I'd rather have the current system than some committee of administrators. One of Steem's strengths and most interesting features is its decentralization not only of the network, but in stake-based voting and reward influence.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'd rather the flag be done away with. A flag is supposed to mark something so that someone can later come and review it, that doesn't happen.
Rather than flags, it should be the community that decide whether a post is valuable. If the accumulative weight of downvotes outweighs that of the upvotes, then the post should be made invisible. But, no payout or reputation should be effected until the payout cycle ends and some sort of calculation is done based on the communities upvotes/downvotes.
I also feel that while payout should be tied to STEEM Power, this particular sort of thing should be tied to Reputation.
The problem or lack thereof (with the system), IMO, is one of whether it can or can't be "gamified".
Currently, the system is set up where, if a single user has enough SP, he/she can essentially shut down Steemit. Imagine if Bill Gates were to drop 0.1% of his wealth (somewhere around $50 million) into SP, what he could do (censor) with that amount of power. He could essentially quiet the voice of all the Steemit community by voting down posts with several 10 million+ SP sock puppet accounts, or by simply down-voting at X% voting weight with a single account.
All it currently takes to kill Steemit's chance of success is a single, wealthy, "mal-intent". I can just see Mark Zuckerberg waiting to time his entrance. With just a drop in the bucket for Mr. Zuckerberg (a few tens of millions of dollars), he can almost guarantee the failure of one of his potential, up-and-comer, competitors.
Ok, but that's speculation. Let's deal with reality until it changes.
Why not calibrate the system to negate that possibility before it ever becomes a real problem?
Because the current system works with the current environment. If the environment changes the system can choose to adapt. That may sound reactionary rather than proactive but it's better to be so when proactively changing for something that may never come would reduce the utility and openness of the blockchain.
[nested reply]
Hmm.
Still speculation, but what if the future environment doesn't allow for the necessary adaptions?
I say make it code that no dictators can come into existence, before it's too late, but perhaps I'm too myopic regarding how the system really works and what kind of power SP really provides. I'm envisioning a total take-over of witness positions through sock puppet accounts and, therefore, total control over if/ how the platform adapts.
Am I way out in left field?
I see your point of view a little better now but I still maintain that the way upvoting and downvoting works now is preferable to compromising it for a far-off potential scenario.