I have a different view. As I allude to in this post and explain in more detail in others, there is a VERY powerful reason why the world is centralized. Centralization is A LOT more effective and efficient than decentralization.
However centralization has an "Achiles heel" - it is prone to abuse of power.
Decentralized systems have only become workable recently thanks to blockchain.
However that doesn't by miracle make them more competitive than centralized ones.
People in crypto tend to get over enthusiastic about decentralized systems, whereas their main value, at this point at least, is to keep a check on their "big brothers", the centralised ones. To offer some kind of a "fallback" even if an inferior one.
Cue the "exit" paper above.
One problem with decentralized systems is that they create, from a game theoretical pov a very weak, "dog-eats-dog", "might makes right", jungle type of society.
Have you read Thomas Hobbes? The famous "nasty, brutish and short"?
A "decentralized community" where you make your own rules and decide out of your own accord that my work does not deserve whatever it got is the very nightmare Hobbes is describing. In such a "decentralized community" I can also decide, out of my own accord, that your picture is not worth 45 cents.
This can very fast becomes a very destructive spiral of "downvote and retaliation".
I am fundamentally disagreeing with the (admittedly widespread) view exposed by smooth that steemians should use downvotes when they think a post gets "too much rewards". To me, this is basically the death knell of Steemit as a community blogging platform.
Everybody becomes a "reward vigilante" and shoots-from-the-hip according to his/her own perception of what is fair and what is "too much".
Have you (or @smooth for that matter) thought that $5 does not mean the same to someone living in Switzerland as to someone living in Venezuela? Yet Steemit is a global platform... Should Venezuelans downvote $5 posts because for them, $5 means a month of hard work?
Read also R. Axelrod "The evolution of cooperation" - the "revenge downvoting" is called "tit for that" and is proven to be the most effective tactic at building cooperation in a "repeated prisoner dilemma" setting.
Posted using Partiko Android
Great insights there ;)
Back to my question: Why did you actually downvote my recent post?
To make a point: you can't build or keep a community together if each member of it makes his/her own rules, if each member of it uses it's own "yardstick" to measure what's "fair" and "unfair". If you downvote the post of someone you don't know, not because that person violated some commonly-agreed rules of "fairness" but because he violated YOUR own sovereign (to you) / arbitrary (to everyone else) rules then you should accept that the same thing happens to you. You downvoting my post - you cannot be hold accountable for your action. Same holds for everyone then, including me downvoting your post. Do you see a problem with this ? I do. This leads directly to either the dissolution of the community or to the worst form of organization, the "wolf pack".
Do not downvote unless enforcing clearly stated and commonly agreed rules. Better still if you are a community-designated rule enforcer ("reward police").
As long as there no agreed rules do not downvote of your own accord.
Posted using Partiko Android
Another one thinking there is a police. Reward police is quite an idea.
Go and read the Bluepaper.
Also check out bid bot abuse and revenge voting @steemflagrewards
There is no police. There are no clear "laws". There is no legitimate authority and no accountability. I don't think there should be a reward police. You seem to feel the need for one because you take it upon yourself to police rewards.
What I'm saying (and frankly, I'm just echo-ing Hobbes) is that for as long as there are no commonly agreed rules, it is a very bad idea for each participant to make its own arbitrary rules and start behaving as "the law" or as "the police" - as you did when you downvoted my post.
I have read both the blue paper and the whitepaper which I quote in some of my older posts. I believe there are some good ideas (no transaction fees, a novelty at the time) and some very bad ideas ("even spam is work" - page 15 of the whitepaper)
Posted using Partiko Android