You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How to Mine Cryptocurrency 2018
well i thought it's funny jabbing at some of the trending stuff and all the energy used to mine in pow at the same time. thanks for your concern.
well i thought it's funny jabbing at some of the trending stuff and all the energy used to mine in pow at the same time. thanks for your concern.
"jabbing"
I found the video pretty hilarious
DING DING DING DING DING, but I can understand matt's reasoning. You're one of the best bloggers, don't go the absurd levels of pushing random content to trending.However, it's your decision, we're on a decentralised platform and if the system is allowing this behaviour, then who am I to judge - it's your decision. (and other people can downvote if they think the behaviour is wrong)
Glad you found it funny lol, and yes, I totally respect Matt's concern as it's also mine for the past few months.
This was my thought process:-
Anyway, in the end, coming to terms that everyone will try to maximize rewards, I'm beyond judging as well. We can either continue the way things are working now (it's pointless flagging or being pissed off at anyone doing the worst for the platform under current econs, and it's almost guaranteed that nobody will care over time as it's mathematically futile without being inconsistent), or we can align profit maximisation behavior with what's actually better for this platform which is by implementing the following modifications:-
The proposal is just about homogenizing profit maximization behavior into the most important activity on the network: voting on whatever we want to support to improve the platform. The max that we can go with this is a return of ~50% for every vote given out. 100% doesn't make sense, and the effects will be the same as 0%. Once this can be achieved, we should see more curation and everyone is more less likely to save it up for themselves. All we need is time for the new economic equilibrium to take place. As for "bidbots", it's still business for anyone wanting to promote stuff, the action just comes at a slightly higher risk. Still comes with exposure + stakes.
I hope Ned, top witnesses, "bidbot" owners come to understand this and consider the proposal seriously. Maybe Ned has considered it seriously, but nobody cared enough to offer a technical solution, which is kinda sad. I also don't buy the story that the solution will result in a massive computational burden on the blockchain. Of course, the solution will make certain groups slightly worse off relatively to what they have now, but it's at the benefit of the entire platform. It won't completely put anyone out of business too. We just get a healthier medium.
But all said, I respect if somehow Ned et al concluded that SMTs and Oracles will be the solution to Steem's stake-weighted voting problems. Just hope it'll work out. I'm just not quite convinced since it will still linger around. Steem's economic incentive is ultimately an equation with higher order effects on the platform and it's making the UX really terrible at the moment, imo. I don't think the whales are happy doing the worst for the platform either, but it's understandable since nobody wants to be the sucker.
In the meantime, I'm just tempted to maximise my profits by "bidbotting" to the max and avoid having my stakes diluted over time so I can continue supporting communities I wanna support on the platform. That's half the reason of this post. Curation is just not profitable enough and yet this is what I'm still doing with most of my votes because there are just way better contributors than me 99% of the time. The proposal can break this stalemate and give me better returns for what I like to do, investing in others. I suspect it's more or less the same thing for everyone. ~50% makes Steem a less calculative endeavor for all.
What do you think about this btw? You seem to care. I think I might've said this to you before but I really have been repeating this all over town that I don't remember who's listening anymore lol. But yea I wouldn't be 100% confident that the proposal will really fix things. It's just the best solution some of us could think of atm.
And if they cared enough to flag, this bs would end. Instead of attacking the problem the best thought out idea is to have our biggest stake holders trying to out "jack ass" each other on the trending page.
Nobody will care to flag. It's economically impossible over the long-run. Just look at the rest of the whales abusing way more than my once in a blue moon post here.
When you say "No One" I disagree. However, I do acknowledge we don't seem to have many who can think past a very short term idea of gains.
Business people pay people to clean. Because no one wants to eat in a dirty restaurant. They don't pass on cleaning because they don't make money on it. Obviously, everyone will want to keep costs at a minimum.
Sure there are a few abusive whales and I agree you are nowhere near some of the competition. Our decay in price shows the short term thinking by many who call themselves investors.
If you don't take care of an investment... You most likely lose it.
I keep thinking some people around here will wake up.
5 steem worth 10 dollars is more valuable than 100 steem at .07 cents.
We are losing value, losing engagement, bleeding end-users and falling hard down the coinmarketcap list. There is not a single metric that suggests growth or that we are keeping up with the market.
Too bad no one considers that divestment vs. Keeping up with the dumbest stunts on the trending page.
We don't need passive investors to want to drain it, we need engaged, intelligent business minded people who want to build something sustainable
Even then, is this post considered abuse compared to the other simple ones? This is supposed to be a simple funny post: the context is fairly original, people like it, I'm distributing stakes and attending to my organic curation by visiting their accounts, and I'm not sure I'm being singled out here when there's a gazillion others which are way worse, with no engagement, that doesn't even impart anything, not even willing to participate in conversation. I know what I'm doing.
Not sure why I'm being singled out here, maybe (just maybe) it's latent racism *cough*, but okay, that's stretching it.. maybe.. you'd never know *wink wink* but alright, I agree it may not warrant hundreds taken from the inflation. However, just take a look at trending now. Alright just being dramatic here, definitely not singled out.
We've been saying the economic incentives is the problem. People will just never trust each other enough not to be the sucker. You see this action in all the whales and just about everyone else over the past year. They're abusing to the max every moment they can. Vote buying is just the same as exchanging votes, self voting, vote selling etc. They're economically equivalent under the current setup. No one will change. Maybe they're reinvesting just as I am even though I've not bothered enough to do what they're doing to make the inflation totally useless..
Not many are even acknowledging the real problem in the first place, which is the econs as I have explained it to @therealwolf above. People will maximize, period. The point is to align this maximization behavior towards the benefit of the platform. That's what some of us been trying to say all along, even comes with its own proposal.
In the meantime, I will continue maximizing whenever I'm free, whenever I see fit. I'm just keeping up with a less diluted stake so I can continue supporting communities and accounts and blogposts I'd like to support. Welcome to flag my stuff. But if people not doing it on others who are doing it as well and at scale, I'd say that they're inconsistent.
But anyway, it's just mathematically futile under the current circumstances. That's linear economics. You seem to have accepted it. Many seem to have as well. Just embrace it then. There's really no point harping on what others do at the moment other than abuses just way worse than this "abuse". I'm way more divested than most stakeholders btw, I know what it is to support communities that are engaged.
Making my post look so uncool lol, sheesh. But glad for the conversation. I wouldn't wanna repeat myself over and over again though..
Racism? haha, that's funny. Anyhow, I guess I picked on you, because I expected better from you because you had set a standard.
I'll revise my expectations.
haha thanks. too much standard and i'll have my own stakes diluted at max speed, so had to adjust.. promise i won't go too far :o)