RE: Connecting The Dots: Resource Credits Will Make STEEM A Lot More Valuable
What I don’t get is why everyone seems to equate being poor with being undesirable/spammer. Don’t spammers have money to buy RCs too?
I think it’s more likely a poor college student in Venezuela is going to come on here wanting to make a side income with quality content creation but not be able to afford steem, than that a professional spammer won’t be able to afford some.
And what about the people who quite reasonably want to see how they like being on here and what traction their content can get here before investing scarce money in the place? I invested considerably, but only after reaching about 300 followers and having some regular commentators on my posts. I couldn’t have achieved that had I not been commenting about 20 times a day. (Long comments like this one LOL)
I’m concerned now for both my investment and my enjoyment of this community experience. Because I think this confusion about the nature of spammers is going to cut off the lifeblood of any community, new users.
This 10x change tonight will only mean newbies will get one comment or post per day. If I arrived here to that I’d be gone the second day.
And I don’t care about not having those few spam comments to ignore or flag. I care about the silence of all my global followers this week.
I think your math there must be wrong. My alt account can post twice every five days. x10 means it can post 4 times a day on average with a total bank of 20. This system is brand new, and the first thing I thought of making as a javascript developer was plankton trading their nothing votes for more bandwidth.
I'm sure you take issue to that as well, but the point is that this system is BRAND NEW. Once systems come into place that let high bandwidth users delegate said bandwidth to low SP holders we'll have a system that still allows engagement without all the bot garbage and spam.
This hardfork was massive and it is a precursor to an even more massive change (SMTs). These reactionary responses that assume that everything is going to be terrible forever are quite inappropriate. This isn't Facebook or Twitter. This is grassroots ugliness at it's finest and it's not going to be pretty until there are thousands of developers helping Steemit Inc keep the blockchain stable.
You are so out of sink with my thoughts in your comment, but then you are obviously taking my above comment in isolation and not noting my many comments and posts on this issue in which I've written to STINC and the witnesses making it clear that I have no issue with the need for RCs or even that the change management on this upgrade was fraught with problems. My issue is as stated and my math is correct.
You are presuming that your other account is like all new accounts. I had previously written based on the same math. Then I was corrected on two points. See my post here for my own self-correction. Notably, new accounts are now 5SP, not 15. And the 10x is not applied to all accounts equally.
I feel like I'm pretty in sync with what you are saying. I do appreciate that new information: 5 SP is not a lot.
The biggest difference of opinion we are having right now is something we haven't even talked about. For now, I think it's acceptable for Steemit Inc to use our blockchain as a testing playground so we can progress faster in the long run.
You don't, and that's fine; sometimes I feel like I should be more outraged than I actually am.
Steemit Inc. asked us to wait 5 days. As a developer, I know that 5 days means at least 10 days. We're on day 3.5 right now, so I'm not worried in the slightest.
When the RC system released and everyone was negative quadrillions there was outrage. When the debt was forgiven there was outrage. Now they are multiplying mana x10 and there is outrage. These reactionary outbursts are not appropriate and show a lack of vision. The solutions are incoming. Soon™.
The real argument revolves around Steemit INC using our fully functional blockchain as a testnet and claiming we are still in beta. On that front you have a much stronger foundation to stand on.
I don't agree with their change management procedures, for sure. No developer/PM could possibly agree with how things transpired, and a number of the witnesses have clearly stated that they don't agree with them either.
But no, my core issue is not that. I really don't take issue with the process of working these things out. I take issue with the fundamental belief behind some of the decisions being made.
Specifically, this attitude that more money means more value to the platform, so the way to get rid of undesirables is to restrict activity by those with little SP to barely functioning.
If they didn't have that belief, they wouldn't have decided to fight spam in a way that hurts new users or anyone with little SP. They would have used something like UA scores to determine if someone was a spammer. That measures actual interaction on the platform, particularly getting those with high reputations to engage with your content. That to me is a much more accurate determinant of spammer/not spammer.
There will always be an advantage one has to having been here longer. But "advantage" should not go so far that effectively you can't do anything if you don't come in day one knowing you are determined to make it work on here, and ready to drop a couple thousand bucks to make it so.
What I want now is for them to skip this 10x nonsense that will only give new users 1 comment or so per day and go straight to 100x to do their calibrations. Not only will that mean fewer people will get discouraged and quit in the days to come while the calibration of RC costs is occurring, but additionally, it means they will get more accurate data sooner, because more people will be able to interact more normally.
This is not outrage. I'm not outraged. I'm clear about what I want and why I want it, and I'm campaigning for it.
Agreed, @ned's snide corporate attitude is pretty annoying. He talks like a politician that can't be trusted. They've pushed for SMTs way too hard because they think that is the Golden Path to higher value.
Instead, they should have taken their time and fixed all the BS that is still pervasive on the platform. Like you say: they should have scaled down RCs from a ridiculously high number instead of scaling it up from a ridiculously low one. That's just common sense. Doing it the way it was done only makes sense in the context of an emergency, and there was none.
Yep
You're either a cheerleader fro Steem or an "enemy." This place has gotten too religious, and real and valid concerns like yours are usually ignored by out of touch higher-ups here. Sorry to say. I've been here over two years and that does not matter to these types either.
I think people are very emotionally and financially invested, so it does lead to that sort of absolutism in thinking. Fundamentally I think we all have something of a "come to Jesus" moment coming, where we realize STINC really doesn't care about Steemit or the users on it. They care about SMTs, and they will use us however they can to advance them toward that goal. Whatever we are going to get out of the situation along the way is going to be up to each of us. We each have to decide how we relate to an eternal beta and being a part of development. For some that is fine, and they will defend STINC because they truly are not bothered by the experimentation, so long as they feel it benefits them. For others, well not everyone wants to invest themselves in a place that doesn't care whether they stay or leave any moment. There is no right or wrong answer on this, just the right or wrong one for each of us.
@indigoocean I have wondered the same thing. I have been here over a year, now and noticed that there was little communication, and steemit seemed to just be a way to attract devs to build on it. I mean the site still looks like it was developed in 2000. :-) Now, I am noticing that the few times I have seen a comment from Ned, you know he does not give 2 sh**ts about what we (his customers) think. :-) He often avoids answering questions by not "really" answering them. I would venture to say that he is building this blockchain as a way to attract developers to other apps build on it, NOT to make steemit a great platform. From that standpoint, it will make him a lot of money - a lot.
Yep, I think that's it. I haven't read anything from Ned until reading some of his replies to comments on their current "mea culpa, but it was a success" post. I was thinking, is this guy high? No, just doesn't give 2 shits.
Very well said.
I share your concerns, and hope Stinc also realizes that multiple comments for accounts bare of accumulated SP are necessary and desirable.
We'll see.
Thanks!