Shouldn't our upvote VALUE be mostly based on our reputation which is mostly already based on the votes we get from each other already which means agreed upon VALUE and is that not what the free market is all about and is that not how the law of supply and demand works, right?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The current system is broke. Anyone with enough money can become a whale on steemit today. Using reputation alone is another manipulated system due to popularity getting you upvotes and not your content.
A teared system based on reputation + time on steemit with a maximum bid amount that has to be maintained if you want to keep its highest value ( if you step away from steemit for a large amount of time your upvote begins to decrease in value ) may be a better system.
One upvote from anyone should not be worth 100's of individual upvotes regardless of the amount of steemit or reputation of the poster giving the one vote.
How is money broken? How is the art of having more money in order to become a whale on Steemit than a broken and manipulated thing? If you worked very hard to make a lot of money for many years, do you want to be disallowed from one of the best investments ever? Are you really against how capitalism works? When you limit the ability to buy value, which includes the value of being a whale, then you may be limiting the integrity maybe of the path and competition and the desire for more value and more maybe. Do you want to maybe try too hard for the art of the Redistribution of Wealth, Value, of Equality, for money, for people, which was promoted by Obama, Freud, Hitler, and seen in Socialism, Communism, Stalinism, Marxism, Leninism, etc, right?
Money isn't broken. The system here on steemit is. One vote should not be worth more then hundreds of others regardless of how much money each member voting has.
A poor man can recognize good content just as a rich man can. Not everyone that has money worked hard for it. Not everyone that has no money is lazy. Hard work does not always prosper.
Why should I work hard to be rich if I can do everything that a poor man can do? If a poor man can do everything that a rich man can do, then is that poor man also motivated to become rich if there is no incentive and motivation and bonus and more that the poor person does not already have like maybe more voting power and stuff? If there is no expansion in voting power, then why and how can people be encouraged to invest in like the stocks or bonds or SP of the Steem network? You said that hard work does not always prosper? So, does that mean we should do the opposite of hard work because of the element of risk and unpredictability in life? By the way, some bots think I am spam and they are down voting me.
You are misunderstanding what I am saying.
I never said a poor man can do everything a rich man can. I said a poor man can recognize good content the same as a rich man can. A rich mans vote should not be worth more then 100's of other votes.
I never said to take away incentive to buy in. What I am purposing is a lower valued max upvote so one upvote doesn't equal as much as hundreds of other members upvotes combined.
I see the current system to be having a negative impact of the growth of this platform.
It wasn't me that downvoted you. I don't downvote.
A max is very sad and depressing. How is that not like a big tax or limit? A big ceiling or limit in profits, in growth, a max upvote, is something that makes me invest less time and money, hypothetically, into Steemit. I cannot fully commit to something like Steemit if it is limited. When you limit a max upvote, you limit the incentive to put more time and money into a game like Steemit that has a final level. Think of Steemit like a video game. Once you get to the max upvote ability, then what is the point of trying harder and better to do more or to invest more or whatever? How is this not similar enough to socialism, communism, etc? You can say it is kind of different but not different enough. You can say it is fair, but fair for who? Does a max make people try hard enough to compete hard enough and more and more if we are all the same in the upvote or in the max upvote available for some and yet we are not all the same and yet we are all supposed to be limited to the same upvote max even if some are smarter and better than others? I believe some people are smarter and better and deserve unlimited power and upvote weight. I believe in unlimited free markets, capitalism, competition, which means chaos sometimes but that is how innovation works.
The game doesn't end when you hit the max vote. The more good content you put out the more upvotes you get. That's the game of steemit.
So putting a max upvote on upvotes does not limit your earning potential. As you can still earn unlimited amount of upvotes. What it does is spread the power more fairly across to everyone.