I take your point on the BTC plunge, that is likely the reason Steem dropped as much as it did. The notion of abusers is the questionable one. The blockchain affords people special privileges based on their investment in Steem. When you prevent people from exercising SP to their benefit, you give them a reason to dump to the market. The big question is, which is more valuable; Retaining them as stakeholders and allowing them to draw the rewards that the coded rate-limit voting allows for, or send them packing in hopes that someone more virtuous will take their place? I know your answer to this question, and I'm only guessing that it's predicated on the idea that these folks are replaceable. So surely you've found a way to pitch the virtuous capitalist, yes? You can chase away "the profiteers" all day long, but if they're not replaced, the platform loses investors, and as selling happens prices trend down.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
What do you think the price of steem would be if we continued to have $200+ shit posts on trending.
See? You make way too much sense. At least you're using your SP to try to build Steem into a better place for people to associate with your flags. Doing that promotes capital gains.
It’s tough to say; Trending is a problem, I think it’s solvable with creative coding. If the size of an investment doesn’t add to the value of the crypto; Then why are larger stakeholders afforded a bigger vote?
Does the math need to change to accommodate thousands of years of human evolution? Or can we drum out self-interest via operant conditioning? I think the most natural systems are those that account for human behavior. If Steem doesn’t take that into account, in the code, then what are the chances it will thrive as opposed to dying on the vine?
If I buy 1k steem and give myself an upvote at 100% how does that make me any more or less moral than a guy who does the same with 3 million steem? Does the amount of stake a person holds have any merit in and of itself? If not, does the rate-limit voting need to be adjusted, perhaps on a sliding scale based on stake weight?
If self-voting is discouraged after a certain threshold, maybe this should be fixed at the level of the code. Why not find a way for the blockchain to police the blockchain? People can respect that and live in harmony with others. Anything has to be better than pitting people against each other and relying upon the frailty of human subjectivity.
It isn't just trending. Seeing stuff like this (previously with $20-100+ rewards before I started flagging the account) makes people on the outside think this place is a joke. There are tons of this going on.
If you think flagging shit like this is bad for steem, we have nothing to talk about.
Yeah, that is spam. It’s the same 7 minutes, and 54-second video posted every time. I think an algorithm should hide it from trending, but STINC is a slow evolving platform, perhaps another condenser will need to solve it? One thing is certain, showing people posts based on value and or based on the number of votes doesn’t cut the mustard. This is because people can manipulate it with voting trails and stake weight.
The bot armies are real, and so is the stake-weighting. Therefore, nothing we see on trending can be an accurate gauge of whether people like it. It’s a sad state of affairs, but I think we need to admit to ourselves that the system is broken. Imagine a condenser that has algorithms which judge an article based on its uniqueness. This has the potential to eliminate spam automatically. Other parameters can get programmed in there too; The quality of spelling and grammar, readability, and originality, etc.. etc..
Imagine a trending page which shows the top articles from either the most active or popular tags on the platform. We may be collectively suffering from either a lack of ingenuity or creativity. I’d like to see STINC set a new standard and pave the way for more radical change. This will cause the other condensers to get bold and experimental. We can’t do any of this until we concede that the system is broken. The only way for crowd wisdom to work is for equal votes and no duplicate accounts. We know that this will never happen.
I know that you've got good intentions. However, when all we've got to work with is a hammer, it turns all the problems into nails. The truth of the matter is that life isn't that simple, and some problems require a bit more finesse to resolve. Steem is that problem, and the sooner we can admit that the whitepaper failed us, the sooner we evolve from that mess and transform Steem into something that will draw the eye as opposed to the ire of would-be investors.