Voted for
- 7
I think the capabilities and potential of the STEEM blockchain are enormous, but I suspect you're not just talking about the technology, but the people, dApps, the ability to earn, the personalities, behaviors, and maybe even the way things are coded, too.
I think those of us who are on STEEM are currently living below STEEM's potential. Whether or not that changes depends on us. What are we willing to do, or give up, to make it better? What kinds of things need to happen code-wise, or through dApps, to fully realize potential? What, if any of this, will actually attract investors?
I think there's plenty to debate, but more important than that, resolve in a manner that is satisfactory to the highest amount of users. That hasn't happened yet, despite all kinds of efforts, but I don't know if they've all gone far enough to make it happen. I keep hearing rumbles about willingness to do certain things if certain demands are met, but I never see anyone moving to show their willingness to prove their theory or their point. Unless it ends up having some kind of ill effect on the community, or going against some principle of etiquette. That people are quick to do.
So, seven is about where I would put it. I ma heartened to see that the sampling so far is mostly 6 and above. I think that's good, and probably fairer than five or below, or maybe nine and above would be. The chain itself is good. What we do on it is another story.
It is a complex issue as demonstrated by the list of things in your response.
Most people are here to enjoy a "finished product" or something that is progressively evolving. The supposed decentralized nature of the blockchain meant that the general public needs to do a lot of the pushing and pulling for things to happen.
Human nature has proven that it is near impossible. Many came here hoping for something different, but are met with an incomplete product. I personally feel that STINC dropped the ball on this one. They opened up Steem to everyone before a substantial amount of functions are even put into place.
The stagnation persists because everyone is hung up on their "muh decentralization", preventing a decisive action/direction. People with ideas and skills won't stick around forever to wait for everyone to agree. If we look at other major projects out there, many of them started more or less centralized as they create and build their basic structure and framework. Only then, did they start to decentralize their projects and let the community take over.
Speaking of "muh decentralization", it is also why several dapps and platforms are cesspools. But, they benefit the delegators. Because decentralization is the justified excuse to do whatever they want, but they also want no consequences.
I feel Steem started off with a good idea, but poor execution. Ned and others may have not even expected Steem to survive, but as another hit and reap gold mine. Steem is literally a half-processed project on the market. Its current state makes it near impossible to make significant changes.
tl;dr - Many good projects started off centralized and moved to gradual decentralization. Steem was half-assed and the founders decided to maintain a pseudo-decentralized environment where things stagnate. People are quick to exploit and extract value, but the community also has a half-assed sentiment towards what is to be done about it.
I think people are having trouble understanding
decentralization. It's not do whatever the crap you want. It's community-based consensus.But hey "muh freedom!"