You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Inflation as a Platform Cost. Another Look at Stake

in #steem6 years ago

So, the plan is to allow proof of brain to remain broken and the math unattractive to the masses because long term gains?

We'd be on the way to the moon by now, imo, if the whale experiment had been allowed to play out.
If being attractive to the masses causes us to be adopted as a currency we can leave the pie in the sky, instead of remaining hopeful we'll ever see any.

I agree the greedy are cutting their own throats, but i dont see that allowing the status quo to continue helps.
You'll have to forgive my scepticism of any promises of a better tomorrow while we do nothing to change things.

Sort:  

I didn’t say I approve of what’s actually happening, did I?

In fact, I think it’s obvious I disagree with the ongoing. If you browse my archives you will find a recent post which links to my position on bidbots.

Too many people here on Steem seem to suffer from a lack of understanding of “not mutually exclusive”. There’s many shades of grey in between black and white, more than 50 too.

But... delegation has become a vital part and it should not be taken back. Delegation does power a lot of great initiatives, especially platform growth with dApps. That’s long-term thinking. But it should see some degree of regulation. If you think though that n^2 is the solution, then all you actually promote is an even faster, and thus unhealthier for the platform, get rich scheme.

Linear is much better, although I can live with n^1.3 (max - make it n^1.22 rather).

N^2 at its worst: large stake holders who trails curation upvotes like @tribesteemup and trail at minute 0, crushing the curation rewards for everyone else in that round. Is that what you want?

A get rich quick scheme? A scheme supporting ninja miners even more? A scheme supporting everyone who comes here because the returns are of an utopian level and not found elsewhere?

Then let’s first set powering down back to two years rather than 13 weeks, please.

Those aren’t the investors you’re looking for.

You’re trying to blame a healthier system for human behavior. Instead of opting for a the 0.01% system, build on the actual system and fix what is wrong.

n^2 isn’t the solution.

I can see less than n2, anything but linear is good with me.

My problem with delegations is when it excedes 800mv.
It gives entirely too much to the favored.
Adoption into curation guilds shouldnt be the only way to survive here.
When apps get~2500mv to play in a pool where most folks have >1mv it tends to take the fun out of the game for the little guys.
Add in bidbots and there is no game, just pay to play.

Im game with ten month power downs.

Your problem is that you think there should be an immediate return.

I’m sorry, that’s not how it works.

That’s just as vulture alike as the bot operators and delegators now.

Why do apps have large delegations? Because people invest lots of time, often also their credit cards and even mortgages, in building startups. In building long term. Delegations can both empower, grow, and subsequently become a great example of what can be done on the future.

Of what will eventually drive the value of Steem.

Your thinking? You highlight issues and at the same time you say you’re fine with anything which returns to a system which was developed for a platform without any certitude about longevity. It’s not the solution... no return should be expected definitely not immediately.

Investing is ALWAYS a risk.

We shouldn’t be scared that the vultures leave. Instead... it makes room, at a reasonable cost, for new and possibly better focused investors. People who don’t wallow the loss of anything n^+1.

That only feeds wrong behavior, wrong loudmouths and is also destructive for agile evolution of a platform.

Loading...