I had a few months off, which was a mistake (hindsight being 20/20).
I'd like to move away from the idea that a steemer has any sort of obligation to be active.
We're always quick to tell people that steemit owes them nothing; that they're not entitled to any sort of payout just for gracing us with their presence, and I think that mindset needs to cut both ways.
Nobody let's anybody down by going quiet.
You can't shirk obligations you don't have.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's a good point. After all, Steemit is not a cult and we should not judge or manipulate people if they choose not to be active. Also, because time is valuable, if the money is not worth the time, then just like with any investment, it may make sense to sit on the sidelines.
That said, Steemit is also a social platform. With any relationship, I believe there is an obligation to stay engaged to some degree for the sake of the strength of the relationship. In my example, had I just stopped posting articles but was still around to comment from time to time and engage with other authors, I don't think this post would have been necessary.
It is interesting though that those who have the greatest stake in the platform (whales) don't seem to bother as much with relational engagement. It's as if the power precludes the need to connect. On the other side, many feign relational nicities to win favour and upvotes. This issue of human motivation really gets exposed with the whole monetary benefit aspect of Steemit.
Great comment. Would be good to continue this discussion over a beer some day.
I know #teamaustralia has raised the topic of an Aussie steemfest. There are certainly a lot of us now.
I've been toying with the idea of getting a group together on the Murray, on houseboats.
Call it Steemboating.
Maybe in a year or two :)