Earlier I posted an article in which I talked about my experiences on Steemit so far and showed some of the great ideas and iniatives being made within the Steemit community. I also did an item on how the idea behind Steemit could be a revolutionary change in social media (link here). And have really enjoyed my brief time being here so far as a part of this community. But fair's fair, not all is perfect and that's why today I want to address some of the more critical points concerning Steemit.
Let's Get Serious
By no means am I implying that any of the next points I'll be addressing are by definition all wrongdoings. However I do believe they need some pressing attention and be openly discussed as they have a great impact on how the platform operates. I am therefore eager to hear your thoughts and opinions on this matter!
Wealth Distribution
Not too long ago I read a post from @aggroed where he stated how just a small hand of people owns more than 90% of the Steem currency, and how this is a serious concern. Essentially they are owning Steemit as they contain a considerable portion of the wealth distribution. Holding nearly all of the SP (Steem Power) deciding who gets a share of the money, a reward for their efforts, is made at the hand of their votes. Which leaves to the question, is this fair?
Now I don't want to say we need to redistribute the money. The people who have invested in Steem or spend a lot of time on the platform coming this far, should have a right to keep their earnings. As that may be, the system that manages the Steemit platform requires an indepth analysis on its behaviour.
A True Democracy
In a true democracy every vote should have the same weight, unless one has more knowledge on a particular subject than the other. But our all to familiar business model decides those votes by wealth, whoever has the most, acquires the most authority. We've been long enough in this endless circle in which the rich maintain power, don't you think? That's what we are here for right? Steemit to be a democractic business model where we reward people based on their actions, intentions, and their creativity.
Now there wouldn't be an issue if it were the fact that the small minority owning all this power, were to use it for everyone's benefit. But how often does that happen? Of course there are some amazing fellows out there, wanting to help this platform grow into a great place for all of us, to share our ideas, and make some money out of it while doing so. But what about those that see it as a pure profit-machine?
What happens if some rich individual, or perhaps a government, decides to hire some individuals all giving them a great amount of Steem in the form of SP. And they start to promote certain content to their likings, of vicious means, steering people to write for their approval. If the amount they invest is high enough. How are we to stop them from this occurrence finding place? Destroying the democracy, we all so greatly been yearning for.
Bots and Curation
Voting bots, being heavily discussed on the platform whether its applications are for the greater good or are plague upon the Steemit community itself. Two of the greatest resources currently available to the public being Steemvoter and Streemian.
Steemvoter being used to automatically upvote whenever a certain author uploads a post. Streemian being used to automatically upvote a curator's upvoted post.
These have some great benefits like the minnowsupportproject and @curie who help out newcomers to be seen and rewarded for their efforts. However, because those bots don't require the content to be seen before upvoted, it begs to question how much content actually gets rewarded on their efforts. It seems to have become a normality for known authors to gain tens upon hundreds of upvotes with just a few views of the actual post itself, also being known as the phenonemon called circle jerk.
The thing is, authors who get recognized by a whale (one with a lot of Steem!) often become auto upvoted or manually backed up on each continuous article they write. If they were to eventually start writing crappy/of low content, they would most likely be removed from their list at some point. However it does mean that every article is treated the same, and once backed up, automatically gets attention. Leaving a hard time for those that don't get backed up by a whale. This also means that if 100 people really like an article but have no SP whatsoever they are neglectable compared to someone with an exceptional amount of SP. Aren't the likings of those 100 supposed to be worth more than of one individual?
So what now?
Steemit is still fairly new and in its developing stages, the foundation is build, the vision is clear, but it still has many flaws. Maybe SP itself needs to be totally revamped, for example making the reputation score giving an increase in the worth of vote power. Perhaps decrease the amount of vote power gained the higher your amount of SP gets. Maybe implement some rule where the amount of upvotes have a greater influence compared to a single one. Whatever it is we decide, it needs to be continually and openly debated in public. We all want the same thing right? To bring forth a peaceful place where we can be rewarded for our activities.
I believe you are mistaken to assume that democracy is necessarily a good outcome for the platform. Why would you think one person and one vote is the right answer for a commercial enterprise?
Some folks have literally invested many millions of $$ and some people have invested nothing - other than perhaps some time to write a few posts.
I'm just a minnow. I've only been on the platform for two weeks. But I realize I don't have any right or even any reasonable expectation that my vote should count the same as someone that has been here for a year or longer and/or has millions of $$ invested.
In my opinion, expecting one person one vote for a commercial enterprise is naive, and would in fact produce a very bad outcome for STEEM.
I have much more confidence in current mode of operation where whales opinions count more, we know who the whales are, and the path to grow from minnow to whale is reasonably well defined. There are in fact multiple ways to grow from minnow to whale. If you are not a whale, that just means you haven't followed one of the paths to get there - so you don't deserve to be a whale. Yet.
I'd bail out if this platform was really one person one vote, without regard to time, effort and total effective $$ that each individual has invested in the platform.
STEEM On !!
Dave
I never said whales are by definition all what is wrong with the platform, but you can't deny the fact that their power is what currently steers the platform, they decide who gets rewarded and noticed. Yes they should probably have a bigger say for investing/spending time but how big should this scale be? I never said giving everyone the same vote would be the ultimate solution. Maybe a mix from things like SP, amount of votes and reputation. Maybe something entirely different, but seeing how some get huge rewards for little efforts just because they are continiously backed up by a rich guy, isn't that what brings forth wrong motivations? Like the example I made with a government, if some gov decides to use Steemit as a propaganda tool it would be quite affordable with just an investment of a few million dollars.
click here!This post received a 1.0% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @droucil! For more information,
Totally ok with you. Hard for small people to grow even if its possible its very long, and i saw some really good post not upvoted even if it was better than a lot of posts, just because the author has low power.
Biggest issue I see is the same authors keep getting upvoted by whales. I'v seen new authors that had a few good posts and got rewarded for it, to later on write a few lesser articles but still gaining high-paid upvotes.
Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by Droucil from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the
If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.
I'm very new to steemit and had somewhat similar reservations / concerns. However, I was more worried about "quality content" vs "the rich getting richer". I guess it all depends on what you want. Worst case scenario steemit will become a self-sustainable framework where people can exchange value. Best case, that exchange of value will be linked to quality and intrinsic value - and I am hopeful that not only there will be quality content, but in time a structure, so we can start creating cumulative value. The digital diarrhoea is not the most efficient use of our mental resources... Imagine a steemit-wikipedia hybrid where continuous addition and curation deepens / improves / continues a story / the content...
I don't see it become self-centered because if that were to happen the platform would lose its confidence by its users and stop existing. The quality content on the other hand.. The way I see it working right now there are some great iniatives out there, but even so, rich people on this platform have to big of a say. I hope that one day this platform will grow into this more structured, organized being. Also making it easier to find the quality content instead of how it works right now by simply getting a high-paid upvote.
I've been thinking a lot about this lately as well. I will share a post with some potential solutions sometime in the next day or two.
The more it gets discussed the better, and by elaborating our ideas we can (hopefully) bring forth a great platform for all of us to be on :)!
Yes. As long as we all put our minds together and think of the benefit of the entire platform we will be able to give the witnesses feedback and recommendations for what should be done.
I joined about 3 days ago and this thought came across my mind, Is Steemit no different then the bankers controlling every thing in the world, I'm also seeing some other country's with a lower currency level teaming up in here up voting each other and they have a big following. Just for thoughtHi @droucil I'm new to Steemit
hello, and welcome to Steemit :) Yes it concerns me as well, and it can be very frustrating seeing the same people upvoted just because their personalities or nationalities are liked, rather than the content itself. Luckily we have some great whales out there too, with projects like whaleshares, minnowsupport project, curie, and many many more!
meh....that's a reach. how do you expect an "open" platform to be anything other than the manifestation of popular interest...
I personally do not believe in using bots
to curate - I am selfish that way. I DO wish to see everything and judge its merit myself...xoxoxo. I am switching from basic minnow into dolphin mode now, which, as suggested by @thecryptofiend, requires a switch from massive posting to massive curation. The birth of Poetry Dice 3000 and the One Human Basket movement is my conduit for doing so. :-) Cheers! I value you, fellow steemian. Thanks for your contribution to the community!
I curate #poetry and posts with the tag #onehumanbasket
Find out more in the NEW Poetry Dice Challenge
Bots have its up and down sides, I personally do use it partly. But I do have sincere respect for people like you. Especially with a project like #onehumanbasket giving manual curation for poetry, that's just awesome! :) And Congrats on becoming a dolphin :D!
You honor me with your compliment - thank you @droucil. You make it all worth it. 🌈