You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: My Newsteem Economic Philosophy Freewrite

in #newsteem5 years ago

I agree with some things you said, but in many cases, you jump to conclusions that I would not have, and in others you simply declare something to be true, and then use that "truth" to build your case.

"without the unsung heroes fighting abuse on this blockchain, the reward pool for honest authors and curators here would be complete shit, because the exploiters would take over"

If that is true (you say it as though it is), then that shows how fragile this blockchain's code really is. If it takes a secret team of "heroes" fighting bad guys and spammers behind the scenes, just to keep the place from falling to complete shit, is it really decentralized? Sounds to me like there's a small group of people deciding what's acceptable and what's not. A bit like vigilantes. Let me guess, most of these people have massive amounts of STEEM, in other words, are untouchable whales and insiders?

Like I said, you say many things I agree with. It's just the stuff that clearly comes from out of nowhere and you just say it like it's a foregone conclusion, like "The only way to fight this is..." That's dangerous talk. I hope you recognize that.

Lastly, if all that you say here is true, why is it not mentioned anywhere in the official descriptions of this site/chain? Not mentioned in the white paper, not mentioned in any rules, or guidelines, or anything official? Why are these unspoken but extremely important new rules, laws even, coming to us from random members of the community? If this is true, it needs to be codified and posted for all to see, not dragged out by vigilantes looking to justify their NewSteem behaviours.

Sort:  

Lastly, if all that you say here is true, why is it not mentioned anywhere in the official descriptions of this site/chain? Not mentioned in the white paper, not mentioned in any rules, or guidelines, or anything official?

Did you read the whitepaper? It makes it pretty clear how the voting is intended to work to distribute the reward pool, why downvotes are necessary in this concept, and what's considered abuse.

Of course I have, several times over the years, not that it was ever updated.
The issue is that "rules" are appearing in places they shouldn't, like this post, and the NewSteem vigilantes are all quick to back each other up and enforce these rules with their huge stakes... but I'm saying that if these truly are rules/laws, they MUST be written down somewhere official. Much of what is being said here in this post is NOT in the official source of rules/laws/guidelines for this blockchain. (Otherwise, this post would be spam, and definitely not worth $20+, if it's just restating what is already common knowledge!)
If these concepts really are laws of the land, let's write them down, and live under rule of law. Making up new rules as they (mainly unelected insiders and whales) go along is NOT acceptable to me and shouldn't be to anyone who values decentralization.

Not sure what you refer to. He's not talking about a secret team of vigilantes, but generally of people who use their downvotes against colluding groups and defective voters, who don't use their stake to evaluate content but to maximize their own rewards. That aligns completely with the whitepaper, which explains that downvotes are the only way to fight these behaviours.
It's obviously not common knowledge that the reward pool is not thought to provide a maximum apr to investors. I recently had a discussion where one of them told me that voting is a form of tipping.
If these people would have read and understood the whitepaper, and would act according to it, all of this wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately it is.

Otherwise, this post would be spam, and definitely not worth $20+, if it's just restating what is already common knowledge!

The governance of the reward pool is decentralized. You can disagree, but my opinion isn't spam. I have been supportive of you and your initiatives, but now you're just insulting me. I value dissenting opinions, but you are just behaving like a jackass now. Downvote it if you don't like the rewards. It has already been nuked by $20 in downvotes and low and behold, the calvary came. Why do you suppose that is?

And you wonder and whine about why your support and engagement here is like pissing up a tree. We're done.

just to keep the place from falling to complete shit, is it really decentralized?

Yes, that's the point. There's game theory at play here. That's called decentralized governance.

Sounds to me like there's a small group of people deciding what's acceptable and what's not. A bit like vigilantes.

It's small because most people don't get involved with governance and fighting abuse.

Let me guess, most of these people have massive amounts of STEEM, in other words, are untouchable whales and insiders?

Nobody is untouchable, ask haejin.

It's just the stuff that clearly comes from out of nowhere and you just say it like it's a foregone conclusion, like "The only way to fight this is...

I am one stakeholder getting involved with governance stating my opinion, as is my right. You can disagree, and have your own opinion that's fine.

why is it not mentioned anywhere in the official descriptions of this site/chain? Not mentioned in the white paper, not mentioned in any rules, or guidelines, or anything official?

Here we again, another person appealing for centralized governance. Do I need to explain again that the governance is decentralized? People will disagree and express it with votes. If that is too messy for you, too bad, downvotes are a central feature of this blockchain.