You're asking someone or some people with the power to do so to act on behalf of others, or be given the power by others, whether to re-write the code, whales moderating (what do you mean by that?), the community defining abuse, etc. That's all government. And is this "cost" to bernie due to action or inaction (i.e., everyone ignoring him) by others?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The reason abuse is so blatant on steemit is because the distribution of steem is far too concentrated along with an incentive model that encourages and makes it difficult to counter abuse. So increasing the distribution of steem, particularly with the remit to counter abuse, will almost certainly cause it to decrease. Within the community are hundreds of researcher/curators with integrity. They can be delegated a whale-sized amount of steem and can use that power to stop abusive accounts, for their valuable work, they will receive rewards. If people start to see a balance and feel there is more justice within the system, they will be less likely to censor themselves as is the tendency at the moment. That is governance for the people by the people, not a government based on force.
How exactly is it even possible to not use force to "use that power to stop abusive accounts"? And how can it be assured that that power is not abused?
Those acting on behalf of the community do so transparently and with accountability. There could also be an arbitration component. Using the SP to down vote abuse of the reward pool or mitigate the actions of abusive accounts is the mechanism we are all using right now......are you saying that is force? I don't think it is. it is applying the economic incentive model in a way that has greater consensus and efficiency.
I'll buy that. There is still a potential for the "powers" to raid someone's account as a form of "punishment", on behalf of the community. And that can happen to any one of us. But we just have to trust the ones in power to do the right thing. Just like we do with our civil governments.
But that aside, I wonder what's taking so long for Steemit Inc. to do something about this. Are they applying anarchist principles to an extreme and willing to just let things play out? Or do they not care because Steemit really isn't what they are hanging their hat on because they have bigger and better uses for the blockchain they are hoping to attract? Maybe @dan sees the inherent problems that aren't being dealt with and plans to launch a social media platform that solves the problems and provides a better user experience?
One of the many things I don't understand and maybe you can shed light on this since you've been around longer - how much of this is controlled or influenced by the Witnesses? Do they vote on changes to the code that change the payout algorithm or is that completely controlled by Steemit Inc., which from what I hear 51% owned by @ned? And also how many of the developers making the changes to Steemit are also Witnesses who are also the ones at the top receiving the financial benefits of being a whale and so have little incentive to change what works for them at the expense of the minnows? And who is @freedom who single-handedly puts several witnesses into the top spots making millions annually (potentially)?
All very good questions. I can't answer any of them I'm afraid. There would appear to be a circle jerk of whales, witness and Steemit.inc interests. That would explain most of the lack of positive change.