RE: Sad, but not yet defeated.

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Sad, but not yet defeated.

dreemsteem in #hardfork • 5 years ago

Ive got an idea.

why don't investors invest.

why don't curators curate.

the problem is - investors are seeing a quick way to make a buck by putting up any old post and self-voting (or - having a fellow whale vote) THAT is not curation. THAT is skimming off the top and HURTING the blockchain.

Why don't we differentiate between investors and curators. they are in fact NOT the same.

An investor would be better served to STOP taking funds inapprorpriately and simple DELEGATING their massive power to places like Curie. who actually DO curate.

That way - the people who want to spend TIME on here making it better - can do so.

and the people that are here to make money - can NOT bother spending time here (hurting it!!!) and TRUST their power to entities that will actually MAKE them money the right way (and... lo and behold - help PROTECT their investment by making the whole place grow!!!)

and your "something is better than nothing" is incorrect. You have chosen to give your content away for free - and that is your own choice on your blog. You do still have the option of doing that here too. You can always decline payout.

The point is - just because you have given it away for free - DOES NOT MEAN that it isn't worth more.

The DRAW to Steemit was not just "hey we are another blog that you can post your stuff on" The draw to Steemit was - we are that - PLUS you can earn money! Look at all the ads for Steemit made by Steemians. THATS the first thing they push. that you can EARN.

so we can't now go... oh.. well, gee. I mean - I guess we can go back to giving it away for less and less - cuz, well - they're gonna change the rules on us.

The people who came here with money as part of the equation CANNOT HELP but look at a 42% (not 33 - but actually 42 with the WHOLE hardfork proposal) salary cut as a very serious attack on content creators.

not just an attack - but a bonus for INVESTORS.

I'm also open to experiments (70/30 can give us a good, safe starting point!) - but not ones where the big guys have nothing to lose , and we screw all the little guys in the process. That's shooting ourselves in the foot. again. and again. and again. and again.

tired of it, anyone else???

p.s. Steem will continue to not be an attractive investment if everyone leaves.

5 years ago in #hardfork by dreemsteem

0.00 BPC

Sort:

Trending

[-]

ura-soul 5 years ago

Why don't we differentiate between investors and curators. they are in fact NOT the same.

Well, they both invest their resources into the platform, whether that be time or money. They are both vested in seeing returns too. My understanding is that part of the intention of increasing curation rewards is to increase the chance that investors will curate.

An investor would be better served to STOP taking funds inapprorpriately and simple DELEGATING their massive power to places like Curie. who actually DO curate.

They would only be financially motivated to do that if curation rewards are significantly higher than they are, I think.

lo and behold - help PROTECT their investment by making the whole place grow!!!

Generally, from what I have seen, many of the 'investors' are not really behind the success of the platform from an ideological perspective or even a geeky tech perspective - they are generally interested in gains, short term if possible. I agree that investors should be thinking longer term - HOWEVER, if the development of the platform doesn't shore up their belief in it's long term viability, they will be thinking short term only.

The point is - just because you have given it away for free - DOES NOT MEAN that it isn't worth more.

Sure, yes - but something is still better than nothing.

The DRAW to Steemit was not just "hey we are another blog that you can post your stuff on" The draw to Steemit was - we are that - PLUS you can earn money! Look at all the ads for Steemit made by Steemians. THATS the first thing they push. that you can EARN.

There is nothing at all to earn without investors providing that money - that's just how it works. There needs to be a balance and since there is no Steem without investment, arguably the investors need to be given higher priority than the authors in some way. I didn't think like this at all when I joined here, but once I understood how the maths works a bit better this became undeniable. Authors will always be here as long as they can get paid - which they will do, as long as investors are here. If another platform figures out how to pay authors and attract investors better, then people will go there, so far I haven't seen that happen - probably partially because it's not a simple goal to achieve by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as the issue of the large stake holders having an advantage - they always have done - it has never been any different. The aim then needs to be to find ways to shift things around so that that inherent imbalance doesn't totally break proof of brain - which it has so far.

0.00 BPC

[-]

dreemsteem 5 years ago

You will do fine on the new proposal. You have no problems with accepting anything they give because you see anything as a bonus. Thats what they want you believe - and - it's worked. I don't have a problem at all with you holding this mentality. I just value my work more.

I think that if investors have come here thinking that they have a sure investment on their hands.... they came in with the wrong mentality.

Investors invest money.

Curators invest time.

when you have an investor that is investing their time to properly curate - then you can call him/her a curator. When you have an investor that is self-voting their own trash post just to make money - that is not curation. that is breaking down the foundation of the system that they want to make money on.

The large stake holders do have an advantage - and that has always been the case.

Now you - are in essence - saying - "give more of my rewards to them to make them happy. Not just my rewards - give more of EVERYONE'S rewards to make them happy."

ok - i mean. If steemit can find enough people like you to stay and be happy with that - great - you're happy making less - they're happy making more - and you're actually thankful for the opportunity to give more.

You are exactly the type of Steemian that they hope will stay. And if there are enough of you that will give up your rewards to make the investors happy - this will be the most brilliant plan ever.

Not much else to say to that mindset LOL except... good luck to you! :)

0.00 BPC

[-]

ura-soul 5 years ago

You are skipping over the mathematical reality here. There is nothing to give anyone without the presence of 'investors', period. If a service on Steem doesn't bring in investors then it is basically just something that causes the value of Steem to drop - there is no way around that. This is part of the understanding behind @oracle-d for example and why @ned stated that he wants more platforms to think in that way (and why Oracle D has a 2 million delegation).

You have no problems with accepting anything they give because you see anything as a bonus. Thats what they want you believe

Erm.. I don't really believe anything - I am speaking from the experience of 12+ years of content creation. Sure, I am here to receive rewards and I am also here because the system is uncensored (relatively). I am currently of the understanding that I stand to earn more and the platform stands to grow more as a result of the price of Steem going up, which could possibly be more likely to occur if curation payouts are increased. Maybe not, I don't know for sure. I am not in some kind of battle here - this is all an experiment. My own content is of the kind that is intended to help the world - I don't really need to be paid for it, but I do appreciate when I am.

I think that if investors have come here thinking that they have a sure investment on their hands.... they came in with the wrong mentality.

Sure, but they are going to do whatever they can to maximise their returns.

Now you - are in essence - saying - "give more of my rewards to them to make them happy. Not just my rewards - give more of EVERYONE'S rewards to make them happy."

No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that they will find ways to extract the money regardless of the split of rewards.

If I make less money then I could do more curation. Do I have time for that? Not really at the moment. However, if curation does become as much of a rewarding process as authoring, then maybe I would make more time for it - which should really help the platform grow.

0.00 BPC