Response started as a comment, but quickly became clear that it's a post:
My Verbiose Response
You're putting words in my mouth, but if you want to make that leap, lets go there.
The discussion is always argued from the basis of 'content creators do all the work, so they should get the reward'. Why is that the case? Where does STEEM get it's value? (Not Steem, that's a technology and it gets value from powering various use-cases). But STEEM?
Steem uses DPOS technology to secure the blockchain. So obviously the witnesses should get rewarded, since they provide the technology. But why should authors/curators get rewarded at all?
Do authors deserve to get paid just for publishing? If I stand on the street corner and sign, do I deserve to get paid just for doing so?
Curators get paid for holding stake. In effect, they are being paid for taking financial risk to hold stake. The default behavior is for a stakeholder to get 100% the stake rewards for their stake. The opt to give some of that to the witnesses for securing their stake. The rest comes out of their pocket (inflation on their stake) and their receiving it should be the default assumption.
The game theory equilibrium status quo is that curators receive 100% of their upvote - because 100% of the reward pool comes from inflation on their stake (or depreciation). That's why we have seen a whole system migrate toward that (with massive rewards going through bid-bots, where close to 100% of the upvote is returned to the curator via bid).
Every time a curator upvotes anything without getting paid by the author for the vote, they are doing it because some external factors convince them that the author deserves it more than they do.
It could be because they were paid for it in advance (like with a bid-bot or subscription service) or because somebody else paid for it in advance (like with @steembasicincome) ...
or it could be because they think the author's work will increase the value of Steem (and maybe even STEEM) like with automated upvotes on @steemauto or @steemchiller
it could be because they think they might earn more in curation from the votes of others (like early votes on big vote-buyers)
Or in the most unlikely and extreme case... it could be because they got some qualitative satisfaction from consuming the content and want to reward the content creator.
Content creators do not deserve their upvotes or rewards just for being here. All their votes literally come out of the pockets of the curators (via inflation). Content creators need to convince curators that their content has value... and giving curators a higher percentage of each vote makes that an easier argument, because the curator gives up less value with each vote, and stands to gain more from being early in recognizing the value of the content.
I am opposed to the EIP, but not because content creators will lose value that they deserve. I am opposed to it because changing the rules makes the risks of holding stake higher. Risks devalue the technology and devalue the stake. I am opposed to it because it's a diversion. I'm opposed to it because the changes don't anticipate 'bad actor' scenarios.
If it has to be done (which I don't think it does) then it does not go far enough because it still operates from the idea that content creators deserve the most because they work the hardest.
Whence Value?
Where does value come from? Marx said it comes from labor.
The rest of modern economics is built on marginalism: the value of anything comes from somebody's subjective willingness to pay.
Steem is breaking down because all the content creators are Marxists, while the money comes from Marginalists.
Can a marginalist survive in a marxist world? Can a marxist survive in a marginalist world? Which kind of world is Steem?
I'll give you a hint... the code-base is marginalist, but the culture is Marxist and the schism is causing the breakdown.
For those who say authors don't earn enough for their content, I would encourage them to try using YouTube or building out their own independent blog and monetizing it or using medium and seeing how far they get. I don't get why authors come here demanding rewards and complain they not earning enough if steem is an income source for you you need to be looking at the bigger picture why you relying on this site to pay you then add more income streams. Any rational person knows that if one source doesn't make enough, get another.
I think 50/50 is fair and I think that it provides more validation that you should HODL if you want to be a part of this community. Unfortunatley the bigger accounts do have the most say but who are the ones buying up all the cheap steem authors flood into the market as they cash out and then want to complain?
Unfortunately, or fortunately? Shouldn't the people that are committed to building within the community, and to growing their stake have the most say?
This is already the status quo everywhere. In developing countries it's 'corruption' and in developed countries it's 'lobbying' and 'special interest groups'. At least on Steem we are honest about and it codified it as 'stake-weighted consensus'. If the people with the most to lose are the one's making the important decisions (including the decision of which content deserves rewards) that makes the blockchain the least likely to fail.
Put another way... if Steem made critical decisions by popular vote instead of stake-weighted consensus, it most likely would have already failed.
Can you use #palnet tag in your post? I love to curate your posts with PAL. I believe @palnet community will like your contents too.
Thanks for the reminder! I have been using #palnet tags (and curating there) in most cases. This time I forgot.
I don't think that adding the tag will make the votes before it was added count on palnet, but I have added the tag now.
Maybe we should just stop paying to authors?
Whether authors should receive rewards is a question of Steem's values and purpose. If Steem's content creation community is an important part of Steem's value proposition, then it should continue to be rewarded.
I believe that it is, and I've put a massive amount of time into building something that strengthens and supports it because of that believe.
My project acknowledges that the value implicitly belongs to the curators by default, and turns that on end by making the creators into indirect curators - using stake and leverage to create a permanent support base for content creators that participate. Curate somebody once, but for a much more meaningful amount than a single upvote, and that somebody receives ongoing support for as long as they are active - but it's entirely stake-driven, which is why the people that are the most generous in enrolling others are still earning the most. And in case you didn't notice... it's a 50/50 model and works really well in providing incentives for people to curate accounts instead of content.
pls make a proposal on that, it´s brilliant :D Or at least one could down-vote each author and give them an auto message like "you are a piece of shit - kind regards, God"
Well said. If in the future you get a comment saying content producers should earn more than upvoters ask them that question :
Is it harder to buy 100k steem to upvote or to produce content ?
You're welcome.
That's a good rhetorical question. For anyone with the fundamental basics described in my post, it's obvious. For anyone that doesn't understand that curation is a return for holding stake and influencing content distribution, not a return for clicking an up arrow or deploying a bot, it starts to point them in the right direction.
Now here is a viewpoint that I can understand. I am neutral on the HF21 discussion because no one has given enough material explanation on why the EIP changes are good or bad. They mostly say it will be bad or good but have no real numbers to say why. Some say it will stop bit bots, but people will always find a way to make money from any system.
Only time will tell. So I HODL and wait.
Posted using Partiko Android
There are no numbers because good/bad are qualitative factors. To show quantitatively whether it's good or bad, you have to first define what good and bad are. Most people just aren't that rigorous in their thought processes.
If you define the intended outcome, you can evaluate whether the changes will make the outcome more likely. I define the outcome as 'increasing the value of the technology and the currency that runs on it' because after all we are here to make money, aren't we?
Having defined the outcome, I don't think the EIP will help, because it pits the different marxist/capitalist cultures against each other without ever making clear that's what is happening. As soon as one side starts winning, the other side will sell their stake.
Now, if the capitalists win, then STEEM will go up because (let's face it) capitalists have more money.
Incidentally, the socialists hate my creation because it's too capitalist, and the capitalists hate it because it's too socialist. Where does that put me?
Well as long as they leave you alone to help the little guy, does it matter? Yes, I am here to earn. I enjoy the engagement and try to leave comments that enable discussions like this and find the posts complaining about quality, while not defining quality are just being negative. I prefer positive things that enable positive engagement.
Posted using Partiko Android
It puts you in the same camp as I. That is, a camp where cases are taken on individual merits and each issue evaluated on its merits and value without feeling the need to follow a specific herd.
Maybe you should have named SBI Steem Freedom Dividend... ;)
All said, done and dusted here but I can hardly imagine myself writing a book and expecting those who invested in the book and sometimes consumed the book to earn more than I do.
Posted using Partiko Android
Why are so many ppl saying that a curator will earn more than the author? Let's use the incredible power of mathematics and take a look at an example:
Jimmy writes a post and to make it easy the curators vote for $1 each so the post gets $10.
In the end that's 5$ for Jimmy and $5 for the 10 curators, $0.50 for each of them. The whole mass of curators is earning the same as the author yep, but the author is earning it as one person and the curators are only getting a part of it.
The curators are bringing in the STEEM we all are earning atm. Each vote an author gets comes from an investor and it's a normal thing that an investor gets some of the money. They are not buying one book to read it and the author gets some of the money (and a book author for example doesn't get 75% or even 50% if he sells a book xD).
Posted using Partiko Android
And there comes a pissed off whale and flag it to the zero because he thinks the book is shit ;)
Haha yep, that is the way of Steem xD
Posted using Partiko Android
But there were still 5 upvotes and one downvote, which means that if the whale is wrong and the book is not shit, those 5 upvoters can rally and post about the book and its unfair treatment and expand the consensus that the book should be rewarded.
Final outcome is very different than if the whale can push a button and the book is completely deleted from the platform.
How long would @berniesanders survive on Facebook if his beef was with Zuckerberg instead of with @ned (and had similar relative influence)?
That's one awesome point indeed! :)
Sir it downvote now :P
That's a good point. There is a mistaken focus on single upvotes. If content is genuinely 'quality', it's an easy sell to get readers to dust it and if enough of them do then the creator will earn more than any single curator will.
Your analysis is explicit. Both invested in something - the author invested in knowledge and time while the curator invested in his wealth/money. So I don't see any concrete reason why the later should earn better than the former.
Posted using Partiko Android
If you write a book and there isn't sufficient demand for it, then they will because you will earn nothing and be out the printing costs while they paid nothing (and get nothing).
People buy your book because they value it more highly than the money... so they are getting something out of it. Whether what they get out of it is more than what you get out of it is a function of demand, price elasticity, competitive options, etc. You should want your readers to get more out of it than you do... because they're a lot more likely to spread the word that way.
Like it or not, it's a DPOS blockchain. That means the chain literally belongs to the stakeholders (SP holders) in proportion to their holding. Convinced the owners that what you're doing on their chain is worth their support, and you will do just fine. Convince the owners that what you're doing devalues their chain and you will be obliterated.
The value of a vote belongs to the curator (it is inflation on their stake - and they control the distribution) by default. Rewarding the curators isn't to pay them for finding your content and putting a vote on them. It's to encourage them to vote your content by making it relatively cheaper to vote for your content than their own. And if it's cheaper, then it's more likely that they will pay for it with their votes.
I would rather have 1000 people send me 3 cents each than have one person send me $3, and if selling my content more cheaply (making voting on it cheaper relative to self-voting) makes a lot more people vote on it, then it's worth it.
On the other hand, if you churn out shit because you think you need to produce 3x as much to offset your 'lost' entitlement, you are going to get a lot fewer votes (because even 0.001 is too much for shit) and when you do they're more likely to be off-set by people that realize 0.001 is still too much for your shit and don't want that coming out of their inflation - even though the vote value belongs to the curator, it's actually the consensus influence that belongs to the curator, and somebody else may use their consensus influence to remove you from receiving rewards completely.
I appreciate that those who invest to become high value curators are important, but if content creators do not earn then they will go elsewhere and then Steem in general loses value. Creating content requires an investment of time and possibly money too. It's like saying those buying shares in a company are more important than the product, but they are interdependent.
Investors have plenty of other options to make a good income from their money, but creators may be more limited.
Steem had great potential to get rewards to people who struggle to earn due to a poor local economy or other factors. If it is considered to just be a way for already wealthy people to make more then it will not grow. I think that is already a perception of it.
I've done okay from Steem, but I don't rely on it. I'm using what I've earned to help others and am not too worried about my curation rewards. I really don't want a 'Lambo'.
If the target audience for each create post is one person, then authors should earn more. If the target audience is 2, then 50/50 results in the creator earning twice as much as either curator. If the target audience is 100, then even 99/1 would result in the creator earning more than the curators. If the target audience is thousands and the rewards are 50/50 as proposed, then the creator would earn thousands of times what any curator earned.
So the question then is this... if the curators earn an adequate return on their stake from curating, will it help the creators reach a larger target audience and attain more votes?
Let's stop thinking of it as curator earning more than author on the basis of a single vote. For the curator it's a single vote, and their reward for giving it away instead of keeping it is totally inadequate. For the creator, it's one vote out of potentially thousands and if letting the curator keep more of it results in more than a 33% increase in total votes received, they should be jumping for joy about the changes.
I have a 100% expectation of earning more after the HF because I know that my quality is high enough to attract more than 33% more votes when curation incentives are improved. Is your quality high enough to attract more votes?
You have some points. It tends to be that one or two big accounts vote on some posts. It will be interesting to see how this changes their behaviour. I have no illusions about my own content. I have done well by making connections and I get a lot of automated votes. That could well change.
Great analogy and great post! Resteemed for more visibility.
Thanks for the support. My ginabot went a little crazy while I was sleeping... It took a bit to figure out that this post struck a nerve.
Ok, you got me with that last section.
Mind. Blown. 🤯
I could see the disharmony, but couldn’t quite put my finger on it, and now I realise it’s because I’m not a coder, so I don’t have an insight into that side of things. So thanks for that illumination.
So here’s what I’m trying to wrap my head around... (and a little context to preface).
My last post I explored my discomfort with promoting downvoting, or at least making it have no RC cost. I’m not claiming this mechanism won’t work, I just don’t know if it will. I do however think there is something in the 50/50 split (maybe even increasing curating %), because I think positive reinforcement is more effective from a behavioural change perspective.
Are we all in agreement that the 💩posts and spam-n-scam are the problem with reward pool share? That’s my understanding at least.
If curators have greater incentive to reward “better quality content”, then it means less of the crap, more of the good stuff.
(Although I still think there is an unsolvable problem with the subjective nature of ‘quality’)
From a technical perspective.... can witnesses/devs run the numbers to see what will work? By this I mean, can (e.g.) the last 7 days of posts be run through a model with the different systems and see what happens? Is that possible, is that what y’all are doing anyway?
Like I mentioned in my last post, people really do have different value-systems. I don’t like photos of your dinner, but you don’t like self-absorbed naval-gazing. While you happily upvote photos of food, I’ll upvote long-winded boring stories that get me thinking about life, the universe, and everything. How do we define ‘quality’?
Content creators just have to hope that there are curators who share the same ideas and value what they do... which is what I think the value of Communities/Tribes is.
Looking at this platform (PALnet) as an example... what’s to stop 💩posts from starting to use the tag, thus ‘polluting’?
I’m asking this question because myself and a couple of others have been thinking and discussing creating a Community/Tribe with own frontend and token (like this), and how do we realistically maintain the integrity and quality of what is rewarded?
Your SBI program will have less incentive under the set of rules of HF21.
Posted using Partiko Android
My analysis shows the opposite, actually. SBI units stack for the members, and votes are delivered when minimum thresholds are exceeded.
In effect SBI is a parallel curation mechanism, where you pay liquid STEEM to curate an account instead of paying an upvote to curate content. Then SBI curates the future content of that account. And incidentally, SBI has always been 50/50. The curator (sponsor) and curated creator (sponsee) each get 1 unit from the enrollment.
SBI will pass the extra curation earned by the voting accounts directly to the members, so that 'after curation' rshares delivered will remain constant. The impact of downvote pools and Convergent Linear is harder to predict, but I expect them to make promotion services more necessary instead of less. Every post will need enough promotion to get onto the 'linear' portion of the curve, and SBI is still the best 'set and forget' option available to make that happen.
My full analysis is in these two posts:
https://busy.org/@steembasicincome/sbi-in-an-hf21-world-part-1-50-50-rewards
https://busy.org/@steembasicincome/sbi-in-an-hf21-world-part-2-convergent-linear-and-downvote-pools
The best is to wait for HF21 to be implemented and let wait what is going to happen. ;)
Well put!
Please take a meagre upvote from me. Not for your work. Not for my curation. But because you helped forward my opinion.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thanks! With this one, forwarding opinions is what I care about. :)
I didn't even remember to tag it for PALnet!
An interesting perspective here. It seems like PALnet might be a good indicator of how the changes might effect Steemit.
It does not matter about who earns more... it does only matter that the customer is happy. If the customers think the platform sucks they leave and there is no market.
Nothing else matters. HF21 will be the biggest fail in the history of Steem :) But hey probably the marked is wrong and some app developer and witnesses are right ...well NOT
congrats now we are a top 70 on coinmarketcap. I´m still optimistic on the ship's technology but not on the people driving the ship. Because they are not honest. They sanctioning criticism. This is a very unhealthy sign and shows centralisation. Its a proven scientific fact that the value of social-platforms comes from the number of users. Of course the devs matter, the investors matter your right...but like Jeff Bezos said: in the longrun, there will never be any misalignment between customer-interest and shareholder-interest. Good devs and managers are implied in the number of users. If the number decreases the devs suck, no matter how good they are in circle jerking and coding. Resteem!
Let's see if there is a response to your criticism in my article...
Oh yes, here it is:
I believe in the technology, too. I'm not optimistic about HF21; I think it's a bad idea. But the discourse around it is dominated by the 50/50 change, which is actually the best part of the proposal.
This is true, but the rest of your comment is focused 100% on the price action... which means that the customers that you care the most about leaving are the curators... because when an author leaves it helps the price action, as their constant selling pressure is removed. It's only when a curator leaves that the price is hurt, because they power down and liquidate their stake.
Run top 500 by author rewards next to top 500 by curation rewards. Strip out the accounts in both lists, and you will have a sample of 'pure authors' versus 'pure curators'. Now take both lists to report on deposits from exchanges versus withdrawals to exchanges. Then come back and tell me which group is hurting the price?
your absolutely right, the contribution to the Steem pool is heavily concentrated on stakeholders. 334 Million virtual supply and 200 Million are staked. In the tulip bubble, the biggest contribution to the price came from the stakeholders. A stakeholder-focused system is a ponzi-scheme. A business can only be sustainable when it is creating value to customers.
The interdependence goes from plankton to whale. This has nothing to do with Marxism. There can be plankton without whales (this was Billions of years the case), there cant be whales without plankton. The economic value and the attractiveness for investors comes from a product value.
Most of socialmedia exists without curation. Heavy used platforms like Reddit and 4chan exist without any economic incentive for users. Right now the use-case of curation isn't even proofed (many quality authors here are scientists and good paid people doing blogging for a hobby). In the special case of Steem(it) your point is in fact very important, it's more a chicken-egg problem because the selling point is having curators ... this makes the problem so unique and hard to solve. Anyways thank you for your input! It's a very special situation I wasn't that aware of.
This comment is supported by $0.71 @tipU upvote funded by @lauch3d :)
@tipU voting service: instant, profitable upvotes + profit sharing tokens | For investors.
It's not that easy. If for example an author writes an article about Steem Monsters, and then 10 % of the readers were considering to buy cards with ... STEEM, then of course the author contributed to a higher value of the STEEM price.
In addition if 5000 potential card buyers were reading that article (because there was a rich pool of satisfied users) it added much more value than if only 50 were reading it. So in my eyes also for blockchain based apllications the formula more users (among most of them authors) = more value is still valid.
I'm aware of network effects, but they're outside the scope of this discussion.
If curators were properly compensated for their stake and more willing to share some of it with content creators as a consequence, there might be greater network effects instead of fewer.
Would you rather have a platform with 100k content creators and no curators, or a platform with 100k curators and no content creators. Both content creators and curators would do better if there were more acknowledgement that the value belongs to the curator by default (it's their money) and the content creators need to entice the curators to reward their content.
I think it's part of the discussion.
If the value of STEEM will rise, then everybody is compensated very well for his stake! If network effects lead to a higher value of STEEM and more satisfied users contribute to that network effect, then stake holders should do their best to support a rich pool of satisfied users by distributing STEEM!
I really wonder why many big account holders are that fixated on their ROI? If the STEEM price raises significantly again, they will be unbelievable rich anyway, if it doesn't, the ROI also doesn't matter much: they have lost money anyway. I personally would agree not to earn one single more STEEM if that would guarantee a significantly higher STEEM price. Better concentrate on making the cake bigger than on getting a bigger part of a cake which is getting smaller and smaller.
(When I bought BTC I also wasn't asking how much interest I would get ...)
That's why the network effect matters for everybody.
Authors deserve MUCH more reward. Thats where the time and effort really goes in! The time it took me to read this post as opposed to you writing it was MUCH shorter than what you had done. Paid by the hour ;)
Maybe you should read it again. You seem to have completely missed the argument.
The effort put into something is 100% irrelevant to its value, because value does not come from labor.
No I’m pretty sure that’s socialism. Hard work deserves compensation.
If I come to your house without asking and dig a ditch around it and then bill you, would you pay the bill? It was hard work.
If no, then hard work does NOT deserve compensation.
Hard work that is wanted by the person controlling the payment deserves compensation.
If I dig the same ditch with a shovel instead of a backhoe, should I get paid more? The work was much harder. If no, then the value comes from how much you want the ditch, not how hard I worked to dig it for you.
This is the whole point of my article, and you 100% missed it.
if you came to my house and started digging you would be charged with trespassing. Wasn't this in regards to who should be rewarded more? The author or the curator? Is it easier to read or write? What requires more time. Both require understanding and cooperation. Your example requires no cooperation or understanding.
Feel free to continue obtusely missing the point and proving that you didn't read the post.
you are correct. It's trolling as this point. Sometimes I feel you are the type of person who argues for the sake of arguing.
Peace out.
Thanks being awesome NBC holder! Your 2.00 NBC earned you 2% team-cn upvotes！
Congratulations @josephsavage! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
curators for statistics would be enough 0.01%. Their role could be fulfilled by a recommender mechanism, which sorts content not to the glory of the popularity totalizator, but by interestingness for each
No idea what you're trying to say here, sorry. Maybe your translator turned it into gibberish? I hope the implied 'recommender mechanism' works better.
Да, переводчики далеки от совершенства:)
Идея в том, что попытка переложить рекомендательную функцию на акционеров пока даёт малоинтересные результаты. А главное в соцсетях - не попсовое, а интересное каждому отдельному, и это не тэги и лайки, а скорее художественность, стилистика и смешное. Живые кураторы как алгоритм в этом деле пока не взлетают
Ah yes. Part of the intent behind the EIP is to improve the incentives so that stake-weighted consensus does better at Trending the content people are engaging with, instead of only Trending the content that people are paying for votes on.
I have hope that it will work, but hope is not a strategy.
Uhm, well, yeah @josephsavage. At the moment I will save my NSH opinion on this matter for later. Simply, because I'm already fried from a pretty long sleepless marathon.
In the meantime, just go here and cast your welcome and appreciated vote on this relevant dPoll.
Cheers!! :)
Please read the Steem whitepaper. Your poll indicates that you're missing some fundamentals, and you need to fill in the gaps if you want witnesses to take your improvement ideas seriously.
I neither agree nor disagree with your post. But it makes me look at the Steem ecology with a more analytic eye. I stumbled into this universe because it was a nice place to blog. Simplistic, right? That makes me a content creator, I guess. I never looked at the platform as an investment vehicle. The money aspect just adds a little zip, a sort of Pavlovian incentive to write an article that attracts interest.
Is the platform healthier if there are a million bloggers like me, who happily blog so long as we get our little rewards, a little zip? Is there a question of advertiser dollars, that would increase with larger numbers, with more 'content creators? And isn't it true that creators may be tempted from time to time to become 'stakeholders'--invest a couple of dollars for more platform navigability? (Yeah, it did happen to me. My husband gave me a couple of presents so I'd have more 'fun'.)
Would I go away with a 50/50 split? Probably not. But when I get a really sorry return on a blog I am disappointed, discouraged. That is a disincentive to engagement. Would that hurt the platform? If content creators are discouraged and stop creating, would that be good for Steem?
I don't know any of those answers. I just operate from my little microcosm, from my simple perspective. Why am I here? Do I bring value to the platform? What would happen if all the people who are similarly motivated went away, if Steem were left with an ocean of stakeholders calculating to get the highest return on their stakes without regard to quality of experience?
I don't know. Hope smarter people than I am come up with the right answers.
Of course authors, without authors there is not curators. Authors think, write, create content, spend so much time learning and writing and improving. Curators just click the button. If we will keep the system as it is, that will mean that we have proof of brain and we will reward those who deserve it. But if 50/50, that mean complete proof of stake and someday they can make it even 100 for curators, what we will have after that ?
Thanks for commenting based on the title without even reading the post.
I did read the post, but I decided only to answer the question. I didn't want to argue. Anyway, if you didn't like what I wrote, I'm sorry about that. I was maybe too emotional writing it. But who is not now. I still positive about the community and about everything happening on steem. Even if we will have 50/50, we have now more and more projects and improvments in dapps. More tokens created, more intiatives. So everything will be ok.
Hi @josephsavage!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 4.420 which ranks you at #2165 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 60 places in the last three days (old rank 2225).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 188 contributions, your post is ranked at #27.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Its so nice being able to edit your mistakes. Twitter should learn from steemit.
I apologize for overreacting before. All downvotes from accounts under my control have been removed.
#sbi-skip
Its a happy day
Yayy. He made up with us. Its a better world so quickly. The news especially politics news should be legislated to show make-ups between national leaders as a global conflict prevention and well being measure.
I apologize for overreacting before. All downvotes from accounts under my control have been removed.
#sbi-skip
Hi josephsavage,
Welcome to #steemusa! Please find below your footer banner made by @bearone for use in your future posts.
Brought to you by @quochuy (steem witness)https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmPwSnYuGWArLfMFNuNPs7SPQMjCm9xPFotT8oAa5DbfPN/usabanner-compact-josephsavage.png
Thanks for sharing.
I read your post and I'm really thinking,
now it will be harder to grow up to me.
Have a nice day
This post had received 5.00% upvote from @steemitportugal account!
Vote for @steemitportugal to Witness. Your vote is very important to us!
Visit our WebSite www.steemitportugal.com (tutorials,news...)
Thank you very much.
Click here to vote
Delegation for daily voting: 10SP-25SP-50SP-100SP-250SP-500SP-1000SP
Please keep your advertisements off my page.