Hi @benjojo
@ned and the team had a reasonable go at this towards the end of last year with 3.5m SP split between 7 accounts. Out of the 6, only @surpassinggoogle retains his delegated SP (I think, sorry on the phone). These accounts were mostly 'focussed' towards the Asian community, but analysis from @paulag showed that the level of 'inward' voting and apparent 'pay for vote' transactions was quite high.
It is the one question I failed to ask @ned at Steemfest. Why did you choose these accounts and how do you think it went.
I suspect you are thinking much larger than 3.5m SP, and to a wider community - like everyone.
We certainly have the tools to monitor such delegations and how the SP is used. I do something each week to monitor the 360,000 @fulltimegeek has delegated to his #stewardsofgondor.
I support your suggestion, and feel STEEM and Steemit would benefit from this greatly.
Cheers.
I appreciate the comment @abh12345. Thank you for the support. It would be no small undertaking to ensure the delegated stake was used appropriately....but I think it could be achieved with broad support, lessons learned, innovation and care. I'm hearing great things about the efforts of stellabelle and fulltimegeek. These efforts are so important.
A pleasure.
Previously there was no remit from @ned attached to the delegations, he just left them to administer 500,000 SP as they saw fit.
If guidelines were in place prior, and monitoring took place along the way then I think the outcome would be great!
The whole idea of giving big people more stakes was sure to fail. Stupidest idea/experiment ever.
I think having a challenge/contest to get 1000 delegated sp once you reach maybe 55 rep would work here. It would only be available to those under ### of their own sp.
Have team(s) of people to vet the applicants and have a lot of stronger, partially trained, and motivated minnows coming up the ranks by this action.
I would delegate this amount for for 3 months, renewable by application 3 times. Cancels for good once your reach ### of your own sp.
Not many get to 55 rep here - those are mostly people we want to succeed in my opinion.
Sounds like a plan to me! The accounts could be monitored for 'abuse' by the community and so yeah, just the initial leg work required by the Steemit team / @ned.
Well, people would be applying - you would not have to seek them. If they get to that rep they are likely to be good candidates; and sadly - at this point there will not be too many of them.
I believe this is occurring again on a larger scale with a focus on communities and projects. The Steemit account has been powering down into multiple other accounts, one of which is @misterdelegation. From there millions have been delegated out to things like Steemcleaners, Utopian, Sndbox, and more.
Supporting worthwhile projects in this way is fantastic. However, there needs to be a lot more done to support the research and countering of abuse, all with the community having more influence in how that is implemented.
I would prefer if Steemit wouldn't delegate more than they are doing. The more they are delegating the smaller the proportion of the reward pool is decided by the investors. Steemit Inc try to avoid voting for political and controversial thing and everything worthy of anything is controversial and political.
I see the thinking, but who are the investors? I know of two, one trails curie and the other votes for a guy who produces charts.
Could you explain some more please? I personally see value in many categories. Thank you 😊
First I want to clarify that I hold Ben in high regard and I highly value is input. We have agreed on a lot of stuff in the past but on this we disagree.
Steemit used to back a guild called something I don't even remember. They would simply not vote anything political according to them.
Ironically this is a political statement. The biggest guild wouldn't upvote anything political which would encourage people not to write about politics and would push people to become even more apolitical than they already are.
Elected curators... people who want to delegate their curation already have many option.
When Steemit Inc uses their stake to vote the only consequence is that everyone control a smaller portion of the reward pool. The reward pool isn't bigger.
It's in Steemit Inc right. They are investors too. They should do it carefully and so far that's what we've seen.
I believe @benjojo supported the MSP with a huge delegation in the past and deserves much respect for this.
The support by Steemitinc(mrdelegation) of applications like dtube/utopian-io is great to see and I agree they aren't just sitting on their stake.
I wouldn't call the 3.5m delegations last year careful, as their were no instructions given to these accounts, and personally think they 'paid' themselves and each other too much.
Proven quality curators like yourself for example would benefit from extra delegation, and if the accounts were decided carefully and monitored I don't see a big risk here.
Thanks for the reply.
I love what Steemit did with @surpassinggoogle, Utopian.io, Dtube, dlive, dsound and dmania.
It's always a case by case thing.
Indeed.
So if each case was monitored then there could be scope for more of this I think.
Hey teamsteem! So the delegations would be used primarily to attenuate abuse, the definition for which would come from the community and could evolve.
Positive curation of content could also be addressed by structuring it differently and scaling it up significantly.