If you see someone doing it, let me know and I will take care of it. You are talking about an edge case that isn't the norm and will be adjusted if identified. That's like saying people stab people with knives, so let's get rid of them.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'd more likely seek the source of the desire to do the stabbing.
Too many of our children's first lesson in life is do as you are told, or consequences, so it only logically flows that when the kid gets into a position of power they get to dish out the consequences.
But, back to the no effort rewards being gained from the pool intended to reward continual effort, it strikes me as odd that folks that would fork the chain to put an end to piecemeal vote selling would just magically be ok with doing it through dlease.
As if that somehow changes the nature of counterfeiting the efforts of authentic creation/curation.
Now that hbd pays more than curation anyways, I expected to see more movement from the pool to the sidelines.
I do not support dlease and what they do, especially since he stole the money on Steem and caters to them as well.
Yeah, that guy lost me when he charged exorbitant prices for his autovoting service.
As soon as I had a viable option I jumped ship to hive.vote.
Much like I will jump ship once the right people get fed up with the current power structure in the hive holding us back.
When I got here there were discussions over how one could hold onto their percentage of the whole by 'earning' enough to stay ahead of the inflation.
Bidbots was one solution that sprang from the problem.
They were saying that at some point there is a crossing point whereby the power structure can no longer be overtaken by the inflation.
I want to say that was said to be 5 or 6 years away, but many things have changed in the 6 years since.
IF this is true, and there were people who stayed ahead of the inflation, that might be sufficient reason to float a fork by itself.
Airdrop a more decentralized distribution, and viola, all the benefits the tech, none of the drawbacks of being launched and maintained by those that prefer their power centralized.
And you think no one will buy stake or do better than anyone else creating those with more than others? Your fantasy world only works in your mind.
I hope they do, that is the entire point of taking the boot off their necks with the new fork.
Instead of 50% of the inflation going to 20 accounts and their 'deserving' creators it will be crab bucketed on a more equal footing.
The crowd deciding where the inflation goes will be much larger.
It is unlikely that I will live long enough to have 1000mv, but not as unlikely as making it into the current top 20.
Why would I continue to put effort into a game when I know I won't ever compete on an equal field?
My investment becomes the exit liquidity for people maintaining their flow of the inflation, selling only their 'earnings' and never touching the principle.
Potentially, on an endless gravy train of fleecing the people that can't math.
Who does that?
If I had an investment license they'd take it away for advising buying into that.
Or, give me a plaque at the yearly awards dinner depending on which bank I worked for.
You do realize this is the same as every economic system in the world. Do you demand the top 1% of fiat holders give you their money because you don’t have as much as they do?
Nope, they can keep their mansions and jets, too.
Presuming they can keep their hands off of my stack they can continue on as if nothing changed.
On any given tuesday we can simply stop paying for things while continuing to do the things needed to have things and cut the banksters off completely.
This book lays out the math in an academic way.
This book gives a fictionalization of how a nearly moneyless society would look.
This short story gives a viable path to the other side of serving the banks.
But, I already know you won't take the time to read those, reading them could mean knowing that you are wrong.
I had to face up to it, I was not prepared for what Looking Backwards said in 1887.
Not malicious wrong, mind you, just unaware of the options available due to limited research into other ways of managing large groups of people more equitably than 'there can only be one' dog eat dog competition.