That's valid for 99% of crypto "investors"
Right. Also, the investors are a large part of Steem's initial success. If we can disenchant them enough, we can drive them off and see what that does.
"I see we won't find a common ground. All that's left for me is wonder why people who fundamentally disagree with the ideas written out in the whitepaper invested in the first place, or didn't get out when they had the chance at a profit of several hundred percent."
I can't answer that one. I could speculate that people expected the bubble to keep inflating. What I can tell you is that without the investors, the platform has no sparkle, and without the content creators, the platform has no charm. HF21 encourages all sorts of weird behavior that people don't do in real life because it's rude.
The NewSteem Culture is making some content creators and investors disgusted with the place. If you think I'm wrong about that, show me in real life where people do this kind of thing? I've come up with a tonne of analogies to try and describe Steem in the real world, and they're always as ugly as sin because there is just no harmonious way it plays out.
People don't do this IRL, but NewSteem is trying to get people to do this so that we can get some programmer's design to work how he envisioned it. Think about that, because you are trying to get one programmer's design to succeed, you are willing to change your behavior and operate in a way you wouldn't in the real world. It's some heavy shit if you think about it. That's not even touching on the fact that two different bipolar suggestions we're made, which seemingly contradict one another.
"Through the addition of negative-voting it is possible for many smaller stakeholders to nullify
the voting power of collusive groups or defecting large stakeholders."
"Eliminating “abuse” is not possible and shouldn’t be the goal. Even those who are attempting to “abuse”
the system are still doing work."
The fact they use N‐person Prisoner's Dilemma and crabs in a bucket mentality to describe the first example, lets me know the first example is negative by nature. I mean they even call it negative voting, so that should be clue enough in and of itself, that it'll be perceived negatively by content creators and stakeholders alike.
The practical solution is to design code that accounts for human nature. Or accept the fact that human nature exists. But if you're going to allow an artificial construct to influence your human nature online. Then you had better be careful that it doesn't make you act differently in the real world. I mean, what happens when you run into someone who "makes too much for a living?" What are you going to do: Slash their tires, put sugar in their gas tank, egg their car?
This culture of getting people to act retributively because of reward envy is really ugly to me, and that's why I don't do it. I know some people see it the same way as I do, and some the same as you, others are somewhere in between. But it makes you think about how people think and what makes'em tick.
I surely don't act out of reward envy, and a lot of people delegating to us or following our trail don't even post, so they don't either.
I'm not as worried about investors as you are. I personally know about >1M STEEM that was bought because of the possibility to counter self voting and its variants, by people who believe in the idea of finding an equilibrium where "good" content gets the most rewards. Those also know that nobody "made" anything before it has been paid out. That is accepted afterwards, nobody tries to take something from others wallets.
Many smaller users see a positive change, so they might become investors themselves in the future.
We'll see.
No doubt, it'll be interesting to see where the GUI change,
along with the HF21 tagent leads the Steem culture too.
Better online than IRL with these kind of experiments.
Thx for the chat, interesting to exchange ideas w/ya.