Please don’t start with constitutions. You sound like politicians. Let’s keep it like it is, everyone does what he wants with his stake.
Posted using Partiko iOS
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Please don’t start with constitutions. You sound like politicians. Let’s keep it like it is, everyone does what he wants with his stake.
Posted using Partiko iOS
That's what you have on Steem right now. If you're happy with the status quo here, then nothing needs to change (nor will it).
If the word constitution is a trigger, use "member terms" or something else. Without some shared foundational concepts (such as property rights), then there's no way to say what is "good" or "bad" which means there's nothing which is wrong that the code allows. It means all expectations of wrong doing are void of any substance so any frustration about (for example) a single person via a single entity using their stake to vote out all the witnesses and vote in their own witnesses to push through a code change the community does not support would not be something we could do anything about. If, on the other hand, the agreed terms prevented such action, then there could be safeguards to prevent it and action steps to revert this type of attack if it were attempted (as an example).
Yes every action allowed by the code should be allowed. There is no good or bad.
Making a constitution or a set of rules that controls steemit’s big stake will allow the second biggest stake to be in controle (freedom or someone else).
Unfortunately wealth tends to always distribute in an unequal manner (top 1% will always have a disproportionally large stake). Check the litterature on this subject if it doesn’t seem intuitive.
In order to be protected from whales that can centralize the system, the only way is to have the biggest whale as a “good” whale. I think that ned being that whale is the best thing for steem. Would hate steem to be centralized by a random anonymous person.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Besides, every constitution or set of rules is created with good intentions. But then positions of power change (new witnesses etc...) and one witness greedy for power can use those rules as influence (or maybe create new rules on top of them that are favorable to him).
Slowly but surely you end up having a democracy. I think the way to go is a dictatorship, and hope for a good dictator. Ned is a good enough dictator, even though his progress is slow, he never abuses of his power.
Posted using Partiko iOS
We must assume that the bigger one's stake the bigger the motivation to see the project succeed. Such motivations should push forward positive development; which by and large has been my observation since registering on the blockchain.