Agree with most of your comments here. A lot of things have been tried and not removed when they didn't result in any appreciable improvement. For example, the harsh and long reverse auction was added to discourage bot voting, yet we still have a significant amount of bot voting. The cut from 50% to 25% was intended to reduce the concentration of curation rewards going to the largest stakeholders but it was actually counterproductive (reduced curation incentives for the smallest stakeholders the most, and also starved good curation of resources). Etc. And too many things at once is an excellent, excellent point, one which has been repeatedly made every time a pork-laden hard fork has been proposed, only to repeatedly let it go through "one last time".
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'd like to see more frequent but smaller forks until we get out of beta so we can truly track which changes are causing what result. Or at least have a BETTER chance of tracking that.
Almost every issues with steem comes from the huge disparity in power, a lot of feature have been built to mitigate this but they create even more issue. Why not just solve the power distribution problem at the root? Pretty much all the curation rewards problems are cause by this influence disparity and many other stuff like no voting on comments,bots domination,scalability,user experience,etc...