One vote per person wouldn't encourage people to buy steem. Steem has no value then. The more steem you have the more votes you have. This is totally fair.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
One vote per person wouldn't encourage people to buy steem. Steem has no value then. The more steem you have the more votes you have. This is totally fair.
People fail to understand that the voting system in Steem is like that of a publicly listed corporation. Vote power is based on stake in the platform.
If the 3000 content providers have no stake in the platform, then why would removing all of them cause the entire system to collapse. The system is dependent on them. How is that not a stake?
No, actually, that is a very common misunderstanding. The system depends on investors. Without them there is nothing to redistribute. The free stake you get when you start, gives you nearly no voting power. You have to either invest money, or quality capital, ie, articles that get votes, or you are a zero, and rightly so.
The issues that Steem faces at the moment is that investors can game the curation rewards system, and there is a remaining, serious means by which those with a big stake can harass smaller users, both potentially very serious problems, one we already are seeing, and the second given time will become a serious problem. Dan, one of the devs, hasn't looked at cases where this has happened, but I was directly involved in such a situation. Come to think of it, I haven't seen the whale that did that to me since.
My article, https://steemit.com/ascensionteam/@l0k1/steem-is-not-a-blogging-platform-steem-is-an-ad-hoc-public-and-transparent-corporation-let-me-explain lays it out pretty clearly, exactly what this platform is. This 3000 hypothetical users with no stake they are risking, risk nothing by leaving, and damage the system in no way by leaving either. If they have vote-worthy content, they already have raised their vested SP, and are no longer plankton.
While non-steem related posts are more marginal in their value, they don't entirely not matter either. People want to read good stuff, and people with big vests (whales, dolphins) vote up good stuff because when joe sixpack shows up to read, there's something interesting there. It is not everything, but the more plankon, the greater the chances there is minnows, and amongst the minnows, there is dolphins, and if the user sticks around and keeps up the good work, they could become a whale just backed mainly by their excellent writing skills and ability to predict (or luck, maybe) what subjects may be of the kind of vote-attracting interest that keeps them being able to work as a writer instead of getting a regular job.
But ultimately, the core elements are that people will, in some way, with their posts, induce people to vest assets in the system, and use the forum to discuss the projects that they are involved with, that are profitable, and will be a target location for part of their long term investment or short term banking solution, for their activities.
All of the above concerns are part of the whole picture. People who just watch, don't need to even sign up. The blockchain is public and so is the website, currently the main interface. Steem is not about the consumers, it's about the producers. It's up to those who want to participate, to find ways to turn their interests into something that either wins votes, engenders profitable business that invests in Steem as part of its business model, or more centrally, participates in the central building of the platform's facilities for users, which is another type of value-add.
Steem is not meant to just be a blogging platform, or just a cryptocurrency, but something that blends both together. Its success will entirely, ultimately, depend on who joins, and what they do, that brings more money into invest in the enterprises that users create with its help.
If you were to invest in a company like Apple and buy a share at $100 (rounded) you are important to apple. If just you left, yes there would not be a big goodbye party, but if everyone who had invested $100 left, now Apple has a giant problem. They have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in them by people with a share or less. But you as a holder of one share is not that big in comparison to 100,000 shares. Unlike investing though, you have the ability to make an incredible amount on $0 invested. But yes the system would take a nosedive if many users decided to just leave. So yes every minnow to every whale is invested, but not equally and that would prevent any investment in the platform at all.
There are no investors @loki unless you think buying power ups in Second Life is investing in it.
@dana-edwards
That's a little silly, second life has nothing to do with steem especially in the stake weighting system for votes.
Investors are investing in both the assets built into steem and also into the incentives for quality articles, and curation. And I think that it should be pretty clear by now that groups are on the agenda of the developers now, since I have given a clear illustration of how it helps defuse the problem of centralisation of attention in the trending and hot feeds, and would allow users to specialise in subject areas.