This is a bad idea. The 'steemit' account was created via the ninjamine for a specific purpose and investors have been told what it would be used for. It was explicitly stated that it would be not a voting account. Those who have bought into and vested SP for two years did so with the understanding that the 'steemit' account would be non-voting. Introducing the 'steemit' account into the voting pool at this point would enormously dilute every other investor's voting influence, and worse it would do so after people already locked up their investment for two years. This would undermine trust and discourage further investment. The platform relies extremely heavily on new investors buying in to absorb the supply being sold by people cashing out. Anything that threatens to undermine that support from investors, such as this proposal, is an existential risk.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thanks for your input. @ottodv mentioned this too. I was not previously aware of that statement on the steemit account and I may well have missed it. Is it in the whitepaper - I had a quick glance through but couldn't find it?
The other alternative would be if any of the large holders who are members of the Steemit team would want to delegate their voting - exact same idea just using different accounts as the source of voting power so no agreements are broken.
The part of it I like the most is having the elected curators like elected witnesses. Indeed if we can get true delegated voting for all accounts then that would be ideal.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Your wisdom and technical knowledge is always appreciated.
There is no particular reason to focus on the Steemit team. Any large (or even small; perhaps this makes even more sense!) stakeholders can delegate their voting power to others, as is being done by Curie and other existing curation groups. Steemit is developing some curation guild features for a future version of the code, which can be added to the mix when they are ready, but the idea of cooperative and delegated curation is something that can, and is, being done right now.
You are right I think that would be the ideal situation if everyone could delegate their voting power and up until now the only real way to do it is with groups like Curie. I do like the idea of electing curators like witnesses though and I suppose if we can get delegated voting working for everyone that would be the situation.
My reference to the Steemit team was in case they were hesitating or wanting to test the system out on a small scale before rolling it out to everyone. It could be a pilot run to iron out any issues or problems.
I do not agree it is ideal for everyone to delegate their voting. A large population of independent, individually-invested, and diverse users with different interests and perspectives is a far healthier way to allocate voting power than recentralizing it under a relatively few designated (and presumably less- or un-invested) curators.
For those who choose to delegate their voting, that can probably add value over not voting at all, but forcing that model on everyone is not a good idea.
In fact if it were feasible to get rid of elected witnesses and have every stakeholder sign blocks instead of a relatively centralized small group, without giving up the specific operational and governance advantages that it brings, I'd be in favor of doing so. I see no such compelling reason to centralize curation with this form of system-wide delegation.
I hadn't considered that.
I think it would be a great temptation to delegate voting to someone else because it is a lot of work for not much reward (or so it seems).
A global option would likely cause more centralisation as you say due to the temptation to pass off your voting power to someone else. Thank you for pointing it out.
One way that could potentially mitigate this would be to only allow a certain percentage of voting power to be delegated.
Then you run in to the potential issue that due to the way the system works if people only pass of a percentage and then don't bother voting it makes no difference - since the rewards would adjust to the amount of voting being carried out.
This would make it a pointless change.
I think I see more and more the dilemma of running an endeavour like Steemit.
Every time you try to fix one thing you and up breaking something else.
Luckily we have a lot people in the community to scrutinise things in advance.
I agree that if DV were to be implemented some kind of measures would need to be taken to reduce the centralisation.
The problem is we do also currently have a degree of centralisation due to the large amounts of SP held by a few individuals. It would be a matter of striking the right balance and making a positive change.
Excellent points as always.
Ok @smooth I agre with you but now the question is... how many investors do we have??? How many investors came in the last 30-60 days??? I don't think so many. So We should do something to bring oxygen to Steemit (social media). Because this project if will continue like this... will collapse soon... and this is a message clear since the end of August.
There are absolutely investors in the last 30-60 days. I see that 6 days ago you sent some coins to Poloniex, presumably to sell them to "cash out". (I don't mean to call you out specifically, as sending coins to an exchange to cash out is a perfectly normal and expected thing to do; this is for illustration) Who do you think bought those coins when you sold them?
Scare away investors (even more than what has already been done; this is hardly an investor-friendly platform) and you might as well just turn out the lights right now. We've already seen a preview of this with the price and reward pool down roughly 90%. Consider the effect of another 90% or more.
I agree we need to breathe some life, but that has to include also not scaring off or (proving their fears correct by) screwing over investors. Improvements to the platform (some of which I'm sponsoring in the form of alternate interfaces) have to happen alongside maintaining an investor-friendly approach in order for there to even be a platform.
True Smooth infact I consider you one of the best in steemit as always promotive of new and nice things (i.e. you support RHW) that is an amazing thing.
I mean could be nice create a channel on Rocket chat or whatever you want to meet up and organise what to do to bring steemit back (back to april-may and I was here at that time) in the way that who have ideas @thecriptofiend or @logic just to do an example can share the opinion.
I suppose we don't need to write posts making profit to share a good idea but seems to be the only way to have a chat with you guys.
Honestly talking people buy and sell SBD or Steem to do speculations or to make any profit.
I have noticed that several people left, there is a post that I read yesterday where is telling that steemit counts 100k+ people but I can see always less posts and this means that something is wrong.
I am not on Steemit with the idea to become rich writing posts (of course at the beginning it was) but to be part of a system that if will find a good way could become a successor of Facebook.
@logic just create a post about people that needs help. Now think, if really we can support people (after verifying the truth) guess how many people will come here to support instead of pay several companies that says that are helping but we don't have proof of it (in Italy we have "8x1000").
Investors will come... Governments will come and will invest money.
Now think about all the old people that of course would like to help who really needs but of course will not create an account on steemit but could donate 1 dollar or whatever they want.
Think about 10 million of people that know that we are helping as well (a part make profit) means at least 10million dollars that could be given to all the users as SP and increase the voting power and we can be always more helpful for people in need!
This is just my idea. Stop making only whale and users profits. Let's give a sense of all of this!
bingo.