It is Independence Day in Finland today, the 101st year for the country to stand on its own two feet without having someone to rule over it. Interestingly, while lat year was the centennial celebration of gaining independence fro Russian rule, this year is the centenary of the civil war that ensued directly after, no one seems to be interested in celebrating that piece of history though.
What I wonder as a non-historian type of person is, which event had greater impact on future Finland?
I can't adequately answer but I would posit that the civil war that faced Finn against Finn had more of a fundamental effect on the culture of the country going forward than independence from Russia would have had. The independence itself would have been the catalyst for a drive to build the identity of the nation, a violent negotiation between parties about what would be done with the newfound freedom obtained.
This is quite a large topic that historians and philosophers can pore over but if we brought it down to a more basic form, maybe it is more usable. For example, a child living with parents has learned various habits and considerations but as they start to explore their own self, who they are as an individual they could hear, "while under my roof, my rules" from their parents. This seems somewhat acceptable doesn't it?
THe, "While in this country you have to act by our rules" seems to be presented often enough while the want for diversity of thought and innovation is also desired.
Once outside and on their own of course, the child has independence, they have their own roof. No one forces them to clean a room, eat a healthy meal or make sure their homework is done. For many though, they might still be living off their parents money to some degree, is this independence or are they still under their parent's roof to some extent? Does the parent have sway on behavior due to economic control and debt? Is it the parent's responsibility to relinquish control or the child's to seize it?
Perhaps on Steem, this is where we are now, maybe it is where we have always been. Steem has quite a lot of similarities to a civil war or a parental control structure. While we talk about independence we simultaneously want Steemit Inc to keep paying for the roof over our head. They themselves have made this more complicated due to the way the foundation of Steem-country was created as essentially they took a massive amount of resources for themselves that would obviously have affects on the future of all within the boundaries and, the way those boundaries are able to expand into new areas or draw in new citizens.
We do tend to spend a great deal of time in civil war though and much like all wars, economic considerations are the largest driver of activity. It is interesting really that so much of the culture we develop is driven by economy while trying to break free from the limitations of economy at a philosophical level. It isn't about the money, but I act on what makes me the most.
At the moment, people are calling for the opening of Steemit Inc's books, something that I agree and disagree with on various points. I do not think that at a public level it is a good idea though as for the most part, while some might, people do not have a good enough understanding of business to see the larger picture, whatever they might be. And, I am sure that most people aren't going to reveal their true selves to sign an enforceable non-disclosure agreement. What we do know is that they are a private company and don't have to open their books to a decentralized community to satisfy curiosity that has enough people within it who are more interested in lighting fires than building foundations.
So, what is the path forward from these points. Do we go to war with each other to work out what we are going to do with the next year, two, 100? In the case of Finland, people still hold various sentiments about a war they were never directly a part of. Does the child have to destroy the parent's to find their way in the world as an individual or, do they just have to change the practices they have learned and become self-reliant based on their own skillset and opportunities?
There are many difficulties and challenges to face when trying to get all the Steem ducks in a row and this is made more difficult when to get what we want. we also have to find a way to finance development in a whole range of various ways. We have been largely reliant on Steemit Inc to subsidize our rent and as we recognize that it is not going to last at the levels they have been doing it, it is natural to panic since the financial models of many projects are reliant on the parent to pay the grocery bills.
I have mentioned that for me raising my daughter, I am trying to make myself increasingly redundant in her life as I want her to be independent and self-reliant to a high degree so that she has control over her life. It is not easy, even at this age as the ability to influence her to behave as I want is very high. Of course, I have to support her to a high degree also which is going to be affected by my own habits and prejudices as well as resources. Parenting comes with a high degree of complexity too, if attentive that is.
As I see Steem, we are still very much in the development stages of the ecosystem within an industry that itself is still largely undefined without an identity or clear structure. It is therefore natural that there are going to be a high level of growing pains and conflicts as we as a group of groups and a larger group within an environment of many other groups try to find our way while still being under the various roofs of authority control. Then, we are also individuals within all of these groups trying to satisfy our own personal needs and wants to create a space for individual independence. It is pretty messy.
Anyway, there are a lot of points in here that require a great deal more thought than I can give them at the moment in my current state, but I will hopefully either get back them later or perhaps, others will too. For me though, this is an interesting time in Steem's future history as it is likely the point that will define that future heavily.
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
I have two daughters in the process of finding their own life away from home, so this is very real...
In terms of Steem, the seemingly endless 'civil wars' are tiresome and not at all helpful to the current situation.
We need the threat of a common enemy, maybe even an 'alien invasion', to bring us together to work for the common purpose...
Promoter of The SOS Forums : Live Discussion Forums on the State of Steem.
Co-ordinator of SteemClub-UK.
Editor of the weekly listing of steem radio shows, podcasts & open space broadcast.
Founder of the A Dollar A Day charitable giving project.
I agree, for the most part it is attention seeking behaviour more than anything of meaning or purpose.
They will come soon enough through competition. As I see it, what we need is a better story to align incentives than "steem to the moon!" or economic models. I would hope this would be built into the investment foundations itself and work its way through the layers above.
Hopefully they don't get through the gates before most of Steem has realised the invasion is underway...
I get that feeling too, and I'm glad to see people stepping up to the plate to offer contracts and community support.
Yep, it is get interesting these days and it is going to get interesting to see who steps up. The peanut gallery is always going to focus on the most uncharitable view and offer opinions like fans at a football game in the stands making calls about 'what they would have done', without possessing the experience or skills to ever be on the field of play themselves.
My business model for STEEM is that Steemit Inc. sell some equity and use that investment cash to cover operating expenses so that they stop selling STEEM to pay the bills. They are creating tremendous downward pressure on price, and making themselves dependent on market conditions that they shouldn't be focused on in this building stage. All their STEEM should be locked up in a 10 year vesting structure, with only 5% more available each year to year 10, then the remainder unlocked in year 11. This is much more how traditional tech companies work, and that's for a reason. Just because crypto is there and CAN be used to keep the lights on, that doesn't mean it's a workable business model... outside a bull market at least.
There is already downward pressure on price because witnesses are given large amounts of STEEM that many sell at any price to live on. And we have a global user base with many people who see enough value in selling at any price. All three of these downward price pressures operating at once is just too much for any coin.
I think this is why we see that while STEEM is clearly one of the best crypto projects out there, and certainly is the one having actually achieved the most IRL, it has now fallen out of the top 50.
But as another commentator brought out, will Steemit Inc cede some equity to additional investors? That's another type of power, and the one I think they most don't want to part with.
I don't think the price has much to do with the project at all, and this is for all projects. I consider the crypto markets mostly driven by speculation and bots that care little for whitepapers and ideals or, ninja mined stake.
Steemit funding itself by selling Steem while adding downward pressure, might be the only way they will give up their holdings and, the low price might allow more to buy in.
Traditional tech companies while a good model in traditional economic climates might not be the greatest in this particular one, I will have to think more about that though as it is far from my area. :)
It's true that them selling at least leads to more distribution, particularly at low prices. But the way limit/market orders work means that the combo of these 3 things creates massive downward pressure on price.
Those who want to buy can set a limit order for a lower amount than the market rate, then wait. Those selling need to pay the bills this week, so will change their order to go down toward where the buy orders are. This is repeating regularly with a lot of STEEM, so puts downward pressure on price.
Yep, it is going to be interesting as essentally the people who have set a buy and a wait are actual investors who don't need the money now. In time, they are going to be the ones who can drive development perhaps.
In my opinion, this is the price we have to pay to truly decentralize. The steem blockchain is not scarce of people with a contrary opinions. It's hard to get anything done with someone pointing or screaming: 'tyranny! Dictatorship! We won't have this." Without proffering any solution. I do not think steemit inc is stopping any project from thriving. We speak so much about decentralized, which in other words means a weak center and a strong branch or branches which can still interact with themselves. In our case, it is the reverse. Ned and his team are the ones subsidizing things here and they have reasons to. No one relinquishes power so easily. What steemit inc has is power and it is not willing to let go of easily.
It's all going to take time and a lot of conflicts to get where we are going. The essential thing is that we are heading towards our goal, either by chance (like what is happening now) or our own doing.
Posted using Partiko Android
Generally it is those who are like this who can't offer much in the way of solution other repetition of their own points of comfort.
Have you ever met anyone who likes to relinquish control?
A constant negotiation is required but it continually stalls at key points of contention where personal agenda and ego overrides solution.
At some point, one has to compromise in order to move forward. This will definitely happen A lot of egos will be deflected as time goes on. If things continue to slide down, I mean price, much of the noise will disappear, leaving those we care about this platform to do something. Mine is to write and share my perspectives on issues I can relate with. And also explore this blockchain like I am ready doing.
Posted using Partiko Android
This is a tough one as the investor in me says that the cost of decentralization is the need to every participant invest time and money into the ecosystem to supports its sustainability as we extract value from its use. However, if we truly want to grow globally and provide access to those less fortunate, we need some sort of subsidy concept so that distribution could be improved.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Decentralization adds a high level of complexity that doesn't exist in centralization. In concept, it works well but requires participation from at least a high number of participants. Here, people are accustomed to getting paid under a subsidized model to finance their personal lives in a fiat world, whether they need to or not.
To be able to continually help those less fortunate requires many more to solidify the infrastructure required, something most aren't willing to do. This is again a reason for the stake lock option as it encourages a foundation to build upon.
Hostilities ceased in March 1940 with the signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty. Finland ceded 11 percent of its territory representing 30 percent of its economy to the Soviet Union.
history is important....pedantry is as annoying as shit though....soz.
Are you saying that Finland didn't get independence in 1917 because of the winter war 20 years later?
What I find with pedantry is that it is often a focus of a narrow position that rarely covers the practicalities of action required. In some way it is kind of like obsessive compulsive behavior where someone can't leave the home without flicking light switches on and off 52 times for each week of the year.
History is important only in the information it gives to move forward from it in a more successful manner, or at least try. Many seem content in reliving the past over and over without actually learning much from it at all.
No, I'm saying Finland was given independence at the whim of the bolsheviks at the time - becuse of economic and political pragmatism.
Finland has a history of independent thought and self identity, but geographically, economically, and low population numbers, made it the landscape that it is, and as such, always a pawn in the larger chessboard that was Europe.
Independence was granted by ' a general right of self determination', according to the new bolshevik government. Actions of the communists show it to be just words - as they didn'e extend the same courtesy to millions of other 'Russian peoples elsewhere.
The granting of self determination by Russian peoples, showed how they saw the Finns. (In their eyes, not the Finnish peoples).
When Germany wanted resources form Finland in ww2 ( not really ww2, but WW1 - part 2), the communists had no compunction about invading.
My pedantry doesn't come from narrow focus but of a wider understanding of the historic geo-politics of Europe...
The centuries long self identity of the Finnish people, was never of the concern of the Swedes, or the Russians.
How do you define independence?
'Allowed to be, at the behest of another, (due to lack of funds to maintain control directly), isn't my definition of independence.
resteem it - if you think it has potential....
https://steemit.com/blog/@lucylin/here-s-a-thought-some-positive-action-is-needed-on-steemit
Hi @tarazkp!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.257 which ranks you at #223 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 8 places in the last three days (old rank 231).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 277 contributions, your post is ranked at #22.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server