10000 people giving one entity their money is what you'd consider decentralized?
You have worded this sentence in a confusing way that poorly describes what is actually taking place. They do not give their money to a single entity, they delegate their voting authority of their Steem Power, which is an extremely innovative feature of Steem, delegating this network influence to a single entity while completely controlling their powered up STEEM within their account.
All 10,000 delegators can undelegate any time they find that the entity is acting questionably. How can you possibly think that is not decentralization?
Did the bidbot people pay you speak this nonsense you speak?
Its not nonsense, its economics, I understand that many people on Steem do not understand basic economics, so I'll speak in simple words...
I have not seen a single one of my arguments refuted yet by you. Refuting an argument does not involve twisting things to make them sound bad. It means intelligently pointing out a flaw in some part of my argument regarding the economics of Steem. If you wish to do that you are very much welcome to illustrate, in a non-vague way, how a different approach will raise the price of STEEM more effectively than the way I suggested.
The entire bidbot operation only puts selling pressure on the token.
No it does not... Did you even read my comment?!?!
Here you go:
Blake Letras: "not only is the bidbot's STEEM locked up, but the people using those bidbots are locking up STEEM too! That's right, they are locking up STEEM because they have to go buy STEEM and pay the bidbot, and they have to wait 7 days to only get HALF of the STEEM back!"
And this:
Blake Letras: "Wouldn't the 20 STEEM you spent go to the upvote service and immediately get sold on the market as profit? Not necessarily, because the more upvote services come into existence the more competitive the services will need to become. This means that as new upvote service businesses arrive (after buying a wicked ton of STEEM to power up) the original gangsters will need to offer something the new guys can't like MORE POWERFUL upvotes or more lucrative ROIs to their customers/users."
It pushes the quality work aside and places the junk up front.
Such is life with advertisements. The internet needs the advertisers in order to give us the coolest stuff that exists online. I don't even bother with the trending page, I only check out the New posts area, so I have always found it ridiculous how much people whine about this.
Steem frontends need better methods of connecting content consumers to content producers matching their interests. However, if the price of STEEM is not high no one will care about it. We need investors before we need anything else, and that is coming from upvote service businesses.
I care about quality reaching the top as well, and I believe the best systems for that is organized curation contests. However, sometimes you just have to accept that the market you were going for is not the market attracted to your product.
Steem is not going to get far as Medium on a blockchain. It is time for people to get it into their head that Steem is an internet reward system and that rewards will not simply go to long-form content but also to memes, game activities and really whatever people want to reward with their SP. Sorry, but that is the reality of how Steem must be in order to survive.
Buying votes is a joke to anyone who takes their craft seriously.
No it is not. The only reason that seems logical to you is because of how you look at votes. The reality is that serious content producers gain visibility by paying for promotions all the time.
For example, if a indie book author does not pay Amazon for advertising he/she is being rather foolish and will likely find themselves in that $100 total sales category of book authors. Authors need to pay for promotion.
If a blogger does not pay Google to improve visibility for their website it is going to be a very uphill battle to get any reasonably sized audience.
If a podcaster does not advertise their podcast it will be hard to find as more and more podcasts pop up every day!
Minds.com, which is drawing in way more big names than Steem is rewards their content producers in a token with only one utility: advertising. You can spend Minds tokens to get your content put in 1000 people's feeds.
Honestly, you sound like you don't know what you're talking about and did a poor job of parroting the bidbot sales pitch. I suggest they fire you and hire someone more suited for the position of paid shill. You didn't even put your words out in front on the main thread. Rookie mistake.
That's cute, you're trying to zing me. Too bad for you that I know I kick ass at this type of thing and my confidence hasn't been shaken.
I wasn't worried about how many people see my comment, though, for such a difficult to find comment it was able to land in your lap and ruffle your feathers. But hey, its okay, because I just give out nuggets of gold in wisdom all over the place. You're welcome. ;)
Sorry. I don't feel like reading that.
That's okay, I kind of figured you weren't someone that read much. ;)
And I kind of figured you were a dick.
Removed this comment because at the time I was shown unreasonable disrespect and defamation of character for my viewpoint rather than a rational response and returned the aggressive speech with similar speech. My apologies to the community for not restraining my speech in that moment.
And now you're sitting here doing the play-by-play announcing of some shit nobody cares about.
Followed by:
Which is something that has been said millions of times by people with nothing to say.
Have a good day.
So now you want to play the victim card? Look at your long essay response to me.
Arrogant, cocky, disrespectful. You seem to think that because I disagree, it's because I don't understand what you're trying to say, so you go on repeating it, as if I wasn't able to grasp your views the first time.
If saying "Sorry. I don't feel like reading that," hurts your feelings, when it was a clearly a polite response to show you I wasn't interested in talking in circles and debating when I have better things I need to be doing with my time, I don't know what to say.
You came at me like I'm some kind of inferior intellect who doesn't read much, all while claiming you're incredibly smart. Who does that? Annoying people.
The fact is, I've heard everything you've said a million times. You're parroting. I don't need to read all that stuff again and have the same discussions with people I've had in the past. You're not able to see how, by definition, placing the power of 10000 people into one is literally centralizing the power of 10000; centralization. 10000 people, now gone, and replaced with one paid vote, means there are 10000 people who are unavailable to view and vote for what was promoted, meaning the target audience is gone and the promotion was a waste of time since there's no money to be made. You're defending a system that doesn't work. I know what real promotion is, and you're speaking to me as if I was born yesterday. So of course I don't want to waste time speaking to you.
It's also worth adding, we have many months, if not years of evidence now that prove the business model and sales pitch you're parroting from many months if not years ago simply does not work. If 10000 people place their money in the hands of one, that one point becomes a central point of failure, since the one at the top earns the most, they create the most selling pressure. Even the charts show a steady decline in value, as more and more bidbots, delegating, and centralization of power took place. Active members, steady decline because their market was on a steady decline. People were being paid to look away, in an attention economy. That's doing it backwards and the arts and entertainment business model where consumers pay to look proves it's being done backwards. It's common sense to anyone who knows the business.
Your initial response was also full of errors and misinformation.
I provided an argument, in no gentlemanly way did you respond. You spoke aggressively, and insultingly and you dare to say that I "play the victim"? No, I am no victim, I am a victor.
Nothing you ever said in reply to me was an argument on the basis of logical economic theory or anything of the sort. You are an intelligent and capable person in your own way, but in no way are you an economist. You do not understand the ideas you suggest.
Even though you wish to insult me, and you did bring that part out of me, I will try to maintain a cooler head. You're misguided, but you are sincere.
Remember that you commented on my statements, not the other way around. And when I replied you chose to act in a very despicable way. You pretend that your comment "sorry, I am not going to read that" is in some way not entirely an intentionally disrespectful method of jabbing me. Only the completely idiotic will believe you.
If you had any intelligible argument you would have made it in response to my reply to you. You did not, because you do not.
I'm two sentences in and I've already decided I'm not going to read your bullshit. Deal with it.