Ok. I think the thousands of people who have left steem, divested their steem are struggling to get quality posts recognised and are sickened by the daily, blatant reward pool rape will disagree.
I think if you could acknowledge that things are nowhere near perfect and that we can do better, thereby improving steem's chances against competition and improving the situation for thousands of existing and potential future steemians, then we might quibble over the degree of severity.
I'm not saying Steem or Steemit aren't a marvel in places, but anyone with a grasp of the reality of the economic incentives at play here and the degree of exploitation, would not so casually cast aside a call to action that would benefit everyone bar those with exploitation in mind.
Out of interest, what makes you think that SMT's will help a desperately flawed and unstable economic model? Surely they will only add complexity and add to the issues.
Do you have citation on thousands of users leaving Steemit, because to my knowledge the platform has never been bigger and continues to grow, with several well-respected alt-media journalists recently making the switch.
By its very nature, Steemit is not exploitative. Everyone who uses this platform does so voluntary; no one is forced to use Steemit against their will and can leave anytime.
I'm not sure why you think Steem's current model is 'desperately flawed'. Again, I think you're wildly over-exaggerating.
The fact that people can get paid any money at all for uploading content to social media makes Steemit revolutionary.
If EOS does something better, I'll use that platform, too.
Let me get this right...
because there is a net gain in people joining, we shouldn't worry about anyone who left or who may be put off in the future?
Because there is nothing better today, we shouldn't worry about how steem operates today?
Because there is nothing better, we shouldn't acknowledge those who might be better served and who want to be better served by this network within this community? They should just be grateful?
The fact that you can't see the flaws and are apparently not interested in addressing them leaves me at somewhat of a loss.
I appreciate the discussion but to me the issues are so obvious, I think it would be better if you discovered them for yourself and then we can discuss notions of severity.
All the best bud.
You said Steemit needs 'saving', as if it was some kind of sinking ship. I assume your problems are with flagging, Ned's holdings and other things such as the poor UI. Steemit is currently in BETA, for a start, which means the project hasn't even fully launched.
I'm aware of the flaws, I just think using terms like 'catastrophic' and 'saving' is premature.
Peace.
I did not referring to anything you just mentioned, only token distribution and reputation. Both are widely acknowledged to be highly flawed and have created multiple damaging effects. Please, you need to do some research. Understand that my warnings are for the benefit of the community. I believe a lot can be done to remedy the situation that is in keeping with the original white paper and purpose of both Steem, Steemit and the steemit account. The improvements I have suggested would benefit everyone interested in the success and longevity of steem.
Could you link me to some blog(s) on token distribution and reputation? I'd like to have a read. Cheers.
Mmmmm, where to start? You could look into the history of vote buying, curation trails, no whale voting initiative, self-voting, bot curation, comment voting abuse, sports gambling, delegation buying. These are some of the areas that research should start to reveal the extent of damaging effects which stem from a terrible token distribution and questionable reputation indicators. Cheers