Stakeholders can do anything they want with their stake. Stakeholders who disapprove can oppose them. And stakeholders who oppose that, can oppose that. And so on.
It all boils down to who is willing to stick to the drama the longest and match it with their stake.
I don't see how this dooms the platform. In fact, I see it as an avenue of possible growth.
Stakeholders can disapprove and oppose another stakeholder smaller than them. But who does in this case?
Imagine if Facebook had a massive stake holder who went around harassing users with accusations and name calling. Imagine if mark zuckerberg just said "I don't see a problem with this... Stakeholders first"
@ned & @sneak will see their users ran off the platform before they realise what gives their token value.
Not my point.
Ignore the meth rat.
Your point (I'm not entirely sure) was we could find people actually buying SP in order to have enough power to oppose the views or behaviours of another. We had one whale who entered on that premise. He left within 2 months having solved nothing. Majority of people powering up are not getting involved in the drama at all. Majority getting targeted are powering down. So sorry I failed to see your point the first time (if I have it right)
Right. We should not implement ideas that undermine SP.
If a stakeholder acts a certain way, the solution is not to set an influence cap and single them out because that undermines SP.
Allowing smaller stakeholders to have a greater influence than larger ones is a functional influence cap.
Influence caps will doom the platform.
But what that means is @techslut is right. The best thing for us minnows and even dolphins to do is power down and leave you to your shitcoins.
I guess if that's what it takes. But you're welcome back anytime as far as I'm concerned.
Let's be frank inertia, what's clear to those of us who express that what's going on here is wrong is that we are not welcome. The stake holders all indirectly pay this guy to harass people and chase them off the platform. It is literally endorsed by steem. The rest of the minnows are only motivated by what the stake holders are offering.
What happened Facebook when they started favouring their stake holders over user satisfaction? What happened to Digg? And where do you think they get their value? The only reason Facebook survived the way it started favouring business over people is because it already had the world. We on the other hand are still a very niche community. If you think steem can survive without its ordinary non investing users then I think you're confusing this with something other than a social network.