Ok, but currently the most amount of money one can get is a few hundred $ for a post, so how are we going to fund something that is like 0.5% of a quarterly reward pool?
One cannot fund development by announcing a post about it?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Post daily/weekly/whatever status reports? (As someone voting for funding I'd definitely prefer this over giving money with no ongoing transparency over how it is being used.) Or campaign posts or comments ("vote this post/comment to support @knircky's development team"). Etc.
There are certainly ways to do it.
A large part of the low value of posts is the price of STEEM and would carry over to any mechanism. It wasn't long ago we saw $800 posts regularly (and even larger before that).
I agree that this is possible, but I think it is slightly abusing the post feature. Posts are for all kind of things and development of the underlying chain is a rather specific task that should have a separate income stream, not competing with pictures of cats and funny memes.
The problem is that money received on posts depends a lot on your popularity and ideas from less know authors have a huge change of going completely unnoticed. If we separate them from all of the rest and set aside a second small income streem (set by witnesses), this can be avoided.
But the most important thing is that we need to change our mentatlity. So many people here think that steemit is responsible for the development and we need a change of this culture.
Yes all kinds of things, including developers. Maybe we should instead dedicate a 'small income stream' to cat pictures and use the rest for developers.
Steemit is responsible for development. Do you think it makes sense for Steemit to assign itself 80% of the initial stake via a ninja-mine and then not be responsible for development? What was the ninja-mine for? If the answer was putting money into Steemit's owners pockets and then getting to the point where we invite the 20% to pay (again) for development then we should all just recognize we have been played and move on to a new project with lessons learned.
How will this differ in new mechanism? Won't funding go to the popular devs and ideas from lesser known ones have a huge chance of going unnoticed (or noticed and unfunded). Or worse, where big stakeholders (say those with an 80% ninja mine) vote for themselves to get funding and then accomplish little or nothing.
Steemit is responsible for development. Do you think it makes sense for Steemit to assign itself 80% of the initial stake via a ninja-mine and then not be responsible for development? What was the ninja-mine for? If the answer was putting money into Steemit's owners pockets and then getting to the point where we invite the 20% to pay (again) for development then we should all just recognize we have been played and move on to a new project with lessons learned.
Agree
Well what if steemit is not capable to handle the development on its own. Your suggestion is to then just walk away.
Ok, but what if we want to do that. That is what I am asking.
Then you are giving 80% of potential returns on your investment to sleeping partner i.e. Steemit INC.
Correct. The best alternative at that point is to cut losses and walk away or start an alternative. No investment no matter how good can sustain an 80% 'fee'.
I see the problems, but I think that development of the native chain and posting are really two very different things and I dont know what the advantage to throw them into one box would be.
Posting is a feature of the chain, development of the infrastructure is there to realise these features.
We would still be able to controll the funding via our witness votes.
I think implementing a clear separation between these is well motivated.
I do fully agree. But we cannot impose there to be a special actor that is doing what is right because we want it. In the end steemit will use their stake to make profits just as anyone else. We can hope, but it seems they are failing. The best solution would to get them to burn most of their tokens and then step out of the way. That wont happen so we have to find a way that seems realistic, or simply power down and leave to find a competitor where not 30% is controlled by a single entity that has a questionable vision for the future.
Stake abuse cannot be prevented. Not now and probably not in the future. We have to hope that locking up funds for some time gives people a more long term position and have tools to drive out black sheep (crab in the bucket).
There might be some advantages and the funding structure for development should be different than for posts, but this quikcly becomes messy. So I think the psychological change would be the main driver. Just as the inflation is. When people vote, they are in fact giving money away, but because it is an inflation they dont realise it as such.
But the fundamental problem remains. And that is linked to steem not really having a logical business model with a natural flow of resources. Nobody agrees where the value is coming from because there is no satisfactory answer. Game theoretically steem is not solid and this is the root of all these discussions. In order to move on we need to find an honest vision for the future and real revenue streams instead of magic money.
Because in my view they really are the same thing. Stakeholders agree to distribute some of their money to increase the value of the system. That can include many things, not only attracting users or development but also marketing, brand development, etc. The common denominator being that if it adds value that offsets the dilution of the stake it is a worthwhile expenditure and if not then it isn't.
Good points in the rest of your comment.
I do agree. I think the problem is that by voting for posts, you vote when the value is already there. But there should be a way to vote for value that is not yet there and somebody is promising to create. This however becomes very difficult and requires some smart contract plus decentralised oracles that state if the objective was met to unlock funds.
This is sadly well beyond what steem can do right now...
You're right when it comes to a fully decentralized smart contract type solution. It is possible to pay the funds out to a trusted agent though, who will then release them upon completion or whatever sort of criteria are used.
So I see that point. However currently the rewards are limited to small amounts per day. What if we want to pay for larger projects this this way?
Is the code archived in the GitHub?
Can we roll the code back, or does stinc hold the keys to the memory hole, too?
It doesn't appear to me that they intend to correct the wrecking of the n2 and the instigation of proof of wallet.
My comment elsewhere in this thread.
You don't leave the cancer cells to kill you, if you really want to live, imo.
At what point will the arrogance and ignorance become a nail in their version of steem's coffin?
All of the code is in github to my knowledge. You can't simply roll back code for a blockchain (unless you want to roll back the blockchain as well) since it is a one way data structure. You have to perform a new hard fork back to the old rules if that is the intent, which means adding yet more code. No way to go backwards.
Yes, i undersand.
No restarting the blockchain, once the ninjamine was intact.
A fork is looking easier than overcoming the egos, to me.
Reduces our demonstrated untrustworthiness, and lack of business prowess, to boot.
What happened to fixing the broken rewards curve, now that smts wont be riding in to save us with more coins nobody wants?
Is it still hung up in the personal animosities of stinc, et al?
I've not seen any progress on incentive changes..
I think this is impractical for a development project. I think some other process of asking for and getting money approved is required i think.
I must disagree. In fact it has been proven as practical by several development projects that were funded that way (when the value of Steem was higher). It isn't exactly a development project, but @burnpost raised well over $100K using daily campaign posts (again when the value was higher).
It is all about where stakeholders want the rewards to go (which in turn depends on what they are convinced is going to increase the value of their investment), regardless of the mechanism.
Fine, if that is your opinion.
I feel that with lack of leadership from steemit other processes are required.
To be clear, I'm not opposed to a worker system as I've recently stated elsewhere. I thought one should have been built starting with HF16 in 2016. But I don't think it is needed and I also believe that a lot of care needs to go into designing it (including being willing to make a number of revisions for continuous improvement if necessary, not something that has been a strong point around here) to end up with results that are significantly different from the poorly-performing stakeholder-voted reward system we already have.
Also, how would such a thing get built? Steemit seems unlikely to build it. Maybe blocktrades could do it but they would want to be paid. So we use the existing system to pay them or ???