Well said (and I especially like the Coke and Pepsi part). Luke is a very nice guy, but he's wrong about this.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well said (and I especially like the Coke and Pepsi part). Luke is a very nice guy, but he's wrong about this.
I don't often check my witness votes as far as who is or isn't voting for me (I try to stay as impartial as possible), but the other day I did happen to see your vote removed (as it's a rather large one, it stood out) so I was happy to see this post and explanation. I love that we can respectfully disagree and still get along just fine and continue adding value to STEEM.
Before I get too far along, I want to ask if you'd also remove your support for witnesses like @anyx and @jesta? In my opinion, they have provided more value to this blockchain than most any other witnesses combined. To remove support for them would be to signal that what they are contributing here is not valued. IMO, that hurts all of STEEM. IMO, they provide so much value exactly because they are involved in the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem, not just one thing.
If some authors are receiving support to shill for a project, I'd be very turned off also. I've never done that for any project. One time after I wrote a SmartCash post, I found out about a writing contest which was already going on and submitted my post. I ended up winning and that's the closest thing I can think of to getting rewarded outside of STEEM for a post here. I think those who talk about projects they like should do so because they like the projects, not because they are getting paid to talk about them. I completely agree with your reasoning for not upvoting posts for projects you're not interested in. Definitely use your Steem Power as you see fit.
As to witness voting, I wouldn't say those who are advisors or block producers or advocates for multiple projects or teams are "double dipping." On the contrary, I think being well-rounded and learning from every project in the space helps people have a more complete understanding of what the latest technologies are and what open-source and governance best practicies are being implemented which can benefit other open source projects. For me, this isn't about tribalism or coin maximalism, but about improving human well-being. The things I learn from EOS, eosDAC, STEEM, SmartCash, or any other project I advise or do research on makes me a better cryptocurrency advocate and (IMO) STEEM witness.
Back to my example of @anyx and @jesta, I think the only metric that should matter is whether or not a witness brings value to the STEEM ecosystem compared to others. If someone who works on multiple projects is too busy with those projects to stay engaged enough in STEEM, then their output would decline and not voting for them makes sense. If, on the other hand, they are learning new things and bringing those ideas (these are all open source projects anyway, right?) back to STEEM to improve it, why is that a bad thing?
I'll give a practical example of what I mean. I mentioned in a comment to Tim Cliff about how the EOS community is building a foundation to control the EOS Github repo outside of the control of Block.one. I think that's something we should do also and @smooth replied in agreement. That's just one of many small examples where being engaged and involved in many different blockchain projects helps us all grow and be better at our jobs. For another example, what if SMT Oracles could be improved by including the Ricardian Contracts like EOS is using?
If someone's motivation is selfish or that they "aren't getting paid enough" or some similar reason, then I would agree with your reasoning to remove your vote. If, on the other hand, they want to provide more value to the whole cryptocurrency space to increase human well-being, that's something I support, based on their output of value.
I don't see blockchain projects as tribal "teams." I like this talk by Andreas Antonopolous where he describes a future where money is a form of language expression and competing currencies all live together just fine. I can't imagine any situation where a witness would (or even could) actually make a decision against the best interest of the community they are producing blocks for. We discussed this on the show SirCork is mentioning as well and no compelling example was presented.
You mention the potential for a conflict of interest. Can you give a concrete example? The only one mentioned on the show related to a witness blocking the release of SMTs which we all kind of agreed is ridiculous. Any witness who doesn't do what's best for STEEM will not remain a STEEM witness. The witnesses aren't writing the code (for the most part), they are validating blocks as trustworthy members of the community. Their expertise and experience in many projects creates that reputation. I've been a witness for a year. A top 20 witness for 6 months of that year. I've yet to come across anything evenly remotely concerning regarding insider information or the concerns you're bringing up. It's all open source and everything is visible by everyone on Github, long before a witness decision is made regarding an upgrade or fork.
I'd like to see a real example of "a proposed update that favors one blockchain over the other" because I can't imagine one that would cause me to make a poor decision, and I don't think I'm being naïve. I'm always going to work as hard as I can to support the communities that are trusting in me. What incentive would I have to invalidate that trust? On the contrary, by being involved in both projects (and even many projects), I can bring the best of all worlds together. eosDAC, as an example, is learning about decentralization from things SmartCash is doing (which I learned about via a tipping bot here on Steemit). We are all connected, building a new financial and governance reality. If we start creating walled gardens with "us vs. them" mentalities, we'll stunt progress and take further steps backwards.
@donkeypong, I respect you and the many communities you support here. I say all this not to persuade you to change your mind, but to clarify my perspective for others who are still undecided. As I mentioned two months ago when joining eosDAC, I think decentralization and DACs are the future, and I want to help build that future. I think it will impact and improve not just every cryptocurrency project in the space, but systems all over the world (governments, corporations, non-profits, clubs, and more). I think the DAC Toolkit will help many future DACs built on STEEM who need tools for organizing themselves as a DAC. I see a future where we all work together to create the world we want to live in, not just to support our tribalistic team. I'm not a fan of tribalism and when I hear some of this language, it puts me on the defensive a little bit. Let's not push away those who are creating value for STEEM. The output of value is what should matter most.
This is the most important thing I've built being a witness - the trust from the community and a reputation of providing value.
My decision to enter the EOS space wasn't to ruin this reputation, but to further enhance it as an "expert" in this industry. If I started acting against one platform in favor of another that would destroy what it's taken so long to build: trust.
Well said @lukestokes - I think we're on the same page on much of this.
It's understandable, that some would have this fear/concern.
Money makes a man not funny.
The side note to this however, is that this entire ecosystem as a whole is so new, that I have to agree there are massive benefits to being involved in multiple projects and blockchains.
It's such a new frontier, that learning from what others are doing through a hands on experience, can greatly help improve our personal ecosystem here.
I do share a lot of the constraints that @donkeypong is expressing however.
I was lucky enough to spend a few days with @lukestokes and after having done so....I believe him, I believe his motive and stance on this matter is genuine.
It's because of said opportunity that I won't be removing my vote from him...or from you either @jesta
I will say this though, as someone who has gone all in on this platform, someone that is 100% providing for my family through our blockchain....I truly hope you live up to the words you speak.
Do us right please.
But hey....I'm just that Hots or Shots guy...lol :P
Steem On!
Thanks. As I've said before, if there are 30 witnesses providing more value than I am, vote for them instead and let me know as well as I'll change my votes also (if I agree with the argument).
Thankfully my reputation is out there on an immutable blockchain for anyone to evaluate. If I ever did anything that wasn't in the best interest of the communities I'm working to support, I'm open to talk about it, and change if I was wrong. I think that's the best we can hope of from anyone.
I second this - and would encourage people to vote who is providing the most value. I won't be upset with anyone for voting who they believe provides the most value.
I believe that's exactly what I'm doing.
Here's to hoping I'm right.
Thanks, @jesta. I didn't want to speak for you or @anyx, but I did think we'd agree the most valuable people we have on STEEM became so by the many things they've done to add value and build their reputation.
Hi Luke
Thank you for giving a detailed reply to this post. I guess what @donkeypong has laid out has been on the mind of a number of witnesses, including myself, over the past few months and so I'm glad to see it being discussed openly and respectfully.
I chose to support you as a witness prior to SteemFest 2, but on talking to you there and listening to your input at the event I felt I'd made a good choice, and that remains the case. I am though in agreement with @donkeypong that the continued 'promotion' of 'rival' blockchains/projects is not desirable to see here. A cheap example would be @dtube supporting a YouTube promo video - not that there are many of those these days.
Your actions on the blockchain, particularly when compared to other witnesses, tell me you are still heavily involved here. And I trust if that any point this were to change, you will let the community know of your status.
Cheers.
Thanks for your input and support. I really respect that you'll make decisions about me and hopefully all the witnesses based on what value we're actually bringing, not based on fears or concerns that haven't materialized and (from my perspective) may not be that plausible when it comes to what a DPOS block producer actually does.
My hope is both you and @donkeypong won't view this ecosystem as full of "rival" blockchains. My job as an educator and advocate for decentralized non-violent consensus systems will be to show a future where everyone competes on merit alone, not based on geographic regions, imaginary borders, or tribalistic partnerships. We have some serious challenges ahead of us with nation-state governments and central bank cartels. Together, we are unstoppable. If instead we fight over how much of the new pie we get to carve off as "ours" we may miss the point entirely.
When I talk about these things, I'm speaking from personal experience about what I think works in the marketplace. I ran FoxyCart for over ten years with my business partner before selling my business this year to focus full-time on cryptocurrency projects. During much of that time, if a user came to sign up for FoxyCart and during the signup process we determined they weren't a good fit for us, we'd actually send them along to Shopify (a "competitor"). This mentality always served us and our customers well. This experience informs my perspective on how we can all work together to get the best outcome for humanity looking for better solutions.
@lukestokes, I know that you will not care what I say. But you should. Not because I am anybody important, but because I am one of the few that have joined lately and stayed.
I have read your response to this article by @donkeypong and also read @abh12345's reply. From what I can deduce, you are probably a well-intentioned guy and a nice guy too. But your arguments here as to why you should keep your witness vote, completely highlight what is wrong with the platform.
In your litany of reasons why @donkeypong should keep his vote for you, the most glaring response was you wanted to keep your feet in the EOS camp to keep the pulse on the cryptospace. This is exactly what the problem is with Steemit.
You (and frankly too many of the witnesses) are looking at one thing (the tech issues), and you have completely ignored the fact that people that sign up... leave. And I am not talking about 1 in 10 leaving, or even 5 in 10 leaving... I am talking about an attrition rate that is so bad the number of active users is going DOWN (fyi, that means that more users leave than signup, which is particularly bad since you have lots of signups). Did you even know this?
If you didn't, then maybe that is the problem. Here is the post from @paulag which she did last month in an attempt to bring this issue up so it can be dealt with. (Click Here) This 3 month snapshot shows this simple stunning fact:
What are you doing about this? Where is the focus on this issue? Instead of spending your time learning about EOS as a secret double agent spy, why don't you spend time talking to the people that sign up and try to use this platform? Why don't you see why many see this place as nothing more than a schoolyard filled with bullies throwing their weight around? Why don't you see why many people have given up on making good posts, and now do the bare minimum so they can recycle the whales SP at a small profit (ie known as bot farming)?
As a witness, instead of your answer being that you need to learn about EOS, ask yourself are you really only there to "learn" how to make Steemit better? It seems like a weak response to me and one that isn't very believable.
Having said that, Asher says that you are a heavily involved witness on this platform (compared to other witnesses on this platform). If that is true then great (even with that pretty big caveat). I hope you are. I hope to see you involved with finding solutions to the absolutely terrible retention problem that exists here. I hope to see you give these issues more of your time, and the EOS platform much less. I hope you can see why someone like me (a nobody here), thinks this is a ridiculous discussion that you are having about why you are supporting another platform when the one you have supposed "loyalty" to is burning around you.
As I said, you seem like a decent guy. I hope that you take these words constructively and get out in the community and find out what is going wrong. It is there for anyone that wants to ask good questions. I have many friends that can help you too if you just ask.
Its not really that hard if you want to make Steemit better and maintain your witness... Start focusing on Steemit users (especially the new ones) and the issues that are important to them, and stop pretending to be using EOS as a learning tool to make Steemit better. I'm not buying it, and I hope you stop trying to sell it.
Thank you for this post. Many artist that I know just stopped posting here and just stopping by once a month to see what is going on around steemit. It is sad to loose so valuable assets to the platform but most people here interested in crypto and tech .
I agree with you completely @marinaart! I have seen so many talented artists come and go. Its really a shame too as this could've been so so different. The people at the top are tone deaf and don't listen to anyone. I hope you stick around though, even though we only talk every so often, one day I think things will change and the tables will be turned! Then we can make a difference and bring all those people back!
Only time will tell. I think steemit will change bloging format in future. May be it would looks like YouNow.
@marinaart thanks for your thoughts, do you use YouNow? And is it any good?
I have an account on YouNow and collecting data at this stage. This platform targeting people from 13 to 28( mostly teens and young adults) and mobile and android devices.+ only Live Broadcasting . PROPS project got seeded on this platform few month back and it is very interesting to see what it do. Every time you loggin on you account they given you daily coins/bonus for coming back to platform. broadcasters receive money in the form of gold bars( Upvotes ) that audience buying with they $$$. So no upvoting abuse there and earning are real. I think that they will replace gold bars with PROPS -crypto currency- and create big market for this coin.
Instead of leaving a huge reply, I turned it into a root post here.
I replied in your root post... I will respect this blog and not repost the full reply here, but I did post my full answer in both your blog post and my blog post.
As I said in my answer, I am not happy with the actual answer you gave me (but recognize you are the messenger and not the architect of the plan), but I definitely appreciate you having the courage to tell me like it is. I appreciate that you didn't sugar coat it. It is maybe the most meaningful interaction I've had here is 6 months.
Thank you again (for telling me the bad news), you have done me a favor and really opened my eyes!
ps... I hope you're somehow wrong, but frankly judging by the actions of the other 19 "top 20" witnesses and the lack of ever seeing @ned I have a suspicion you are very much right!
Wow, thank you.
I hope you read my follow up reply as well. Your first reaction to my post may be more pessimistic than needed. Thanks for the constructive dialogue.
I meant that... I appreciate honesty. And that was a big one! :)
Even if I disagree with you, I really appreciate the truth as you (or anyone) see it. People disagree for many reasons, but if we can discuss things truthfully then many times those disagreements can eventually find ways to bridge the gap.
I think you are talking to DonkeyPong and not me, right? It's in thread under me, so I was somewhat uncertain.
If its to me? I haven't had a vote on you for a long time, and I don't think I ever voted for jesta and anyx, I've always supported witnesses who do things I like, witnesses I can talk to and engage with anytime, that I see on the platform, drinking the coke and pepsi of the place. For the deep divers, yes many of the witnesses I vote for, also vote for me, that aligns with us having similar values, metrics and expectations for each other, but in general I will go for involved, dedicated, contributing, engaged witnesses whom I can reach pretty much any time (though I don't often exercise that as such per se, because we all tend to hang out in the same places anyway, there are only 50K active users after all, it's just a small town with only so many watering holes)
Also I often opt for lower ranked ones who work hard. Bigger ones wouldn't even notice my vote but for small ones I've moved some several positions with my proxied votes and my own. That seems beneficial to them, the chain for what I am supporting of their work with my vote and our users, by extension of the platform value-add stuff these guys do.
But to your points above. I will switch from sodas to pizza now. As a teenager in my school days I managed a pizza hut delivery. I didn't need to work at domino's to steal ideas from them, er I mean, learn from their methods and apply them in our own store. In fact, I would have been fired from one of them for trying to do both, I'm almost positive... something akin to voters responses to choosing witnesses dedicated to their "brand"
In our radio chat, and here on this page, the people against splitting time and interests anecdotally seem to out weigh those in favor of the idea. Echo chamber due to OP content and corresponding reader attraction? Maybe if it was just here or just on the radio show, but those two unique moments are producing similar results from the "crowd"
Which is where you and I differ on what you seem to consider being "engaged" in the platform and with the communities made up of the platform's users. I spend all day talking to them, the running joke being that I am "everywhere" and "always listening" which I get teased about a lot but really is just judicious use of ginabot and discord notifications and steem.chat emails lol. But the thing is I respond, nearly every single time, nearly every single hour of the day, something I've seen more of from you in a week since the meetup than I ever recall before.
I say that because I perceive that you are literally standing in a room full of people opposed to the idea of witnesses splitting their time and attention to both brands, and suggesting otherwise is going to be acceptable, makes me wonder how in touch you will be able to be with user sentiment with your attention divided if it's slightly seeming out of whack already?
Ultimately though your point seems to center around being able to learn more to bring back, that means you'll also be learning here and taking our improvements to the competitor faster. Right?
But it's all open source cork, they can see it anyway. Which underscores my point. I am pretty conversent in EOS tech already, at a white paper level as much as anybody else guessing along on telegram channels. I don't need to work there to learn how it works and use that knowledge here. In fact doing so would leave me little time to do much of either.
If you have such an abundance of free time, I will come back to my favorite repetitive question for you. What do you do with your time? You get paid a very nice full time salary. Do you spend 40 hours a week on steem? Will you spend 80 when you have two salaries? Perhaps you will say you can be more efficient and the time value of expertise warrants higher pay at fewer hours but to that I say, welp, I'll give my vote to the hardworking dedicated guy/gal/team willing to work the full shift for the same pay, its a better value proposition for me, since the competitive nature of the place and the method of dPOS voting means that guy has to be accountable and deliver "quality" and "value" to stay in his spot or someone hungrier will come take it from him by earning it harder, better, faster, stronger.
I can't speak for all "the people" but I can tell you I hear more sentiment against split personalities than I hear in support of them.
You're a decent guy, I hope you don't end up getting shunned by the people here and finding yourself in a massive cluster fuck or being outgunned over there or whatever, and losing what you HAVE invested here. That would suck, wouldn't it?
Yes, I was replying to Tom who said I was wrong and so I wanted to clarify my position.
If we start making decisions about "hours worked" instead of value delivered, then we're going to lower the value of contributions to STEEM. I have no fear-based mentality. If people don't think I provide value, they won't vote for me. They chose to vote for me up to this point (over 5,000 accounts, 7,000 if you include proxy voters, from what I've been told) and some will chose to change their vote as well, as Tom did. I'll simply present my case and keep doing what I've been doing and let others decide if it's valuable.
There are 100 people on this page citing it bad to dual operate. But I can't make you any more aware of community sentiment than to have it laying here all around you.
Your opening statement is a logical fallacy though. And a pretty basic one.
I said I would take the guy who would perform better, more of the time. Your assertion he can't work a full shift and deliver at par or even better too is ridiculous and needs no further comment.
Taking a leadership stance isn't always about going along with the masses. I think being directly involved in multiple projects makes me better understand the space in general and how we can improve STEEM. That's speaking for myself, not others. I'm not sure which opening statement you're referring to. Discrediting my views as "too ridiculous" isn't part of healthy dialogue. Maybe some examples could help: Richard Branson, Elon Musk, etc. They are involved in many things. Are they better off for it or worse off?
(I'm not claiming to be anywhere near these legends, I'm just using it as an example to say the concept is not immediately worth ridiculing.)
Oh jesus Luke.
Point by point.
"going with the masses" - you dont get to PICK to be a leader here bro ,the MASSES pick you, and they are screaming hell no to the split personality witness/bp bs, hello?
Every entrepreneur you mentioned owns all their shit in the same company, our company metaphor is steem or eos. You want to work on steem and dtube and dlive? Fine You want to work for youtube and vimeo? Yeah, no. Hello? Are you even awake yet today?
Opening ridiculous statement: If we start making decisions about "hours worked" instead of value delivered, then we're going to lower the value of contributions to STEEM.
If you only work part time and there are fulltimers outperforming you, which was the premise you ignored to try and sound smart again, well, you sound ridiculous, and if you are still gonna cry about how people talk to you, using the word "leadership" in a sentence makes me chuckle.
How long have you been the career world, kid, about ten minutes?
IMO, your continued condescension is childish. Why can't you type respectfully when engaging in dialogue with me? You don't talk to me this way in person or on air. Why here?
Your language with me is condescending and disrespectful. Examples:
You already know the answer to that last question, so why use passive aggression to ask it here?
Why do you revert to this language? How does it benefit you? You were respectful and passionate on air, thanked me for joining your show, and asked me to return to your community and then you talk like this? Why would I bother engaging with someone who doesn't respect me?
I would say Luke and I - after two rounds of public debates - at a meetup and on the live streams on youtube, twitch, steemstar.net, etc, - have reached a point of civil disagreement that didn't begin so civilly.
I sure hope steem is pepsi in this analogy....
I dont care which label we put on the can as long as "diet" is nowhere in sight.
Hahahahahaha. This made me laugh, just as the Pepsi and Coke you mentioned earlier sir.
you are right sir!! @donkeypong