I hope that a way could be found to keep the Condenser open-source project viable, possibly by transitioning it away from Steemit Inc. toward a more community-driven model somehow. I suppose if you just left it, it could always be forked, but it would be nice to have more of a transition.
Good points.
I wonder if it might be possible to move some of the responsibilities for the broad base of things Steemit Inc. has been doing to outside parties
IMO for the most part they just need to stop doing them (in an orderly manner with good communications and sufficient advance notice). There are already people willing to operate nodes as a fee based service, which would be far more sustainable. They haven't done it because Steemit undercuts them by running nodes for free. It was done with good intentions, but the outcome is still bad.
With that last bit I wasn't thinking so much of node-running as marketing, running front ends, and so on. The things they've decided maybe they should never have been doing themselves.
There's an interesting discussion of fee-based nodes going on over here at the moment.
Yes I agree with all those others too, and similar comments apply. For example in the case of running front ends, others struggle to get traffic with steemit capturing most of it by default. If they/Steem offered a neutral directory page of third party apps it would be easier for others to compete. Likewise, apps (which could include condenser deployments) that want to try to use a small beneficiary tax as a business model would have an easier time without steemit.com undercutting them (I think they'd still struggle but less so than with the status quo).
Don't worry, I'm consciously off topic, I just wanted to talk about it being here, but I'll read it right away, thank you for sharing.
I keep saying that a hybrid system would be needed to allow mass adoption. A half-centralized system at least for new and small accounts. Because we know that a small account is useless, they are limited in everything, comments, votes, they earn nothing and these small accounts are only used for spam or to inflate the stats of dead accounts.
We need a system where people wouldn't even see that they don't have the ability to act on the network, we can do it with a front-end that does it.
We live here on Steem behind closed doors, articles with hundreds of thousands of views collect only 3 comments (I had the bitter experience) from Steemians and the others look but can't comment.
The keys are too complicated to manage they would have to be intended only for people who have an interest in using the blockchain and who will therefore pay attention to this and therefore the 4 keys (posting, active etc...) will no longer be a barrier for users.
In short, there are plenty of solutions and no problems, except those we invent for ourselves. For example, Steemit.com, which is ranked among the most visited sites in the world, does not benefit from advertising. While with a good organization they could have done it and with the profits bought from the Steem so raise the price and redistribute them to virtuous projects and we have tons on Steem with all the Dapps that exist today.
Unfortunately, the Steemians with whom I speak persist in the wrong direction and those who think like me need a way forward but they don't have them. I can't do anything because I don't have enough time and energy, but fortunately there is time and energy to do it and I'm sure that one day or another it's this kind of application/front-end that will make the network successful.
A simple example, Medium has launched its partner program. Those who wish to (and only those who wish to) can register and publish content that will be visible only to Medium subscribers. We must do the same with Steem, without charging (fees) anything. Because we have the technology to offer such a service. A Steem account should only be given to those who wish to do so and should not be a requirement for interaction with Steemians. Okay there will be spam but all social networks are doing fine today, right? It is up to us to think and act.
Sorry for my English I translated via Deepl.com
Am I mistaken that mrdelegation does more harm than good by favoring the select few at the cost of the common user?
By taking hundreds of stu's for themselves they deprive 1000's of users even a tiny slice of the pie.
The pool is only so large, the top ten voters take 30%, how much is left after the top 100 vote?
I agree with you. I consider it a terrible model in practice for various reasons, in addition to being illegitimate and slimy. The ninja-mined stake was promised to be non-voting in order to avoid competing for influence, and in fact there was even a feature implemented in one of the early hard forks to enforce that social contract, but of course they never used it.
Its like they dont want steem to succeed,...