto is new. I.e. the medium of exchange has taken a new format, but capitalism is not new. I hope you do realize that many people have come before you, Ned or Kevin and have spent many hours toiling, writing, debating and attempting to contrive the "perfect" economic system. This is absolutely nothing new. And I find it quite ironic that people on Steemit like to "philosophize" about what type of "economy" Steemit should have and yet have taken little to no time to cite, quote or even remark on all the emmense amount of previous works on such matters.
Posted using Partiko Android
There are several elements to the Steem ecosystem that are very unique. One example is the rewards pool. Instead of paying content creators directly with Steem, we allocate the rewards from newly created Steem. It is like a mandatory prepayment of content; it somewhat resembles a tax, which is then redistributed in the ecosystem. We decide where that payment goes, instead of a central authority. Though Steemit Inc could play that role if they wanted to, considering the amount of SP they have.
We can choose to essentially opt out by self-voting. This can be countered with downvotes. We can sell votes but the ROI and middlemen (if we delegate to bots) reduces the return to sellers compared to self-voting. In other words, there is no guaranteed method of preventing some form of redistribution of our stake.
The Steem ecosystem has elements of both capitalism and socialism. If anything, @kevinwong's proposal aligns more closely to capitalism than the existing system. As his proposal enables and supports the operating of the free market. The current system could end up in market failure, 100% self-voting and no incentive to create anything of value.
No, the reward pool is not unique, sorry. It's simply a number representing the GDP, the one and only product being Steem, productivity being measured by the number of transactions processed.
Name one aspect of Steemit's ecosystem that performs like socialism. Socialism requires a central authority to redistribute wealth. There's (technically) no central authority to Steemit. And the rewards are distributed by who has the most capital investment.
And don't confuse philanthropy with socialism.
Finally, I'm not against Kevin's ideas (it seems like your defending him). I just think I have a better solution. ;) Check it out.
Posted using Partiko Android