I've read those previous posts regarding involvement in other blockchains and I think the tribalism is silly. One of the things Steemit really has going for it is its capacity to house information and development of all other blockchains. Facebook and Google and Amazon might compete on some fronts but they work in tandem in others and that makes for a more robust ecosystem. Putting on blinders and swearing loyalty oaths in an emerging sector isn't just silly but also poor self-preservation.
I'm all for non-witness non-Steemit Inc. stakeholders in picking up slack and spearheading what they respectively see as needed in this community. I try to do the same with @voronoi at @sndbox. The biggest obstacle is the lack of connectivity between individual efforts and administrative ones. I give lectures and workshops about Steem in New York and yea, we can tweet and post about it but it doesn't quite accumulate into broader publicity and education. We've also found that it reflects poorly on Steemit Inc. when we do major projects/activities and there isn't at least some degree of involvement from the top. The same goes for your talk and @stephenkendal's booths or @dlive's meetups. It often feels like a 1+1+1+1 = 0.5 type of situation as a grassroots momentum of activity doesn't resonate at the top and there isn't any structured mechanism for the top to leverage the groundswell of efforts. It should be a 1+1+1+1 = 20 type of momentum but individual efforts are drowned out by the next batch of bid-botted posts and just passed over by time in general.
Maybe there can be an endorsed account dedicated to publicity? Maybe some type of formal curation/resteeming by Steemit Inc.? Some way to accumulate the diverse activities of Steemians in a cohesive dialogue and archive that is also pushed by the team high above would be incredible.
Lots of good points here. I wonder sometimes if we're just going through a transition where people need to hear from a "representative" of an organization or they want to hear a company title or some form of "authority" they can trust instead of just a bunch of random people doing awesome stuff in a meritocracy (or, at least, an attempt at one) where value speaks for itself.
Meh, I don't think you can have it both ways - an infrastructure that supposedly relies on the autonomous workings of dedicated, decentralized individuals and at the same time have a governing organization that is largely indifferent and unable to leverage the cumulative momentum of said network.
But I guess we'll see where we end up.