You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Now you can see the numbers.

in #hardfork6 years ago

I surely don't. but I'm sure we can ask witnesses that we go to shows with and Witness chats with!

any idea @enginewitty? @guiltyparties? @jackmiller? @crimsonclad? let's see if they know - or even if they know who is currently voting against this? I'd love to support those who are supporting us!

If i don't have open votes for them - i'll make room.

Sort:  

I'm going to start this statement with a universal Steem truth that we've all been very poor at remembering: There is no one size fits all set of numbers. We all have begun painting with the same brush we rail against being painted with.

This is an opportunity to write some stuff, so I thank you for asking my opinion. You've pinged me and I think I'm feeling really kicked today, as a human and as a steemian. It's my job to respond. Don't take it as a direct response or accusations leveled at you, but rather the best explanation of the situation we're in that I can currently muster as an individual. There are some responses in this thread bordering on vitriolic, and though my knee jerk reaction is to yell "NO, not everyone is that way, witness or user" and I find a lot of the responses in both directions egregious, I'm coming to at least answer you in a timely fashion because that's the respectful thing do to. I fully understand why people feel all of the range of emotions that they do. I understand that as someone who started as a minnow and earned and bought all her steem, who's never powered down, who's never sold steem, who delegates to non-returning things even though growing myself might give me a chance to do more down the road. I learned how to build steemd and run a server and build scripts and tools and how to explain those things to others so they don't have to because they're not interested in the same things as me.

I am caught quite directly in the middle of the two "sides" that a lot of communication, top down and bottom up, is stratifying into a class war. I am the steem everyman, fighting to find time to post and pouring my best work and soul onto the chain and hoping to grow organically, and a special circle-jerk snowflake evil cabal secret society greedy centralized shill. So let's put down the classes we're bludgeoning each other with here and have a real discussion.

I will candidly say that witnessing here has gone from a fun and exciting learning opportunity to a job I take seriously with all my heart that has opened me up, voluntarily, to things approaching outright hatred from people who don't give me the same chance they demand. I see behaviour that as a small account makes me angry and has me feeling unheard, because honestly, a lot of our whales totally suck. I'm not virtue signalling with my experience above, but it is a truth and a lovely testament that a transparent chain bears. I hear where people are coming from.

I have spent actual hours probably now bordering on real days worth of time looking at this, talking to people directly, discussing it in communities, making my personal wants and needs known and navigating a populace that is hell bent on creating a bi-partisan us/them conflict over something that is contentious. My comments are on chain. They're been in the ramble, on shows, broadcast out to anyone who will listen. So a part of me bristles when I get painted with that brush again... not listening, not talking, not caring, not available... just like everyone in this thread bristles at getting painted with one by people who don't listen to them or care to consider them and their feelings of earnings. I understand you.

Here is the best summary I can give you of why this is a thing that has come up, how I currently feel, what I need to do. I imagine NEITHER side will be happy with it, but it won't change until I find more compelling reason to, and part of that is testing and part of that is hearing other people's plans on how they're going to pitch in because this is going to take A L L of us. I message people when they unvote us with much the same caveat: I can't promise to change what we're doing, but I can try to explain it on your way out the door. But right now, right here, I personally am putting my foot down on one thing; we live and die by the sword. Pumpkin doesn't whisper in our ear. We don't have magical bags of money being dropped on us by anyone. Steem pays our witness server costs, our tool costs, and our script costs. Other than that, this month is the first time in a while that I earned my own cut. 2k steem! I'm stoked. That's so much compared to almost every other user on the platform! That's $800. Holy shit. And yet.... none of it has left the platform, ever. And when I look at the hours of time I put in every day, even being generous and trimming out a ton of stuff as "normal user activity"....I'm not even making minimum wage. If you average that out over the months where there wasn't enough left over to split between the two of us, it's a dollar or less... and that's still more than some users! And yet- this is not rich. This is not a consolidation of power. I want to be very clear that the one brush I refuse to be painted with is the hateful "gilded handshake" that I see brandished in other comments here and all over the platform. I have no doubt there are activities where it happens. But, no one size fits all.

With all of that out of the way, here's the closest I can be to concise and it differs not at all from any of the other places I've said it. I'm not anti EIP; I'm Anti-EIP right now. I want a funded SPS and a downvote pool, and I'm not happy that a HF that I fully supported got a tacked on addition that doesn't allow us to properly separate implementation of these things. Jeff and I don't have a perfect consensus between us, and that is tough, because Jeff is crushed that people who should be getting paid aren't and that there should be a reason to get voting again because that's the ONLY thing that fixes distribution, and when looking at those inequities is tentatively pro-EIP. He's not wrong. It's going to be difficult for us to formulate a fair stance on the HF even between us. No matter what we do, we have supporters in both camps. People on both sides will accuse us of "caving" to the other. And no matter which way we choose, we likely will lose a voter big enough to drop us out of consensus. That's DPoS, baby. In some ways, it's the most fair thing in the world. I can't sit here crying because people are mean to me and also because we could basically lose one vote from any number of people who aren't pumpkin and drop out of consensus. If that happens, we reduce what we offer until we aren't $500+ each out pocket each month and keep on keeping on. I don't have a "salary" to lose.

The more people I talk to, big and small, the more I realize that the EIP change is likely needed in some form, but also that it's the last thing we need right now. Retention, onboarding, engagement- we try to blame the rewards for these things, but there is nothing we're doing currently that is improving these things. The EIP will do nothing about them, either way. And even if it did do anything, good or bad, price action of Steem basically nullifies that; here we are, looking at the pointing fingers, pointing more and more, and missing out on that heavenly (enlightening) glow of the moon in the sky. The problems that we have that we are solely ascribing to "FUCK YOU GOT MINE (author/witness) REWARDS" are partially caused by the fact that we think the rewards are what is causing them. The lack of self awareness for what makes for a strong blockchain and a strong coin is insane. These debates are literally the WORLD within Steem, and yet, the world is literally forgetting Steem exists. Feeling that the EIP is a fuck you to little guys misses out on some of behaviors the EIP could potentially encourage that we simply cannot achieve any other way, and pretending like the EIP can magically account for human behavior in every way perfectly is completely fucking naive. The math in this post is too simple: one size fits all. Imagining the EIP as a magic bullet is too simple: one size fits all. Imagining the EIP will destroy the platform is too simple: one size fits all. Either stance places every emphasis on the money, and if we can't fix that part, then Steem will never rise. Some people would change with the EIP, and find different routes to success, even small. Some people would change with the EIP and get crushed and give up. BOTH OF THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW ALREADY, WITHOUT THE EIP. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN EITHER WAY UNTIL WE ALL WORK TOGETHER.

I can't tell you what you want to hear to try to play all sides and sway the voice of the people as a Robin Hood figure- which is that without a doubt I will vote no. I can't tell you that I will without a doubt vote yes, even to try to "keep some big votes"... because the entity that many believe is slipping dollar bills in my pocket quite frankly knows nothing about my existence other than that I and my partner are great witnesses and heavily contribute to the security of the Steem blockchain (and maybe not even that ¯(ツ)/¯ )

This is a monumental wall of text that may not be called for. I can tell you that right now, it's all moot until my testnet node syncs up and I start playing with testnet condenser and we get a chance to have the testnet HF a few times. I can tell you thank you for allowing me to have a moment here to have a rant, at small accounts, at big whales, at witnesses of all sizes, and at myself, because some days I just want to sing or paint or take pictures and share them with the world and I traded that for this whole witness thing. And thank you for caring what I think (or maybe forcing me to answer you and grill me, I don't know the intent but both are fine- that's the job). I am hoping that I can keep thanking you for trying to bring people together in debate and discussion and disagreement while recognizing them as individuals who need much much more than one size, regardless of the size they might be.

  1. thank you! @crimsonclad (this was not an attempt to grill you - it's not my style - it was a continuation of a discussion where there is a lot of confusion)

  2. I have no idea who is putting money in the pockets of anyone. My point about the chart was - if there is a lot of green in the top 20 - that is a conflict of interest. And they need to be concerned about what a huge disparity that is.

  3. I agree - too much all at once. Is it too late to take away the 50/50 off the hardfork?

  4. I personally LOVE when you show up for every single witness chat that you can because you are a shining voice of reason. However, you do see that the 50/50 change in rewards will make it harder for the people coming onboard - and make a lot of people who are here - post less. I guess my question is - how is that a step in the right direction? Are we all just hoping that the little guy can eat it a little more, a little longer? and by we - I mean the powers that make the decisions. Cuz I've already lived through HF20 and watching countless leave. I know that one of the commenters was kinda like - oh well, they would probably have left anyway. when - no - they actually planned on staying and were very happy until they got the shaft.

one size does not fit all.

but we can clearly see the trend. 33% less for authors that go directly into the wallets of large curators, with NO WAY of recovering that loss. Say goodbye to that and watch it fly away to the big accounts, and no you can't debate it. We've decided for you, on your behalf, though it only benefits the wallets of the few. (you see my point?)

Is anyone seriously trying to promote that? and if so - why?

and if it's not too late - can we please take it off?

and if it is too late - i fear you're gonna start seeing a lot of powerdowns because people won't stay in a place where their former rewards are leaving their meager pockets to enter the very fat wallets of others. (for not a drop more work , mind you.)

and i've heard the answer to that... well, then I guess Steem wasnt for them! Fare the well and adieu! We will carry on without you.

But why can't it be - we are concerned about that - and see your point - and will table this for now, because we DO see its harmful to an entire THREE classes of five on this chain.

why is THAT not an option?

take it off and pass the other things in the hard fork that people generally agree with - and tackle this VERY HOT TOPIC as a singular discussion later.

(i know you took a lot of time from your day to write that post - no need to write a large one back - unless you'd like to. could you just respond to my questions?) if not - i understand! thanks for reading :)

not at all! I used your innocent question as an opportunity to REEEEE all over the place, precisely because I feel and hear and see your frustration alongside that of witnesses and people who bought steem and coders and newbs alike. We're all standing over Steem right now poking it with a stick saying DO SOMETHING.

So much like chatting with Bluefin earlier, the best I can do is pull some devil's advocate things out that I do think the EIP would be able to do and some truths that would be "for" the EIP, regardless of my personal feelings either way.

  • Self voters do have to share. Right now, the worst egregious (important distinction) self voters are getting the majority of their vote back as author rewards without even thinking, and sharing less of it with other people who curate them. In a 50/50 world, the self voter puts more of their cut into the curation pool to be shared between everyone. So if nothing else changes, the people also voting will earn a bit more themselves and the author-self-voter has to share a bit more. Not ideal, but also no worse than the currant 'instant' unshared return with author rewards.
  • Curation does go up. When more minnows (or more everyone) votes together, the rewards go up. The stacked effect increases. Smaller schools of minnows will be able to curate, and actually see higher potentials back from their curation. Right now, we teach minnows, hey- you should be commenting and posting because you have to do that to earn since your vote is worth so little and your slice of the curation pie is so small so don't even worry about that! There's the thought (and some truth) that smaller accounts would actually see an increased effectiveness in curating good stuff or in schooling, because the split for curating makes it more equitable for them.
  • If rewards for curation go up, then to take advantage of that, you need a bigger vote. The only way to get that is to power up. Now, don't shoot the messenger because this is a 'one size' statement, but we do have a lot of minnows who stay minnows because they pull out everything they earn and love that posting keeps letting them earn more. They're powering down already. Right now. (So are whales.) These same minnows are scared they will have to share more post rewards, but technically could be doing the same thing as the whales right now if they weren't powering down. Powerdowns are rampant already; causing more than an already increasing number is arguably a drop in the bucket of problems we already have and are already going unaddressed. So if people could earn more by having a bigger vote, which requires powering up, then there will be some (whether the number is significant or not) who would power back up to earn more faster.
  • There are no rewards at all without curation. Why don't we all buy in initially, then use that to vote our own work, and keep 100% of the rewards? It sounds like a stupid question, but we're actually closer to that than not right now. A curator whale controls just as much allocation of the finite reward pool at 0/100, 25/75, 50/50, or 100/0. Same with smaller accounts. But where smaller accounts have literally only the ability to gain by being curated, a whale may not- so while we cannot remove stake commensurate control from a whale, we can tip the variables to make it harder for them to show up, write a sentence, and upvote it to keep everything. If nothing else, changing that cut actually places them in a position to lose more than say, a minnow, who couldn't just drop a fat vote on themselves and keep it anyways. They need other voters. All content creators need content consumers. If it's less lucrative for a whale to self vote, then it starts becoming just as easy for them to start voting on stuff to earn, and that starts spreading stake to places that wasn't seeing it before, which is, overall a net gain in a lot of cases. Distribution is a huge problem right now.

people won't stay in a place where their former rewards are leaving their meager pockets to enter the very fat wallets of others. (for not a drop more work , mind you.)

  • people aren't staying. They already feel like this. They're already leaving. Any curation that leaves their wallets is a DIRECT result of them being voted by someone else already. So if we are pointing out that more curation leaves them to someone huge, it is also pointing out that they got a vote from someone huge. Right now, not a lot of someone huges are doing much voting, and not a lot of someone smalls can curate for a bigger cut. Either the huges get out and vote to collect more curation (meaning they are spreading more voting around than they were previously) or they keep voting themselves and the smalls are able to jump in and take more of that without a drop more work.

On PALnet, people are suddenly excited to curate. Some people are tired of writing but don't beat themselves up over missing a "daily post"... they just get out and vote! People are getting bigger and finding more feeds. 50/50 is looking AWESOME. But PAL isn't steem. The economic context is different. The 50/50 isn't the causation, it's a correlation with a much better distribution. Steem distribution is what it is, and there's no taking what someone has bought, earned, or mined, so we can't expect any numbers to behave the same. There are absolutely some logical conclusions about why it can and should work, but logic means nothing in the face of human behaviour. So the biggest and hardest pill to swallow right now is that the 1% have to change pre or post, yes or no EIP... and while some of those are witnesses, a majority of the green you'll find are actually going to be NON-witness whales, who have to post (and many feel to self upvote) to earn. You and me and all the red numbers... we don't get to touch that right now, and I'm not talking about downvoting (that is a whooooole other essay and I'm all for it. Plus, darling Taraz just nailed it.) They can drop an upvote on whatever they make and happily stay in their own bubble knowing they get most of the value and anything else from others is bonus. Their voters in many cases are just coming around for scraps. In the system that we have, what's better for small authors by some logic is fucking fabulous for the 1% that tend to put a black eye on our economics. What's worse for the small authors by some logic actually really does have a good chance of at the very least redirecting some of that untouchable curation to more people, which doesn't really change us much further from where we are.

The numbers above are an application of future circumstances overlaid on existing behaviour, with no accounting for the fact that attempting to accurately model future behaviour has to take into consideration environmental stimuli. The math in your post just says "here are people who have figured out the best way to do 25/75 for themselves, and let's add some numbers assuming that no one reacts with an equal and opposite reaction to the force of new numbers via 50/50." That's not an accurate picture any more than saying that the EIP is gonna fix steem and it's lambos on the moon in a quarter. But our biggest mistake is assuming that without some change in the top in ANY distribution, and HF, and any situation, that that 1% of black eyes are going to fade out and heal up just because. So slapping pieces of HF together needs to come with cultural change and a lot of that has to start focusing on uncoupling our intrinsic feel that "the money as it is RIGHT NOW is the only thing keeping people here."

I'm sorry, Crim, I appreciate your passion but a lot of this is just flat-out false. Especially the bit about how if the authors were just powering up they would be able to get a meaningful piece of the curation pie. With all of your advantages, and all of your willingness to power up, you've built a top-1000 Steem account and your share of the curation pool is... $1/day. Maybe under HF21 it will go up all the way to $2/day.

And most authors have no hope of ever getting as far as you have! They're not community leaders, or consensus witnesses. They don't have the ability to drive votes to get all the way to 20,000 SP. @elsiekjay may be the single-most-dedicated author Steem has seen in the post-HF-19 world, and she's all the way to 7000 SP, and a curation rate of fifty cents per day. Give her two more years and she'll be as far along as you are now - and still ages away from a meaningful curation income.

It's basically impossible to generate enough Steem to reach the ranks of people who will gain from curation increases without owning and operating some very successful Steem-based business. Authorship will not get you there, no matter how much the rewards pool is optimized. It's counterproductive to moralize at people for making the sensible economic decision not to power up their earnings when powering up gets them essentially nothing.

And twice of nothing is still nothing. You can look for magic motivation of the top 30 accounts if you want, but even if you get it, 50/50 makes it more likely that the top 30 accounts will be the only ones who ever matter.

I appreciate that you've taken time to respond, and with the greatest respect for how raw everyone is feeling, I'm sure that you read everything I said including my personal stance and previous comments and would certainly never purposefully try to imbue my words with a meaning they don't have, attribute personal beliefs I don't have to me... and I'm exponentially sure that your dismissal of "my advantages" is an unfortunate side effect of our focus on the stratification of the haves and have nots (which is why further above I suggest that we do our best to try to leave that out.) After a literal discussion of why I don't think we can so easily separate most people into classes or painted with one brush, I've just been doused with the entire can, and that's a pretty big step backwards in terms of discussion.

Dreamsteem asked me what some people who are in favour of the EIP are thinking and how they could quite possibly have any justification in doing so. I was quite literally asked to write that stuff out. That is why this comment is here: because there was an ask for the other side of things from the views of those who believe them. I've spent as much time talking with them as I have here with all of you, and I wrote it with the clear caveat of saying regardless of my personal thoughts, here are the ones that are most touted and valid. All of the statements are true. They are not false. But just like magic math and magic motivation, none of them can stand on their own. They depend on human behaviour. They depend on the context around them. They depend on other factors in the ecosystem. Which, since I'm sure you've read in my other responses or heard me speaking passionately about, I don't believe will happen, and why I don't believe the EIP will work or that it is a magic bullet that needs a HF focus right now more than Steem needs something like the SPS. However, I understand that it is easy to see the things that hurt and misinterpret, and that because of my wallet or the "green" for my account that it would be easy to view it through that lens.

With all that, I want to address your "moralization" statement, because between that and your suggestion that where I am today is simply a matter of advantages, I haven't felt so particularly like giving up in a long time. Quite clearly: we are talking about the EIP making people's work feel devalued and that people are feeling as though their effort is being taken advantage of. Your comment does exactly that to me while trying to debate that others will feel that way. One size does not fit all.

I understand that there is some sort of mental line where I became "a have" and that it becomes easier to read what I say as "from on high" and through a perceived lens of classes or wallet size answers, but that is as much a disservice to me as it is to those being disserviced by a potential EIP. I also appreciate that you've recognized another awesome Steem blogger, but not the comparison between us, because it is absolutely irrelevant. In one fell swoop there is the suggestion that "she works so hard, but look, there's still no hope for her," and also that "you've got some magical money making advantages and there's only marginal hope for you". I know what you were trying to do, but it largely falls flat.

I didn't drive votes to get 20,000k SP. I bought Steem, with fiat scrimped from a full time job, that I kept powered up (It's a net loss on investment, and I didn't power it up just to try to earn more curation. I delegate much of it and work towards trying to find people not getting rewarded.) I on average, post once a month, because witnessing and community come first. Because I don't post, I can't ever be "red" in the post's math; I have removed the only variable that can produce a negative result. That's not causation, it's correlation, and it's correlation to a stance that people believe I must have just because now "I'm big." Being a witness and a community leader aren't a magical advantage bestowed upon high, by luck. It has been two years of full time work on top of full time work, being available all day every day, paying for servers out of pocket, giving my time freely and without "return" (which is of course untrue, community is my value, forever.) If you removed what I have painstakingly saved into my account over two years of witnessing and buying, I would have as much as, or more likely, LESS than Elsie. And through that all, a truth remains: if I have some Steem, and then I sell some Steem, the result then is I have less Steem. I didn't shame those people. I didn't say they have to change. To try to suggest that pointing out that if every person sells their stake that they also will not have bigger stake is some sort of counterproductive shaming run is projection. I also think unrelated to the EIP it's a bit frustrating that everyone demands votes, but also shouldn't be expected to power anything up. Who is voting? When an author writes, who pays them, then? Why would any single person hold any Steem at all, ever, if all there are are classes that must buy Steem to pay others who will liquidate all of it? These are not questions or thoughts that are moral, but intrinsic to our blockchain's existence. It's okay to allude to them in a discussion, especially when asked to. I did not in any way, shape or form, say "if the authors were just powering up they would be able to get a meaningful piece of the curation pie."

Regardless of the EIP, let me put my face on it, so that we can try to bring the "haves" and the "have nots" a bit closer. I recognize that now, my face matters less, because of my "class". I only use the terms income and salary, because as long as I witness, they are valid. I am required to run a working server with the proper software, and there is a set amount for recompense if I do. If I do not, or am "fired" by being unvoted, that goes down or stops. Part of that job is being accountable to voters. Despite being exactly the same as other authors in every way, in the last week alone, I've been lectured on chain that as a witness and a community leader that I should never sell Steem or power down, because my responsibility is to the ecosystem around me to power it up to help Steem price and other authors. I received an angry DM from someone who was mad that I wouldn't follow their curation trail because it is my job as someone with big stake to share that with authors. I got another asking me to stop being selfish by holding liquid Steem and instead to power it up and to delegate it to smaller people's projects (which I do, but not this particular one). Somehow, I hit an amount where I went from being "one of you" to "one of them". Somehow, despite everyone saying "hands off my wallet," I hit a mark where mine became community property. Even though I don't get to be an author any more, and the income I am making from an actual set of requirements is not vote or content dependent like an author, no one will come around and defend me for "making the sensible economic decision not to power up [my] earnings when powering up gets [me] essentially nothing."

A lot of this response isn't about the EIP at all, but instead about the way we talk with each other about things like the EIP, and about exactly why I keep saying we have to treat each other as individuals instead of trying one size fits all answers. It's too easy to assume what people are saying and thinking and feeling versus what they are - and I mean that largely in a bottom up sense, but not entirely. It really is a really shitty 1% that will fuck up our economics regardless of the number spread. In any case, this has become long enough and I realize it doesn't any of the points you've made as much as I feel you didn't pick out the points that actually mattered to me. Thanks for the dialogue.

Thank you for stating what I tried to state... And putting it so clearly.

I tried to show that in my chart...that it is mathematically impossible to regain what is lost

We are losing 33% of something that is only OURS. And gaining 25% of something that is DIVIDED... with the highest stake holders getting the lion's share.

This isn't difficult math.

Even with all the differences of all the people on steem....no matter what strategy they employ.... They have LOST. (Unless they are big accounts)

And i showed that in the chart

And I will show it again... 30 days after HF21 has been employed, when I make the chart of the SAME people again. it's not just a prediction....it's math, people.

Thank you for making me feel less insane. 😉

Posted using Partiko Android

Bribing people to vote has always been a terrible idea. It attracts the people whose only reason for voting is that they're being bribed, and those people are always going to be looking for opportunities to increase their bribe at everyone else's expense.

It necessarily follows that doubling the bribe is only going to double the problem.

Read it all! and i love your passion for our blockchain. Can we just let you vote? ;)

You're right - I'm making assumptions based on behavior that i believe WILL NOT change.

but - it might

because I'm certainly going to change. I'll be posting less. That is for certain.

I don't believe in whats happening, and I actually do believe that the people who are currently curating in the green WILL ABSOLUTELY continue what they're doing and double their rewards.

who wouldnt???

and those who are in the red? need to figure out how to be in the green too. which means - change.

(by the way - you're not in the red hehehe i figured yours out and you're in the green too not by much - but it is a benefit to your account to do the 50/50)

I WILL now be self-voting ALL my posts when I do post. I need to earn some of those curation rewards back.

I WILL not be spending as much time writing, researching, videoing, editing, - to see my former rewards go to people who haven't done anything more to make my posts more valuable. I work hard - as do many many people here. It's not a equitable decision to reward people with twice as many rewards for reading a post (in minutes) that takes hours and hours to write. nope. I will never be convinced on that.

And - I bet... that If I get the ACTUAL numbers - 30 days AFTER HF21 passes? If i redo the chart with the same people..... I bet that its pretty darn close to what I predicted. That's just my guess - but I'm definitely going to be checking.

How I would be THRILLED to be wrong. But I guess we're gonna see.

Personally, I will stop filling my little section of the blockchain with Dreemie posts - and start curating newbies. It will be a better use of my time. better use of supporting the community, and actively refraining from filling the pockets of people who don't need any more curation rewards for doing the same amount of work.

i know - its my opinion... and as I said in the last comment... on Steem, opinions are stake-based LOL

so mine means a whole lot of nothing.

thank you for your willingness to get in the mix. I'll miss the interaction on my posts with people- but I will make up for it by interacting with them on their posts! :) the newbies probably need it a lot more than me .

(and you're right. they are already leaving. and my guess is when they see how much less they're making - MORE will have to leave.)

so sad.

This sounds about right, actually. And I do think that there's a chance that good quality content will rise based on other effects. I am for all the changes, and I can at least tell you that the motivation is that content that pretty much everyone agrees is trash that is trivially upvoted will be downvoted with the new incentives. If the changes accomplish the task of shifting these kinds of rewards, it can really make a difference. Those numbers you pulled are obviously true if everything stays exactly the same in terms of distribution. But the whole point is that the aim is that it won't. I actually think that good content creators will be gaining more when the dust settles. How do I know? I sure as hell don't know for sure though, so I can see why everyone is so hesitant or downright dismissive of these changes. Downvotes need to happen, and distribution needs to shift. Happy to talk more about specifics, but all I really wanted to start with is to say that looking at these numbers based on present distribution is really not helpful.

It's so ridiculous that we are seriously trying to force people to use downvotes because we are taking their money away

People are going to upvote more trash that makes money in the hopes that they can REGAIN some more curation rewards to make up for the 33% loss that the people in green are happy to take.

I write original content every single day

I have a novel and a sequel that I trusted on Steemit.... Exclusively.... Nowhere else.

Because I BELIEVED IN STEEM.

And now.... The proposal is... "Well Dreemie, we know you were making a dollar before on your story.... After working for years to build up a list of subscribers... Interact with the chain .. create a community... Support one another. But now? How about we decrease that by 33% hmmmm where should we put that money? I've got an idea!!! How about we give a significant portion of it to the whales!!!! "

How about no.

I would rather take my content back and give it away TOTALLY FREE to my subscribers than hand over more money to whales who don't deserve more money for adding NOTHING MORE to the mix.

I can use all my time here to curate. Cuz I can tell you... It's a heck of a lot faster to click upvote on whatever trash is trending....than it is to spend hours writing meaningful content for the community, and have a 33% tax (as someone else put it) go to the whales.

No thanks.

I'll play a new game like all the people in the green seem to have mastered.

Less content. More curation.

Can't wait to see how that works out.

Posted using Partiko Android

Fair enough. I was just explaining the rationale. It's clear you don't believe it will work.

Posted using Partiko Android

Yes, I understand the rationale.

People who have invested a lot of money here will now be making more for no additional work.

So maybe now more investors will come when they see how easy it is to make a buck off of other's hard work.

And we will tell the little worker bees "well just work harder and put out more content so you can earn and someday become whales!!! Ten years to become a minnow... So that is...hold on...let me get my calculator"

I get it.

It may work!

It's disgusting.

Posted using Partiko Android

Funny you are saying something different than others. Others are saying it will disinsentivize self voting, but you state the correct reality that this will increase self voting, which means more will be curating themselves, leaving less for Others, especially the whales.

This means those numbers shown in the capture above will probably be higher than shown for the big guys.

Then there is the downvote pool. This again only helps the big guy, because the little guy will remain just as scared to downvote as they are currently and has always been. It'll simply fund these retarded flag wars, making it even more profitable for the Oligarchy.

None of this will change a thing. Highly followed accounts will get more empty votes to feed off the higher curation rewards and the little guy will receive fewer. So, these two portions of the HF21 proposal will only increase the bad behavior they are claimed to be a fix for.

The rationales aren't rational and it all sounds like spin from the big guys, to convince their counterparts to vote this in and our opinions dont really matter.

All of our concerns are being brushed aside, even by you with ridiculous spin.

You state, " Something must be done, this isn't perfect, but it's all we got." What a load of shit and is you just trying to quiet us down.

Steemit is just modeled after the failed American Political Template and listening to this bullshit spin just proves it further.

There are always other options, period. You don't just throw new untested, irrational abstract idea's into action in real time just to see the outcome.

You do the math, show the math, experiment and test many times over before changing the code. This is how science works, but you choose politics over science, which will fail.

There are literally 30+ competitor's for Steem right now with more coming. All their TOKENS are worth less, but author's are actually earning more there than here.

All I can do is shake my head and be glad I haven't wasted much of my time here and none of my hard earned cash.... @crimsonclad

Posted using Partiko Android

Again, I appreciate your response, and with respect to the fact that people are rightly emotional about this topic, I'm going to point you at this comment I made so as not to write another wall of text people won't read and then comprehend. That's a clarity issue, but I also think it's a knee-jerk, gut reaction issue.

All I can ask is that people don't assume I'm saying anything.

You state, " Something must be done, this isn't perfect, but it's all we got." What a load of shit and is you just trying to quiet us down.

No. There is no place at all that I state this, and just like I'm here having a dialogue with all of you (the opposite of telling you to "quiet down,") I also won't allow you to misconstrue my clear words- posted multiple times in this thread- because you're angry about the overarching situation. You have all rights to be angry and speak your opinions, but that's simply not what I stated and your insinuation that I am attempting to silence people is unacceptable to me, so hopefully if you get the chance to re-read my comments for what they say, and not what you feel they must mean that will help us at the very least (unintentionally, I'm sure) not put words in each other's mouths.

@crimsonclad, Here's your direct quote, "Feeling that the EIP is a fuck you to little guys misses out on some of behaviors the EIP could potentially encourage that we simply cannot achieve any other way,"

So, yes you did say that... The rest of my statement explaining what I see you saying is simply my take, because I cannot believe you actually believe yourself...

Oh and disagreeing is not being emotional. Please don't try to downgrade my opinion in such a egotistical manner. It's just another smokescreen. You are wrong, period...

I'm not even calling you emotional. You're looking for ways to downgrade your own opinion on my behalf. I'm here answering you completely reasonably. I'm not going to touch the egotistical bits... but please don't forget to include the second, direct quote, directly following your direct quote that you trimmed off and left out. Context does matter:

Here's your direct quote, "Feeling that the EIP is a fuck you to little guys misses out on some of behaviors the EIP could potentially encourage that we simply cannot achieve any other way," ...and pretending like the EIP can magically account for human behavior in every way perfectly is completely fucking naive.

Followed up by,

Imagining the EIP as a magic bullet is too simple: one size fits all. Imagining the EIP will destroy the platform is too simple: one size fits all.

Really, here's one, "Again, I appreciate your response, and with respect to the fact that people are rightly emotional about this topic,"

Here's another to another user by you, "I appreciate that you've taken time to respond, and with the greatest respect for how raw everyone is feeling,". Stating it broadly doesn't change the implication.

As for context, adding the second half makes no difference to the portion I was addressing. So, the context I highlighted is paraphrasing, " this is the only way".

Adding the second part you are saying the same thing except your implying something is better than nothing, which is ridiculous...

Posted using Partiko Android

Right now, the worst egregious (important distinction) self voters are getting the majority of their vote back as author rewards without even thinking, and sharing less of it with other people who curate them.

Why not simply disallow self-voting, period, on both posts and comments? Would that do any good?

Oh, and yeah, turn-off the bid-bots, as someone on @dreemsteem's other post suggested.

Would those things help fix the issue, without the 50/50 change being implemented?

Well, I can only trace through the ideas and arguments that are made over time. A lot of people have discussed this as a possibility, and I'm sure there are even forks who have tried it. It definitely pushes us into the area of needing to discuss alts or sock accounts created to do the exact same thing and how best to handle that... which means further curve changes, account costs, or perhaps the idea that there really does need to be more downvoting by everyone... and it gets harder to "see" who is doing the worst stuff because they might actually be X amount of accounts. It means that we have to ask ourselves, "If I expect someone to buy and power up Steem to pay me via voting, then am I myself expected to then do the same for them?". And I think, most importantly, that not being able to self vote to some degree is a pretty discouraging forcing of your hand. If the curation system fails you and you write a great piece that has no recognition or rewards, do you feel that with the stake that you have earned through blood, sweat, or tears, or perhaps bought dearly with other resources you shouldn't be allowed to allocate some value to it? If you write an insightful comment and it is wayyyyyy down on a post and you believe whole-heartedly it needs to be curated up into the best version of conversation on a post, should you not be allowed to use the resources you busted ass for to do so? This is not a flip question. In fact, even without disallowing self voting, these questions are still to some degree relevant.

I'm sure you've heard me say, time and again- voting yourself is not inherently bad. Standing behind your own work and saying, "I see value in this and have worked hard to be able to allocate value towards it" is not bad. I don't care what flavour your donut is as long as it's got sprinkles and at the end of the day you feel good about what you've done and how you're contributing to the ecosystem. The problem with the egregious self voters is the same problem with the egregious bid bot abusers is the same problem with botnet accounts farming rewards without self voting at all. I wish I could say or find that one size fits all easy answer because I would be ready to stand behind it and push for it as hard as I can. For now, I'm doing my best to listen to all opinions and build the best knowledge base that I myself can work from, as an individual, working with a blockchain of individuals.

and the sneak edit: Turning off the bid bots comes down to... how do you turn them off? Do you find a way to take their stake that wouldn't then put your account in the same space? Take the stake of the people delegating without then opening yourself to that form of abuse? Do you use a front end to hide them? (this is happening on Steempeak and on PALnet and others, and I think matters a bit) Redistribute a new asset without them? How do you give that asset value? (PALcoin's new journey.) How do you take a steem account out of someone's hands, or forcefully nullify someone's stake? What does that authority look like? Who can decide? Where is the line on enough? The answers feel so easy when we look at the examples of abuse out there, but unless you can convince a bid bot author to just...stop, or a bid bot delegator to just... stop, then there becomes a whole new HF's worth of potential changes to try to do some of these things (many of which people came to crypto to avoid by bank interference,) and even now- the distribution is done. If all the bidbots stopped today, the distribution is still inequitable.

All of these things are part of the whole- that economic context I discussed above. Were there one, simple, surefire one size fits all fix that we could implement today to turn it around, it would be done yesterday. But that's not where we are, and so now we have to challenge the way we think and the way we all act to try to push things in the right direction.

Thank you, @crimsonclad ~ I value your opinion and always learn things from you!

this change will work only if:
A. big accounts that are selfvoting, bitboting spam or whatever you do (not you as you) to get most of the steem, now start to spend hours on steem looking and reading/watching content to upvote. but that would be hard because on steem you have a lot of #belowaveragecreator s (that are on steem just because they suck and would be somewhere else making a lot more money) that are here just to take money from people that invested and are doing everything to make steem great. not really seeing that happening.
B. enough big accounts start downvoting selfoting, bitboting whatever you do to the point that the other side stops doing that. small acc will have no influence on it and will only be bystanders in everything, as they always were and as the system is made.

When they cut out self-voting...people create duplicate accounts to upvote themselves.

It's what I keep saying, you cannot stop bad behavior. Locked doors only keep the honest out. Criminals will smash the window, taking your purse and leaving you with the window to fix on top of it! Lol

And so... We will make the large accounts happy by paying them more.

Because they have the voice and power.

Posted using Partiko Android

They already have multiple duplicate accounts. That's the real reason the economy is failing. The current numbers are really only about 1/3 unique.

Posted using Partiko Android

Did I just read something that caught my attention in this very emotional comment:

ref:

"The lack of self awareness for what makes for a strong blockchain and a strong coin is insane. "

So glad you said it and not me, for when I say it so bluntly I get a guaranteed chewing for it.

As with any business venture, the people running the show are the ones who call the shots.

Here those people are chosen by "the people" and hence no matter what anyone wants to yell about, the person responsible for ones actions is the person one sees in the mirror every morning!

Voted in "Governance" is the responsibility of ALL voters when it comes to a business venture, let alone an entire economy such as Steem.

With all the talk about "anti establishment" one would have hoped to see a difference between human behaviour in "real life" i.e. voting in national elections, for those who shall govern and manage the economy etc etc etc. and that of what we can see in our governance and management of our economy etc etc etc.

Won't go into a ramble, just had to react to this as it literally caught my eye and all I can say, no matter what you may have been thinking when you wrote it is:

HEAR HEAR!

"The lack of self awareness for what makes for a strong blockchain and a strong coin is insane. "

It has been thrown out there many a time by various Steemians during the course of the past two years that I recall.

In various conversations, post comment threads, discord chats written and voice.

But not to throw the blame on people who don't understand and who maybe sincerely believe that this is something that could make Steem great, I will throw in a comment I made on the topic just last night in a voice conversation in The Alliance Bar:

"How many investors do you know out there who are willing to give 100% effort into their investments/businesses only to see their potential profits cut by 33% or 50% without them being able to do anything about it?"

Seriously, think about it!

Then there is another aspect to this:

As a backup witness, if let's say these changes go through as per the votes from the existing governance (top20 witnesses) maybe I as a backup witness may not have to update to HF21 in order for my server to perform its set tasks as far as the blocks go.

However, sooner or later there will be another HF and another and another, eventually one that has to be implemented by ALL witnesses who wish to ensure the server is active and not "in the red".

So there is no choice in the matter for backup witnesses, eventually one day it shall be a "must".

Nothing wrong with doing what needs to be done, but yeah, when we look at things realistically, the question(s) posed should literally be answered by those who are pushing it.

& NO, I don't believe in any "juggling of figures" as far as the "post rewards" go to be important at this stage.

We have definitely outgrown "a blogging site" we now have various sites on our blockchain and we need to be looking at the needs of them as private investors.

Each site = an individual business and as such they should be promoting, working on and doing everything possible to make their site known of, used and the talk of the town!

We are now in 2019, almost in 2020, yet we are still talking about obsolete, totally outdated topics as if we are still in 2017 with only one blogging website (front end) using Steem.

ref: Responsibilities of Front End Owners. (ref: HF21)

& as for the funding of projects/proposals, hell, with all the Steem being produced and nobody wanting to invest a part of it back into the further expansion of Steem, I mean, seriously. It takes money to make money. Steem did not have an ICO and now that we have come to a point where we are finally filling in the gaps, people can't decide on where to fund them from. Seriously?????????

Won't continue on from this point, have said all I am going to say on that matter.

blue and I said the SAME THING .... go into work, and have your salary cut by 33% and see how long you stay before you're looking for a new job.

it's ridiculous.

Even got me to the point where I commented twice on one thread!

Knowing all too well that too many hate hearing something that they don't want to hear, especially that they have a responsibility on an individual level within any governance model that is voter based.

Let alone any of the other responsibilities that lay out there.

Geez. Hell, imagine what this would look like if "free downvotes/flags" were a part of the game!

Holy mackerel, I refuse to comment any further.

Cheers.

New to Steemit?