You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Poll for the Witnesses -- on HF21

in #dpolllast year

My answer is a little more nuanced than just picking one of the options. I plan to vote 'yes' to the current proposal, which includes both SPS & EIP. There are quite a few things I would have preferred to do differently, but it isn't about what one person wants - we need to find a way to compromise and reach consensus. It is my belief that the set of changes we are planning to move forward with are the best we can do with the resources we have and the differing opinions on what everyone wants to happen.

Sort:  

Tim .. I'm going to speak directly here and it may seem like an attack. It's not meant as such. It's meant me being honest to someone who I vote for as a witness and am trying very hard to maintain my respect for. I respect someone who will own their decisions. I might not agree with them, but they are at least taking ownership.

Finding a way to compromise and consensus requires listening to the various viewpoints and finding common ground to build on. That means that people involved need to be honest about where they are coming from.

I read your previous lengthy post and this response here and what I see is you alluding to not agreeing with the whole package but unwilling to own what you do believe in by stating it.

In many posts around the platform I've seen some of the witnesses coming out and stating where they differ or where they have preferred this to go. I've seen members of the community asking those questions of who supports what. It's a fair question. The platform and those on it are being impacted by the choices of 20 people, there is a responsibility for those 20 to own their views and help the community to understand the factors which brought forth the decision the group came to.

So, if you're good with the package as is, answer the poll with that option. If you have your druthers on some aspect of it then choose that option. Something close to where your true views are is a hell of a lot better than the bafflegab you've been engaging in.

And while I'm at it. There has only been one Witness that I've seen, actually heard, even try to explain what to expect in the short and long term if the HF as proposed goes into effect. The community is very aware of the situation with HF20.

That lack of warning about how those changes were going to impact the day to day use of the platform hit hard and served to push some folks away. On top of the bear market that was going on, it was just too much. Yes, I know, HF 20 wasn't tested effectively and there is a testnet running right now on HF21.

Information takes time to get around, we should be seeing some sort of communication on how things are looking, have issues been found that are being fixed? How does it look like it will play out? The witnesses are making the decision to include all this in the package, they have a responsibility to prepare the community for what is coming.

That’s fair. I’ll vote on the poll and type a longer response when I get home tonight.

So, if you're good with the package as is, answer the poll with that option.

Done.

I read your previous lengthy post and this response here and what I see is you alluding to not agreeing with the whole package but unwilling to own what you do believe in by stating it.

I would not characterize it that way. If it were 100% up to me, I would make different choices. I would prefer to have two separate hardforks. I am not a huge fan of the 50/50 curation/author split. I would choose different percentages in terms of how to allocate the inflation (between rewards pool, SP inflation, witness pay, and SPS). There are other things too.

If every witness decided that they were going to vote 'no' unless they got 100% their way, then we would never get any changes approved. I'm sure there are some people who would prefer the status quo over the set of changes that are being proposed, but I am not one of them..

The way I see it, Steem is on a path of mediocrity that is going to slowly over time lead to lower STEEM prices, thus lower author rewards, and less money for all the stakeholders involved in the platform. As a witness, I see it as extremely important to change our course, and get us on one that I believe will lead for higher STEEM prices - thus more author rewards, and more money for our stakeholders.

In short, while the changes are not really the set that I am 100% for, they are the best we can do when there are 20+ people all with their own opinions on what needs to get done. I do strongly support the changes over the status quo, so I am planning to vote in favor of the hardfork.

And while I'm at it. There has only been one Witness that I've seen, actually heard, even try to explain what to expect in the short and long term if the HF as proposed goes into effect. The community is very aware of the situation with HF20.

I agree with the sentiment, and agree that it is our responsibility to communicate to users as best we can before the hardfork.

We are still technically in the stage of figuring out what exactly will be in the hardfork though - there isn't even an approved release yet. I expect that between the time that there is an actual finalized hardfork and the time that the hardfork takes place, many witnesses (myself included) will be posting more on the subject.

Thanks Tim.

You are not the first witness to express a desire to see the two parts split into two HFs. As I recall Steemit Inc's post when they endorsed the EIP they were not planning on coding for it in HF21 and were bringing it forward for discussion and consideration down the road.

I'm not alone in agreeing with that stance by those witnesses who have it. Get the SPS in place and see how that goes. More importantly let the ones affected by the funding of the SPS get adjusted to that change ... then evaluate the EIP and decide how to proceed.

This apparent rush to put it all into one HF is really unsettling for a lot of people. As you will recall we've had a lot of changes stuffed into HFs in the past and with some really questionable outcomes. Then add in HF 20 which is not the same as HF21 but still it puts people on edge after that debacle.

I believe Tim said it direct to the point and based on what I have read to date about it all with a very high level of consensus from many Steemians:

" I would prefer to have two separate hardforks. I am not a huge fan of the 50/50 curation/author split. I would choose different percentages in terms of how to allocate the inflation (between rewards pool, SP inflation, witness pay, and SPS). "

100% agree with the "not a fan of the 50/50 split"

100% agree with the fact that we need to define the SPS in whole, including but not limited to the funding of it.

I feel as if we are back in the middle of 2017 where steemit.com was the one and only front end using Steem/SBD.

as we keep saying "Steem is not = steemit.com"

Will RIP on this topic for now and keep reading what everyone has to say on it.

I feel as if we are back in the middle of 2017 where steemit.com was the one and only front end using Steem/SBD.

I really don't get your comment that you keep repeating. The HF is about the whole ecosystem not just steemit.com. Nor is steemit.com the only front end that displays content created by Steemians.

Steem should be the powerhouse of SMTs and SMT's should be used by the front ends with whatever the owners of those front ends want i.e. 50/50 or 60/40 and anything else they can think of!

2017 is a ref to HF19 and the changes in distribution of upvotes/eventual payouts.

After HF20 setting the path to SMTs and an economy that can last many more decades after the initial 15 years of issuing the base currencies (Steem and SBD) we now are going back in time talking about our economy as if we are still in the middle of 2017 where everything was all about a blogging platform (then steemit.com).

We took a step forwards and now we are going two steps back!

The choice was either do both of them together or wait to do the EIP after SMTs. I don’t think we can wait that long for EIP and still expect the STEEM price to hold at a level where authors are even remotely happy with their rewards. Between the two choices we had, I would rather bundle them together.

seems to me the difference between you and I on this is that I'm looking to past history in that I was around when Steem was 7 cents. I remember that it took the bull market a while before the altcoins started to enjoy the benefit of the bull market.

So, I'm not concerned about the wavering price at this point. I am concerned about too many economic changes being made at once on the blockchain. I really do think that the EIP needs to be delayed until the impact of the changes for the SPS have opportunity to take hold.

I think Steemit Inc was smart to suggest that the EIP be discussed for a future HF when they endorsed it.

BTW, on another note. Who can change the write up on Coin Market Cap? The last time I looked at it, it needed some serious updating and revising. Looks like it was written when there was only Steemit.com and nothing else. It's not even close to being attractive toward an investor.

I took a stab at getting some community input on revising it here:
https://steemit.com/steem/@shadowspub/who-wrote-this-can-t-we-do-better-let-s-get-creative

I was here back then too :) I think I technically joined before you ;)

So, I'm not concerned about the wavering price at this point.

My concern goes beyond the 'bear' market. Our coin market cap rank has dropped significantly, and it seems to be continuing to go in the downward direction. In terms of the conversations that I have with existing and potentially new stakeholders - there is little reason for people to invest in STEEM at this point.

I am concerned about too many economic changes being made at once on the blockchain.

Fair point. Risk acknowledged, and it is a concern of mine as well.

I really do think that the EIP needs to be delayed until the impact of the changes for the SPS have opportunity to take hold.

This is where we will probably have to agree to disagree. Again, if it were up to me - I would rather do them as two separate changes, but I see the risk of waiting to fix our broken economy until after SMTs are done a much more significant risk.

Who can change the write up on Coin Market Cap?

Reach out to @elipowell or @andrarcy

My concern goes beyond the 'bear' market. Our coin market cap rank has dropped significantly, and it seems to be continuing to go in the downward direction. In terms of the conversations that I have with existing and potentially new stakeholders - there is little reason for people to invest in STEEM at this point.

Is there any plans afoot to promote the heck out of the new FCAS score?... that moved us from what D to A? Puts us 12th in their ranking.

Would seem cause to shift the needle on reason to invest. Without some waving the flag on that move it wont even get noticed.

but I see the risk of waiting to fix our broken economy until after SMTs are done a much more significant risk.

Maybe that needs to be explained a bit more? I don't necessarily agree there is a broken economy. But, what is the relevance of making the changes before SMTs?

I'm seeing references to the testnet not being up and working. Is the testnet going to be functioning and running for at least a month before the HF as I've seen talked about? To avoid the mess of HF20?

There is already good contributors heading for the door. Anything even looking like the mess of HF20 will send more in the same direction.

Is there any plans afoot to promote the heck out of the new FCAS score?... that moved us from what D to A? Puts us 12th in their ranking.

I doubt it. Marketing is one of the things we really need to improve on. Hoping that the SPS will provide some means of funding for this type of thing.

Maybe that needs to be explained a bit more? I don't necessarily agree there is a broken economy.

Probably.. I'm not really looking to get into a long drawn out debate on the topic though. How many authors do you know can come to Steem and earn by posting quality content and adding value? Do the economics that are in place incentivize people to buy more STEEM? Do the economics that are in place encourage new users to stay engaged with the platform long term?

But, what is the relevance of making the changes before SMTs?

Them getting done before 2050 (somewhat sarcastic, but basically you get the point).

I'm seeing references to the testnet not being up and working. Is the testnet going to be functioning and running for at least a month before the HF as I've seen talked about? To avoid the mess of HF20?

There is a testnet. It has been up and down as they have been making final tweaks, but the plan is to allow testing for at least 30 days prior to the actual HF.

There is already good contributors heading for the door. Anything even looking like the mess of HF20 will send more in the same direction.

Understood. I can't guarantee that there won't be some growing pains as we make the shift, but the goal is to try and make things better.

I do not know if you saw yourself on this interesting post about how the numbers will work out under the new plan, @timcliff. You are one of the few winners, although not by much, if these numbers are correct.

https://steemit.com/hardfork/@dreemsteem/now-you-can-see-the-numbers

I have not been able to understand this fork at all until seeing this post I just linked. It might not be really what will happen, but if it is, I think some serious re-thinking needs to happen among you bigs. I cannot pretend to know what that thinking will entail.

I'm an optimist on STEEM and have been for my two years here. Everything I do is to help small blogs grow and give minnow tips. I have always thought steem needs MORE content creators in various niches, not less. But maybe I am completely off track about the goals of this place.

replied there

Thank you so much for your answer, @timcliff. I really appreciate you giving those details. I asked a few people about this last night and those who answered were similar to you - wanting to see steem succeed. Like you, most hope and expect behaviors will change and benefit content creators in ways the current numbers do not reflect.

Based on this, I am going to go back to what I do here and keep working to improve. When the fork gets here, I will try my best to be a part of the new paradigm.

Before I saw that post I was already working to improve my (small) curation rewards and that has been going well. You answer helps me stay on track, and I am so glad you were one of the people I contacted.

Take care,

Sharon @fitinfun

How does Traf and Blocktrades and Cervantes getting exactly what they want constitute compromise? From the simulations "convergent linear" isn't really any different from an exponential curve for the vast majority of posts.

Is there some part of the "compromise" that supports the thousands of accounts disadvantaged by this proposal that I'm somehow missing? Because from here it looks as if everyone except Matt has just rolled over.

I agree with the idea of a convergent linear curve. There are problems with n^2 as well as purely linear. In my view, convergent linear is a happy medium.

For users with less stake, they are going to need to figure out how to play the curation “game” more optimally if they want their votes to count. The system was originally designed for rewards to be based on the “wisdom of the crowd” and this is more in line with that.

Who is Matt, and how can I vote for him? Oh, is that Yabapmatt?
Will anyone else step up who opposes EIP enough that they can get witness consensus to shift away from implementing EIP?

Drakos has stated no on the EIP ... he's witness 21. Not sure if he votes or not.

If we all vote for him, maybe we can push him into the top 20, where he will have a voice.

Posted using Partiko Android

he's had my vote for some time. Does a lot of great work on the platform including this site which I use a lot... https://steemian.info/witnesses
I use it a lot

He just got my vote

Posted using Partiko Android