because you can then retain x% of 200k more, as opposed to the much worse y% that we're currently at.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
because you can then retain x% of 200k more, as opposed to the much worse y% that we're currently at.
Yeah I agree with you. We certainly my need to hash out any issues at this stage.
It's the people that think they're too important that are stifling this at times.
We're the pioneers of this big social and capitalist experiment. Let's break a few eggs! At this stage the more mistakes the better :)
You're right given that the first 2k users are a representative sample of the next 200k. But that's a very low probability 'given' in my eyes.
Maybe, but I don't see how upping the average Steem distribution to the lower 95% (SP holders) can be viewed as a bad thing. If the people already using the system think that it's broken, who's going to sell it to the fence-sitters and those currently unaware of Steemit?
Make it right before you go alpha.
By all means, take everything you said in your first post into account as well, but we can't forget about the importance of calibrating the math side of the system to ensure the highest possible growth/ retention, either.
It can be bad to focus too much on the big picture (future), as well, particularly when something can clearly be improved in the short-term that will help calm the turbulence within the current community.
Nesting reply.
I can't argue with what you say, it makes sense.
Let me throw out a hypothetical. Let's say you own 50% of Facebook , you believe it's going to be successful in the long run. But you're confronted with an incredibly vocal first 2k users, influenced by unsustainable rewards. With opinions shooting out of them, non sensical bullshit you disagree with.
In that situation, if I had the belief that the platform would exponentially grow. Then I wouldn't really care too much about those users... They're early adopters, they're not the average user.
In fact (to be crass) I'd take my big wad of 'fuck you SP' ... and continue with my original vision.
We're so early stage, people seem to think they're more important than they are.
Perfectly reasonable position. Provided your crystal ball is working properly.
If, like the rest of us, you can only speculate about the future by observing the present and recollecting the past.. perhaps less so.
Well, I can't help but notice that neither Dan nor Ned are participating in any of this debate, so perhaps the:
is precisely what's happening...and maybe that's what's best for the platform, as I don't necessarily disagree with your last statement, either:
...but, of course, that's not to say that we should bite our tongues when we feel strongly opinionated about something that directly effects our investments.
Lately, there's a lot of $0.02 going around on this curation topic and I don't think it's so bad to consider starting to listen if one of the sides adds up to something like, say, $100 when the other is still sitting under $1.