Thanks for explaining here. I have discussions of this nature in the compassionate anarchy group on fb almost every day. I am not stating anywhere here that 'I know what's best and you should think/do as I do' - I am not describing a situation where I regulate things either, any more than anyone already adds features to the system. The system has already been designed by others who are not me and those features affect us all - it's not really fair to pick on me when I comment on the situation as if I am the controlling entity when we are all already fitting into a mold that was created before we arrived.
Every decision made on Steem affects the whole eco-system to some extent as everything is connected. This is considered in numerous ways in the original design of Steem and balance has been sought. Nothing in my words here suggests an over-riding of balance or of controlling anyone - if anything it is the other way around.
I am unclear as to why my support for adding a fund for projects that might benefit the eco-system on many levels by opening up funding to a wider audience - allowing their creativity to be tapped into and further enhancing everyone's ability to enjoy the platform and add to it's greatness.. is being interpreted as evidence that I want to control people. If you read through the witness chat from yesterday, you will see that I briefly re-iterated the observation that the witness voting system reflects national politics and every commenter there agreed. I wasn't controlling anyone, they agreed because it is a demonstrably accurate observation in many ways. I feel it is peculiar that you are claiming that I think in ways that promotes top-down control when what I am actually saying is effectively that top-down control is a problem and we need to take steps to stop it. In this case, the top-down control is of the form of witnesses receiving vast funding, while other creatives who might aid the network more find it difficult to receive much at all.
Why not generate the funds through effort and production, instead of trying to take them from someone else. Especially witnesses on whom the survival of the platform depends? That’s is what I don’t get.
And as @andrarchy pointed out, why suggest a hard fork when apps can be developed to implement these things?
I did explain to @andrarchy that the hardfork was suggested (as I understand it) because of the idea of adjusting the amount of Steem paid to witnesses, since AFAIK (from reading the Steem Whitepaper and considering how the mechanisms work) a hardfork would be needed to make that a reality.
The current situation is that developers, for example, are expected to dedicate significant amounts of their lives to creating solutions for Steem with no guarantee of remuneration for their efforts and no guarantee of even receiving feedback on the designs before they get started. From a project management and even capitalist standpoint, this is far from ideal and stops a lot of creativity before it gets started. When there are ample funds available to improve the situation, it makes sense to consider the options for doing that.
I am a witness and I know already that the top witness slots are being dominated currently by those who are favored by just one account on Steemit - which is an account that is actually anonymous. So basically, we have a situation where the entire infrastructure's future is being decided by one account (@freedom) - so it is that the current situation is one of top-down control already in some senses. The purpose of having witness voting is to ensure that the 'market' for witnesses reflects the wisdom of the crowd and not so much the wisdom of the plutocracy. Do you consider that plutocracy is an ideal method of organising a culture? To me it is exactly what you say you don't like, which is top-down control.
By effectively democratizing a way of rewarding creative ideas that help the value of Steem to increase and that enhance the co-operation in the community, we serve both major elements that form Steem (Currency/Capital and Creativity/Community). In a political sense this seems to me to be a direct drawing together of what some people pigeon hole as 'capitalism' and 'socialism' into some kind of balance. I see almost every day that people who are rigidly into the thinking of one side of these political groups or the other will fail to see where I am coming from because they put me into a box that I don't belong in and assume I am saying something that I am not. Staunch socialists and/or communists will accuse me of being too pro-capitalist and staunch capitalists will accuse me of being a communist.. lol
Those who already get where I am coming from just find the whole thing either amusing or tiring. What I seek is real balance where no-one is being overpowered.
The motivation for funding creative projects from the witness fund, for me, is as follows:
The amount paid to top witnesses is quite large - I think in the region of $50,000+ each per year. This is on top of their earnings from posts and any 'background benefits' they receive from donations intended to sway their decisions around hardforks etc.
Given that the actual job of running a witness server takes a tiny fraction of most people's time, if we were to calculate an hourly rate for work done then they would be being paid a very large amount per hour - probably over $150 per hour. Witnesses are not the developers - they are not required to know all the ins and outs of the code. The developers have the really important role here and it is they who are most fundamental to the network.
Lowering the amount automatically received by top witnesses will not inhibit their ability to fulfill their service to the platform and will stimulate market forces to promote creativity.
The witness system is intended, by design (top-down design from it's creator btw) - to facilitate an automatic process of witness 'shuffling' in the cases where it is necessary. I actually don't understand the fear that 'top witnesses will leave' when that actually doens't make a massive difference to the daily running of Steem. The system automatically replaces top witnesses with other witnesses in that case and no-one will notice the difference in the sense of day to day activity.
The new schematic suggested in this thread is one where the same top witnesses can achieve the same funding they get now, or more, by claiming project payouts - so those who have projects (which many do) may even gain more and like the system more than the current one.
The idea of 'taking the funds from someone else' can easily be reversed and be said to be what the current system already does - the Steem funds are divided among users and witnesses - so is it the case that users currently 'take the funds from witnesses'? or that witnesses currently 'take the funds from users'?
It's not really either, it's just that the schema defines that a certain amount will go to each group and that the percentages involved can be changed if it is found to be beneficial - a change which can be manifested through the mechanism of a hard fork. The issue here is whether the funds are best used to give to witnesses or whether the new idea generates better value for everyone who owns Steem. I know that Jerry repeated himself quite a bit in his post, but I think he did make this point clear.
By using a model of direct funding for new projects from the blockchain, rather than donation - there is a strong statement made that Steem supports innovation and that steem values creativity as the cornerstone of it's success. The steem whitepaper goes to some length to explain that one of the key features of Steem is that it overcomes the problem of donation systems that require people to decide whether or not to give their own money to others because the money WILL be given to someone - so the problem shifts to WHO to give to and away from whether or not to give. That is a fundamental feature of Steem and Steemit since the beginning. The project pool simply leverages this intelligent design in a way that can improve the experience for everyone in a way that everyone has a voice in. There is no overpowering in that, that I am aware of.
This is life. Sorry. But it’s the nature of reality itself. Who owes you a guarantee?
As for many of the other points about top-down power, what kind of platform did you think this was when you got into. It is, has been, and hopefully always will be, a stake-weighted voting platform. Those most invested have the most say. No one is forced to be here.
no-one owes me a guarantee and no-one owes steemit any exciting projects that enhance it's value. ;)
i find it odd that fair exchange is valued in wider society, but not here.
I am not suggesting that stake weighted voting be nullfied. Can you see the interesting interaction between the two quotes here? Stake weighted voting can be dominated (and IS being dominated) so that one party literally gets to decide (via delegation) what is best for all. That person is not me.
The other aspect to consider is that 'Stake' is not just about money - stake is also time and effort, which are typically considered above money in the hierarchy of value used in capitalism. By not respecting time and effort, the productivity drops and ROI drops too.
You wrote in an earlier post of yours:
This decidedly not a Voluntaryist position as it precludes someone from using their property as they wish. If an individual wishes to amass capital via their body and property, that is an entirely legitimate goal, as long as they are not initiating force against anyone else.
The state is what makes trade violent.
It seems we fundamentally disagree.
These “other creatives” you reference can do what the rest of us did, and work. They can also propose helpful changes to the system, and enact those changes. If the democratic process/template in place here results in top witnesses losing funding, so be it, I guess, I just think the attitude of “they don’t deserve so much” entitlement is extremely dangerous to the platform.
It may be true they are “overpaid.” I don’t tend to think so, but it may be true. It’s the attitude I am referencing that I see in so many Steemians. This platform is not a handout center, but a stake-weighted voting platform. If you want more say, increase your stake. I could be wrong, but that’s how I see it, at present.
Voluntaryism requires the ability to volunteer. If all the land is already owned by one person who doesn't want you to volunteer, then what good is your ability to volunteer? The land on earth is currently, as I understand it - majority owned by the Crown Corporation and at the very least is majority owned by a tiny percentage of Earth's population. Balance is missing.
How does someone amass capital reliably without initiating force, when we experience a situation where those with the most capital have already amassed it precisely through force (of state, war and theft) over thousands of years? The current situation is one where massive imbalance already exists and it will not be balanced voluntarily, since those with most of it have no intention of changing the situation in any way at all. Voluntarism holds many answers but it does not address the legacy of massive imbalance as far as I am aware.
how much they 'deserve' is somewhat subjective - but it can be calculated too. my training and skillset is largely in designing systems for business and thus assessing exactly these questions. typically, business systems are designed to serve ONLY 'the elite' and I know for certain that this is the root of much suffering and hardship that I myself have experienced and been put through as a hard worker.
I am a professional software engineer (among other things) - I make software. I, like every other engineer that I am aware of, when asked to make projects for money - do some analysis, give a quote - then start doing a design and then make the solution. I am typically paid as each stage of the process is completed in order to allow me to be supported as I work on the project. In contrast, the current situation with Steem is that new projects are largely carried out in secret, with no community feedback (partially to protect IP rights) and with no payment - which means that the situation on Steem is actually less supportive of creativity currently than traditional capitalist culture is. Steemit Inc. is not funding outside development, to my knowledge. So there is a barrier to the network expanding that can be removed relatively easily. The funds don't NEED to come from witnesses, I am not rabidly attached to that idea at all - it just looks like an ideal candidate. The money could equally come from a reduction in post payout levels, but I think that the numbers involved probably suggest that the witness option makes more sense to me.
I am not 'many steemians'. I did not say anything about handouts. the project pool is for projects, not handouts. currently the stake weighted voting process rewards subjectively valued posts. the idea of also rewarding subjectively valued projects is not a shift in ideology at all, it's just a shift in focus intended to reward creativity and hard work! ;)
The state. Yes, as I said. The state, and not the market, or people with money, is the problem.
Do you honesty believe it is impossible to make money and own property without violating someone?
Your example about someone “already owning all the land” in the real world as a result of state force is not analogous to Steemit. Steemit was started as a risk venture by some individuals and joined consensually by users. No one is forced to be here and being forcibly violated as in your real world example. To compare the two is ridiculous, with all due respect.
That’s excellent that you are a software engineer. I just disagree that the whole blockchain should be forked to accommodate this idea when it could be accomplished by other means as @andrarchy pointed out.
In other words, less begging and more innovation.