Why do you think that case can be defended? I mean if you see this purely as crypto game, why would above invest money in it? What gives the crypto currency value? For paying a game and see who invests most and cheats best?
I could be exaggerating a bit. But I hope you understand what I mean?
Yeah, I getcha.
It can be defended by using the free market argument. Steemit is decentralized and free, and in a wild west people can basically do as they please.
There's no central authority or set of laws here, so anything goes, basically.
Is all of the behavior desirable? Absolutely not. And I myself have grown a bit more skeptical towards the whole idea of a decentralized network like this even being able to produce a result that's in line with what people feel is a desirable end result.
As evidenced by what goes on in here.
There is no such thing as a free-market argument; such an argument would assume that a free market is optimal for all groups and societies, or maybe some sort of religious Holy Grail that cannot be doubted. As yet, this is unprovable, and there is plenty of evidence that unbounded free-market economies may not yield the most pleasant of societies.
I just felt like disagreeing with someone. Must be the heat.
I think we are basically on the same line.
At first I believed that this could and would be a really awesome decentralized social media platform. Where one as bonus could earn some money. And real good bloggers could earn quite some money.
Nowadays it looks more like a crypto game that basically doesn't have any ethical rules.
Steemit could be showing that it's almost impossible to create a decentralized platform that works pretty well.
But I still keep my hopes up for a social media platform that financially rewards its users in such a way that at least 95% of the users agree to the system. Which also should really in higher numbers of active users and keeping them to hang around for a long(er) period of time.