You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Rejecting HF21 in its current state

in #steem5 years ago

I can understand that you've got concerns about the effectiveness of the EiP, but doing nothing is not an option and seeing the results of EiP is not possible in theory. At least not completely.

Of course, you can chip in your opinion as a backup-witness, but I'm wondering why your opinion should be valued while you've sold pretty much 99% of what you've earned here on Steem. Isn't this clearly a sign that the current system isn't incentivizing people enough keep their rewards aka Steempower, instead of selling it?

In comparison, many proponents of the EiP (e.g. @kevinwong, @trafalgar and myself) still have the majority of their stake on Steem. Which is why we want to make sure Steem becomes a success, as we've got a pretty big incentive.

Now, I'm obviously not arguing that risks are involved with these proposed changes and that discussions are important, but just talking will result in no progress => and doing nothing will be the death of Steem.

Sort:  

The solution is to build a new paradigm that will fix the fundamental issues with Steem, being:

  1. Plutocracies have always failed social networks of any kind.
  2. Investors and content creators have contradicting interests that are not being served by the same system.

I get it, none of us have had the vision to come up with a solution just yet, so meanwhile might as well try some quick fixes and see how things go. I'm on board with all of that. I'm just raising some questions that may help optimise said quick fixes.

Also, some clarifications are in order. In the past I've invested heavily in Steem. When everyone was exclaiming doom and gloom when Dan left, I bought hundreds of thousands of Steem. I always had significant liquid Steem, but for the longest time, I was also significantly powered up across 6 or 7 accounts (since you're snooping around, feel free to check @liberosist, @meerkat, @dunia etc.). While powered up, I used all of my stake to exclusively support curation initiatives. I can understand why you'd think I have an ulterior motive, and I won't call it libellous, but I've contributed significantly to Steem through 2016-17 and I'd urge you to believe me that I still have the best interests of Steem at heart.

To be transparent, I powered down and sold a lot during the bull run, but you should not assume that just because I am not powered up that I'm not a Steem investor. I started buying back once the market had settled, and I bought some more Steem as recently as a week ago. All I'll say is, I'm a significant investor of Steem, and the best interests of Steem are in my best interest. But the price isn't my concern here. A bull market will come around, and STEEM will gain significantly as usual. Doesn't really mean Steem will become a better social network.

PS: I'll absolutely power up when the two fundamental issues I list above are even partially solved.

Downvoted because the top voted comment does not have much to do with the presented arguments and instead dismisses what was written based on "not enough stake".