Regards, appreciated @gandhibaba, @crypto.piotr.
Initially we should reflect and ask ourselves: why am I in Steemit?
We will find ambiguous points of view.
If we are content creators, our goal is to promote our work and at the same time obtain economic benefits. But we also have investors who only seek to increase their profits.
The issue is, that in both cases we would be part of the balance.
We need the investors. Investors need content creators.
A 50/50 reward distribution assumes a balance in profits.
We can not ignore that the creators also vote, then somehow they would also receive benefit for this action.
Unquestionably the platform must evolve. If we are here, we must trust the administrators. The only way to introduce significant changes is through HF. Hopefully all the changes (resulting from deep analysis) bring benefits for all.
Greetings. Juan.
You said, "Initially we should reflect and ask ourselves: why am I in Steemit?
We will find ambiguous points of view.
Most of us are quite unequivocal about what we want from Steemit; many of us are downright opinionated. Personally, I want an audience which will pay some attention to my writing, and I want to get paid for my efforts. See? There's nothing ambiguous about that at all. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambiguous
You said, "A 50/50 reward distribution assumes a balance in profits."
Balance? You know what I get for an average blog entry?
$0.02
That's not what I call very damn balanced.
You said, "If we are here, we must trust the administrators."
Let me just ask you to please share with us the chain of logical reasoning which led you to this conclusion, because it is by no means apparent to me. Why in the name of all that's holy would you think that we "must" trust them?
But worst of all is the way you keep talking about "investors" when what you mean are whales. This ignores the fact that I too have invested in Steemit, not just money but over a year of my time and much unrewarded effort, as have hundreds of other minnows and redfish!
Well, I see that you've left sadly.
You were here longer than me even when you were active though..
I just want to say it is NOT the fault of any hardfork or anything to do with Steemit about your author rewards being so low.
I've made 35 posts in about 4 months of being active.
Without bots, I average about $1.00 per post. Some of my posts have made a heck of a lot more, some made less..
But everyday I grow! and hey, I'm newb to blogging, and I'm pretty fucking boring if you ask me, there is nothing special about me and I'm not any better than you...
But there must be something I am better at which explains why I get some more rewards, and if I'd have to guess I'd say it's networking.
Networking is a lot of work, sometimes it takes more work than creating a new post, but the payoff is pretty even - the work you put in to networking is manifested almost 1:1 with account growth and rewards..
Thanks @juanmolina. Your excellent contributions to this discourse summarizes the controversies here and strikes a balance. I agree with your witty, vital points. Thanks.
Friends @gandhibaba, @crypto.piotr, @juanmolina
For many of us who are doing interaction inside and probably outside the platform, we are here because we like to do what we do, it is a way to release our own experiences and additionally we do what we like and that is why we receive something monetary.
Many times the changes are not favorable in the short term, everything will depend on the behavior and how they accept the changes
But I'm sure of something, I like to do interaction in steemit and I know I'm going to be inside because I feel that if it's worth it to be inside steemit, and I always know everyone about our platform about all my students.
Steemit is here to stay and it will be up to everyone to accept the changes.
I send you a big hug from Venezuela.
Dear @lanzjoseg
very true. However I believe that this change is great in short term, but looking long term it's a complete disaster.
Just watch all new STEEM being redistributed in a way, that would benefit wealthy ones and pretty much ignore everyone else. Slowly and steadily most available STEEM will end up completely in hands of very few. Is that healthy? I hardly doubt so.
This system can only work if so called Whales would actually start delegating their Steem Power to quality curators. That would indeed allow those curators to be rewarded for their work and benefit entire platoform.
I'm simply afraid, that this will not happen. That at the end most whales will continue auto-upvoting publications of very few people, with their powerful votes and without putting any effort they will start earning x2 more than they did so far.
It surely would encourage them to slow down with powering down, which in effect would most likely bring up the price of STEEM. But that is the only positive outcome. And what would happen year from now, when those "whales" would start dumping this easily earned STEEM?
Yours
Piotr
I fully agree with your conclusion, that we have to allow the platform to evolve. And let's hope that the developers work to improve the platform. I believe they realize that their future success relies on the platform's future success, and that they are not about to shoot themselves in the foot. Cheers!
I also agree with @juanmolina's contributions. They are well received.
That is my hope also. Cheers!
Thanks for sharing your view @majes.tytyty
Let's pray for that.
Yours,
Piotr
@majes.tytyty -> take a hammer, a nail, and break a small hole in the wall of the steemit. water pressure will do the rest of the 'evolving' work.
bwa haha
Dear @juanmolina
Thank you for this amazing comment and your time. I'm guessing that you support HF21 changes and we're seeing them differently.
Personally I'm not sure if I agree that 50/50 is balanced split of reward. It does surely sound fair.
However I cannot think of many businesses out there, where 50% of company profit ends up as a divident distributed to investors.
Question is: will this platform evolve only because it will reward current investors/stakeholders with double paychecks? Just wait until all those stakeholders will grow (and they will grow much faster now). We will witness centralization of power and New STEEM will be handed over mostly to those very few.
This system can only work if so called Whales would actually start delegating their Steem Power to quality curators. That would indeed allow those curators to be rewarded for their work and benefit entire platoform.
I'm simply afraid, that this will not happen. That at the end most whales will continue auto-upvoting publications of very few people, with their powerful votes and without putting any effort they will start earning x2 more than they did so far.
It surely would encourage them to slow down with powering down, which in effect would most likely bring up the price of STEEM. But that is the only positive outcome. And what would happen year from now, when those "whales" would start dumping this easily earned STEEM?
So again: 50% rewards for bringing value to blocklchain (creating content, commenting etc.) and 50% for just holding coin? It actually sounds like a recipe for upcoming disaster.
Yours
Piotr
@juanmolina,
50-50 is not enough. absolutely no go.
"The poor stay poor, the rich get rich. That's how it goes. Everybody knows...' (c) Cohen
Hard not to agree with your comment @qwerrie
but the decision-makers do not agree, @crypto.piotr.
all discussions show that people dont vote for it,
all predict harsh consequences and further ship-sinking
everybody knows - that s the way it goes.