The shitting on the street example might have been a bit extreme, but it's true. We can't expect people to behave the way we want them to, if we don't give them the right incentives.
When it comes to the decision, I will be all in favour of a higher curation reward and seperate downvote pool. Now, I'm pretty sure that these things probably need tweaking, but the current economic system doesn't work. And we can't force people to behave a certain way, if the rewards don't align.
The majority of people will always have their own self interest at heart to an extent. If people get rewarded for being selfish we can't be surprised when they become selfish.
If it pays to be selfless then it's a win win on both sides. The question is how to get that balance right.
Life rewards the selfish animals. Why try to go against nature?
People are going to look after their own best interest as expected. That's not a good argument for why Steem isn't working. Just like mining only works because miners are selfish.
But for the long term future of the platform we will either need more people to be successful or STEEM to be more valuable. People will always be out for themselves but if we can align it to the benefit of everybody then it would be a better system.
It's not sustainable for just the 1% to be earning from it, that's why people are pushing for a different system in the first place.
A downvote pool would require significant development resources and is also the most controversial change. I'm not for a downvote pool.
you need to join the slack chat, i think ned was asking for you at some point
they're talking about giving everyone 100% free downvotes, meaning as much free downvotes to a stakeholder as their upvotes
I'm trying to push back, I support better downvote incentives but that's such an extreme change. I think almost all of the witnesses are in favor of it and i'm losing ground
Check out the table here https://steemit.com/witness-category/@cervantes/witness-consensus-status-to-fix-the-actual-steem-s-economic-flows-eng
And one of my replies https://steemit.com/witness-category/@trafalgar/re-smooth-re-trafalgar-re-cervantes-witness-consensus-status-to-fix-the-actual-steem-s-economic-flows-eng-20181028t032506881z
smooth is probably one of the ones who are more receptive to my ideas than any of the others too
Nothing quite like watching our ceo jump the shark,...
"The shitting on the street example might have been a bit extreme, but it's true."
No, it's not "a bit extreme", because the author of the blog post used the "public" word, not the "streets".
That doesn't necessarily mean "streets". In fact, it could also easily mean Steemit.
When people are commenting a spam-like comment under other people's posts, and self-upvote that comment instead of the original blog post, and with more amount than the pending payout of the original blog post have, then that is equal to "taking a shit in public" in my opinion.
A lot of people are too greedy and too selfish on Steemit.
Well said.
With SMTs we might be able to put our own rules that could be our salvation. But I am not sure how it works with how much Steempower you need to create many tokens. If people need a lot of SP to create tokens then it sucks if they have to buy Steem with the current economics.