Ultimately though, this decentralization talk is, like many other ideas of society is more a philosophy than a practical means of organization. Same with the socialism experiments of last century. Egalitarian ideas function ok in small groups, but larger groups require order and governance. Those with power make the rules. No one has solved the collective action problem yet; ultimately we personally take the actions that benefit us the most, even if those actions are detrimental to the group as a whole. Eventually in a decentalized system, some people are going to end up with an outsized level of influence and power, and they will use the system to maximize their benefit, at the expensive of the vast majority of the rest of the group. You already see that with a behavior of a lot of the whales here. Government gets a bad rap, but let's not forget what the purpose of it is. By giving everyone an equal vote, you allow for the masses to pool their strength to have enough influence to challenge that of the powerful indiviual members of society. While it does have numerous failings, it's still the least bad system we have. Decentralization with no governance leads to neofeudalism. Good governance leads to stability, cohesiveness, and shared prosperity. Reglation must exist to ensure that we act in a means that actually leads us forward as a group rather than the few that gain power.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I hear you @cygon. It's an experiment. My feeling is that society holds together as much as it does despite our government. I believe in human nature I suppose, that's the premise. That when freed from exploitation and given the right tools our natural curiousity and community mindedness will shine through. Anyway I understand you point of view for sure.
This video conveys what I think we are up against:
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-310-rise-of-the-oiligarchs/
You're talking as if bitcoin doesn't exist. Bitcoin DOES solve that exact problem.
Now of course Steemit does have some issues which is what you're referring to and is a bit different. The conclusion isn't that decentralisation and blockchain is some kind of failed experiment, it doesn't point that way at all. The main reason the drama with the reward pool is the way it is, is because of lack of development for Steemit. It's hardly changed since I got into crypto in the summer. A few simple rule changes could make all the difference. The point, though, is that it will be a blockchain solution that must and will be found. The answer isn't to go back to centralisation it's to create blockchain based rules which disincentivise those from gaming the system, and insensitive quality content creators. Centralisation should be kept to an absolute minimum if there's no other way. You gave up way too quickly.
Does Bitcoin cure cancer too? Bitcoin is a decentralized proof of concept that works for a very specific application. Steem is a much more complicated concept that relies on stake holders to work together for the platform to be successful. Sure you can make the rules better, but people are always going to find a way to game the system. Not to mention Bitcoin's governance is part of why I think it's eventually going to fail, and Steem still needs some sort of governance to make those rule changes.