I cannot pretend that my faith in the direction of this platform has not taken a bit of blow today. The seven day cycles already seemed like a terribly misguided idea to me, but I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt because I could have been wrong, and even if it did go badly we would learn something in the process.
However, the poor execution of this "upgrade" has really got me wondering what is going on up there. I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding why we even attempted to convert directly from a 24 hour to a 7 day cycle. Would it not have made more sense to have an 8-10 week period leading up to the hardfork where the daily payout pool was lowered to 80%, with the remaining 20% being added to the new 7 day pot at the end of each day until that one was also at 80%. Then a simple switch over could have been done without any need for a "refill."
Perhaps it is simply not possible and my limited developer knowledge prevents me from understanding why this was not feasible. But if it was possible to do it like that, or in any way similar to it, and none of the witnesses or dev team spoke up about doing it in this much less harmful manner, then I really do not know what they are doing anymore.
I have always adhered to the belief that Steemit was built for the people, which is why I fell in love with it so quickly. But, it is beginning to feel quite the opposite. I shall try my best to remain optimistic, until one more thing happens like this again at least. Until then, I'm not quite ready to give up on this place completely. It has too much potential.
As for the announcement tomorrow. I can think of nothing that would be good enough to make up for effectively stealing all of the community's money, so I think they picked a bad time to deliver one. It will be difficult for many to get excited about whatever it is when they are still wondering what happened to their $100 in potential payouts that they were expecting.
I am replying to your post just to save it for later. I agree.
Changing the rules of the game like that requires hard forking; that's what a hardfork is.
So you just admitted that it could have been done that way, but you chose to do it in this way instead?
I totally understand. Why do it in a way that would have been a smooth transition with minimal effect on the community, when you can do it in a way that loses a lot of people large amounts of cash that they were expecting, and create an extended period of very low payouts.
Twice you have sent me an unhelpful message- and a condescending one at that. Do not do it again.
Reduced rewards for a week or two is already a minimal effect on the community. Nobody's going to abandon steemit (that wasn't already) because rewards dip for a week. The rewards aren't enough to keep people here even when fully powered. The community we have here is why people return, not the twelve bucks they get for their blogging. :)
Hardforks have a non-negligible overhead, and there is pretty significant value in not making them too frequently.
Maybe we'll empty the rewards pool average every fork just so that people don't get too many expectations. :D
Geek to geek that's an excellent comment.
@Steemit CTO communicating to @son-of-satire is not one on one, as in a chat. The whole community which is also reading your interaction.
With code, logic, cold, hard is all that matters.
When dealing with people, humans, words matter, @sneak
People will leave @Steemit if they believe that they are not valued.
Stupid people create the value, inspite of intelligent code.
We have a team of great people for that on our blog. I have no other option than to write in my own voice for comments. I can only promise to do my best.
I like to give people real talk in the comments section. As we grow, the exact reason you specified means that doing so probably won't be advisable very much longer into the future, and I'll have to stop. Until then, I'm going to give it to our exceptionally intelligent group of early adopters straight, with the full knowledge that it will taper off as we go more mainstream, because people might get the wrong idea.
Until then, I'm going to revel in our small community and opportunity for some temporary frankness. :)
Ah!, @sneak real talk v users.
You choose what helps build @Steemit other than code.
There is also EQ: emotional intelligence, sir.
I agree with everything you just said (wrote)... The potential could be off the charts -- but only with a steadfast, strong community of people behind it. And each time something like this smacks us in the face, it does seem like they could give two shits about anybody here (at least that how it looks)... I don't know crap about the tech end of all this.., and it blows my mind what they have managed to put together here (amazing)... But you can only get away with this kind of shit for so long...
Cheers @son-of-satire
I agree 100% also. It is truly amazing what they have managed to develop here. But, perhaps that is the problem. A team should be made up of more than developers. It's no good everyone sharing the same skill set. Hopefully the new marketing VP will be a good addition to the team, only I don't think Steemit is anywhere near ready for marketing after this.
What they need is a thinker, and someone who can serve as a community liaison to translate tech-speak into easily digestible words for the laymen. That could open a more transparent bridge of communication between the developers and the community and ensure that the direction they're heading is the direction that the community wants. If they keep going sideways, there won't be enough of a community left here for this place to have any chance at success.
I also have lost one of my big pending payout it seems - communications is an issue for sure but let us see what the marketing announcement will be today @son-of-satire