After observing things for the past 15+ months, I agree. I even said as much yesterday on the Steemitblog post:
At some point, we’ll just need to accept that the initial distribution doomed the entire blockchain and hope that maybe, someday, it might get worked out...but in the meantime, be unenthusiastic about things or even abandon it until it’s better suited for its purpose. Or...live with the fact that nothing can be done about that distribution and just accept whatever rewards and exposure we get while enjoying our own creative pursuits and/or interactions.
For those of us who have been here a long time, we should understand by now what the problems are - and the initial distribution of stake always seems to be the number one cause of them. I’m pretty much convinced that this is what has hampered investment/development and I’m not at all convinced that SMTs will make much of a difference.
I know I’ve said this a lot, but the only way that things can ever truly be rectified is if Steemit, Inc. and the rest of the early miners burned or distributed most of their stake - which I would never ask them or expect them to do. I do ask that Steemit, Inc. burn the stake in the @steemit account because their plan of multi-year divesting (selling) will only put perpetual downward pressure on prices. And that stake was supposed to be used for onboarding/marketing.
But if none of these accounts are interested in doing that, then there’s no point in constantly trying to “tweak” the code to make things better. They won’t get better that way.
On the other hand, if we are just going to accept the imbalances and the lack of investment, then we really just need to figure out whether or not we want a niche/exclusive platform or if we want mass adoption. Wrestling with the code, demanding posting/curating excellence, having unreasonable expectations...things could be different if there was some sort of understanding of what kind of social media atmosphere we want. Blockchain protocols and user/investor interests will vary, depending on what we’re trying to achieve. I don’t believe the code can accommodate both mass adoption and a pleasant/controlled user experience, especially with money being the prevailing factor for most user behavior. (I also mentioned this on the Steemitblog post - and it probably made more sense there.)
Anyway...those are some of my Friday night thoughts.
Interesting, I would have used different words, but my conclusion is the same. We can change it, tweak it, but the money will still flow to the same places for the same reasons.
It all boils down to "If you keep doing what you are doing, you will keep getting what you are getting.".
Same behavior (and values) same results.
Yep. That was much shorter than what I said.
Sorry...it’s later on this side of the country. And I’m old.
I liked when I first joined and everyone was telling me how by the end of the year Steem would be to the moon,
also that I should sell everything and invest in steem only, good thing I tend to not listen to anybody on a platform for incentivized kindness, I always assume all games are rigged until proven otherwise. That being said I've had fun times and met some cool people, that about sums it up