As much as I want to agree with this sentiment, there is something to be said about the personal responsibility of individuals becoming vested in the platform by actually acquiring some STEEM to power up.
The same can be said of newspaper pay walls. We are all so used to free information (or free crypto in this instance) that we forget that someone is paying/subsidizing for that access. I think 10x is appropriate on the face of things, and an easily adjustable figure if its not.
Steem essentially gives away "stock" if you will by rewarding users with Steem... its not merely a social network. People should be incentivized to power up and not feel entitled to the right of obtaining as much as they want on someone elses dime.
if you are right @investingpennies, then I hope you don't have a dream of mass adoption.... I guess if you want to have a little tech niche of people that can have discussions about blockchain and things like that, then it will do fine.
But if you expect people to "put money into the system to simply use it", then you will quickly find out that your expectations were off. I also think that while the opportunity to make money is ok, its nowhere near what it is hyped to be to get people here in the first place. And now with an attrition rate of greater than 100% you agree with disabling them until they "pay up" then you truly are so far off the mainstream. I don't know if you are part of the programming team, but its a lack of thought on programs like this that have made this place fail to retain the users. Instead of telling people what they "should" do, Steemit Inc might want to figure out what they "will" do. And I can assure you that if you charge people for commenting and they have to choose between that and making a post or upvoting, then you can damn sure bet that interaction will die a quick death. Maybe that's ok with the programmers who don't like people anyways, but for the ones here for the social aspect it will drive them away in herds.
Amen, I “will” stop commenting in general.... wait I already have! Much of my commenting was not for my own sake but for the support and encouragement of the authors.
I could care less about the details but I care about the experience, posts get no comments currently. I crave interaction and if I get none I give none simple as that.
Will it get better as they say with adjustments of “normal” behaviour? How can it when some of the most active users have been deterred from interacting “normally” including myself.
I have seen you on nearly ever post I have read without a single solid rebuttal to your statements of “should do” and “will do”. The question remains what do the people in charge want from the Steem chain vs what do the users want?
I want to not worry about another limitation as I struggled for months already to break past the bandwidth limitations and finally get noticed then start interacting at a sufficient level! I made investments, though small as I’m not a wealthy man, which now feel unsatisfactory for the demand of the platform.
Pay to play.... hmm games moved away from this system to something with paid add-ons for good reason but still the full game is available to the user just the challenge of accomplishing the missions are higher without purchases.
This whole thing seems like a convoluted mess if you ask me! Now I’m risking loosing delegations from our community account and my own which will make myself need to pull delegations from dapps and community members so I can continue to post to receive even less interaction from those members whom held my delegations in the first place.
Foresight is essential in business, lack thereof has bankrupted many good companies nearly overnight. The only protection currently is the waiting period to power down.
Posted using Partiko iOS
You said it better than me! I completely agree. I think they are so wrong on this one that they will have no choice but to see it. (and believe me, I don't think they look very hard either)
I'm very happy with the reaction from the people that actually read and respond though... It gives me encouragement that our voices might actually speak out loud enough that someone in power pays attention.
Thank you for making the point I was trying to make even better!
You've hit the nail on the head there, Dave. Figuring out what people "will" and "want" to do is the crux of anything being widely successful and accepted. It doesn't matter what you personally want from anything if nobody else is interested.
Thank you @minismallholding! I'm glad to see the point reinforced so that maybe it sinks in to a few that make these decisions! I think we all want to help this place get better, so I hope they take it constructively! :)
@davemccoy On the contrary, I think sustainable resource management necessary for mass adoption is the key focus of what we're trying to accomplish here.
Indeed, the goal is for SMTs eventually - ideally dApps running in tandem with STEEM or on centralized servers of their own. Yet this requires ensuring that resources paid for are allocated according to who owns them. In this instance we're not talking so much about users owning Steem but platforms owning larger amounts of STEEM. And those platforms are free to issue SMTs all they want in order to allot whatever of THEIR resources they wish to distribute accordingly to their dApp users. But these dApps must also be able to ensure their proportionate access to the STEEM blockchain.
It might be near-sighted to want mass adoption of a particular use case like a social network such as Steemit. Without some constraint keeping everyone in check, allowing rampant overuse of communal resources can't possibly work out in the long run.
If the use case is relevant and serves a purpose, people will migrate to it. Many may be turned off by Steemit, but I would hope that Steemit isn't the end goal anyways. The fact we're moving towards SMTs suggests that we're looking to become a dApp-friendly blockchain, and that requires some form of order above all rather than a disorganized use of blockchain resources. This is especially the case in regards to the low-SP population who clearly have no reason or incentive to hold onto Steem to begin with.
I believe in having meaningful communities and useful content. But in the context of what Steemit has to offer, some of this might take some finessing as to what the proper amount of resources actually is. The action cost is still declining due to equilibrium, and whether 10x is the answer or not is to be seen... but just because a bar is being set now doesn't really matter as long as the objective of not letting the platform die altogether is kept in check, as it has been as demonstrated by this update post.
I appreciate your reply and the courtesy with which you made your points. I can tell that you believe you are making the right choice. I respect that.
I also realize the point you made about preparing for what you think is going to be a rush of users (non-Steemit related). I am not privy to those negotiations nor do I have any way of knowing if this will be successful or not. I do hope you know what you are doing and wish you the best!
As regards to Steemit, I think you are running very close to killing it. I don't mean it ceasing to operate, I mean it being used as a general social media platform. If you don't care or have priorities that make that seem like no big deal, then I guess you will continue on your current path. If you do care, then I would highly suggest that you make the "engagement" function so small that people won't notice it even exists. If people find out they are getting blocked from doing anything and they find out that "engaging" is costing them something, then it will be the first thing they jettison. That's just a real world way of life.
I have had many (too many) conversations in the last few days with my friends and even with witnesses. The bottom line is most everyone at this point CARES. If you continue down the "Steemit is only a small part of the picture" path, then that will change faster than you currently realize.
Sometimes people immerse themselves into a world and a feedback loop that gives them answers they ask for, but not necessarily the truth. I think this is one of those times. I urge you and the powers within Steemit to take the time to really ask the mainstream before you test whether or not you really care about whether Steemit users stick around. This is intended as constructive advice, because I'm one of those that do still care at this point.