You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HF20 Update: Operations Stable
Well this option would be only for those who are not willing to invest anything in their Steem-account. They would have to let go of some of the potential profits, therefore they would get a fully functional Steem account from the start to check everything out! Its just an option and not something that is mandatory. I mean Bitshares also has a referral system for lifetime membership something like that would be also possible.
If anything there would be a limited ref reward such as until the 10% has reached the 3 Steem it costs for the account creation and then back to no affiliation.
Sounds good to me. I guess when implemented than every individual user should be able to create its own conditions on how he wants to support the account creation.
Posted using Partiko Android
My thoughts.. before i got to typing, then scrolled to read it in this comment.
Why? If you are a good contributer to the steem blockchain, you are investing in the platform with your time and chosen skillset, that's how and why you get rewarded, how much is up to the community. And this isn't Bitshares.
Yes and how you said it will always be like that. If a new user creates good content and receives upvotes for it, that will still be his major income. I was just giving an idea of how to pay for the extra Steempower a new user might want from the beginning. The question from this post was - who is paying for the extra SP for new users so they have more RC? What is your suggestion?
Posted using Partiko Android
Turning STEEM into a pyramid scheme would destroy its credibility.
I've literally had to show every new user I introduced that it doesn't have that kind of system, because they suspected it might.
If you have half a mind and have lived in the last century, you know that earning something for nothing is never a good system.
Adding a referral system to Steemit would be a total nightmare.
thanks d-pend you get it :)
I agree, but that's common sense. Logic.
However, my brain can't comprehend the last few words you just typed out, I kinda exploded, but that's more because of the accusation you put in between the lines.
If your own brain capacity is limited by that much intelligence, i understand that you can't process the idea that good content is mandatory on this platform and worth so much more than "nothing". The ideology here is that the community decides how much it will be rewarded. There is a chance you earn nothing, but is earning the focus? Is creating good content the focus? Is curating shit posts for a higher CR the focus? You tell me.
Please, before making it sound like you're superior by implying that other people who do not agree with you are incompetent: Get a better understanding about the (revolutionary) concept of steem and get out of your litter first.
Good content is mandatory, that doesn't mean bad content should be banned.
The focus should be allowing people to use the system the way they would use it.
Earning rewards for other peoples posts because you referred them to the platform would make it questionable in my opinion, very very questionable.
I believe I stated that plainly.
I do not imply that disagreeing with me is incompetant, it is my opinion that money based referral systems are super dodgy and trusting anything to do with one is incompetent, that's all.
It's ok to disagree with me, there's nothing to be afraid of.
"Good" versus "Bad" is just an opinion, so what are you trying to say and what do you mean with content getting banned? If that is happening right now I'm sorry because I didn't know, but that I find really hard to believe unless you mean flags.
They can use the system? If you need RC tokens to publish, you can try to gather them by engaging with other Steemians or post something valuable on our blockchain. The more you contribute, the higher the chance of getting rewarded. Ah, the "more" thing is limited eh? Well, simply use Proof of Brain a little bit more and comment a little bit more than "Nice Post", the platform is already full with shitposts, and do we want to have more of that? I don't. If your RC tokens are scarce, what would you do? I would spend them wisely. You shouldn't be asking for more, because you think you are entitled to. That's simply not how the system works.
Getting rewards simply because you referred authors are ridiculous.
k.
I fail to see where I said that steem currently bans bad content. I said good content is mandatory but that doesn't mean bad content should be banned.
You're putting words in my mouth.
Engagement requires RC. Your point is completely moot.
Contributing more is impossible if your RC is limiting you.
There's no such thing as proof of brain. People should really stop throwing that phrase from the whitepaper around, its silly.
You're saying that saying more than 'nice post' solves the problem completely. I know for a fact there are thousands of frustrated small users who disagree with you.
Scarce RC would destroy steems credibility.
Imagining that use of a social network is entitlement is the kind of thinking that kills steem.
To say that's simply not how the system works is moot too, the system worked before HF19 and resources has never been scarce, nor should RC be.
Actually you are wrong, the social network that will eventually manifest and take everything's place will reward people for every conceivable activity, and no amount of small-mindedness will stand in the way of progress.
We have to decide if steem will be the social network everyone adopts or just a way for the already invested to milk something out till it dies.
K.
Here is an imaginary dick you can chew on.
Leaves this shallow-minded one-way discussion.
You are totally missing the point here and the message of the post from @steemitblog There is no free money here and we are far off from any pyramid structure otherwise you don't understand blockchain and the reward pool.
The question of this post was who is paying for the extra SP or RC so that new users have more ability to interact. Your answer is totally of the charts...so try to come up with something better?
Posted using Partiko Android
@masterthematrix, I think you missed the point of the post I was responding to . . .
I said a financial incentive referral system where you get a part of your referral's post rewards, would be a very bad PR move among sensible folk.
I suspect its the comment ordering or perhaps you replied in haste. I'm not saying steemit is pyramid like at all, I'm saying that earning rewards for the activity of members you enroll would make it seem that way.
You mean like how @ berniesanders does it?
berniesanders is a legitimate blogger, a voted witness and an anonymous celebrity.
sure, like how berniesanders does it if you're into that, he's just collecting some of his interest on his stake instead of handing it all out. He hands out a lot of high power votes too.
Freedom of speech/anarcho capitalism.
If you consider that legitimate blogging, then I begin to see where the problem is. You might want to check out where most of his high powered votes go... to himself! And I have absoulutely have no problem with free speech, but apparently the guy who hides behind someone else's name does! Live and learn lanmower!
If you consider his blogging illegitimate, or not a blog, I can see where the problem is.
Yes he votes himself, he's entitled to, he owns the shares. You shouldn't be attacking people for using their own shares the way they choose (freedom of speech)
You just don't get it. I have no problem with self-upvoting. My problem is with his hypocricy. He condemns and flags everyone else and publicly identifies them on his @ abusereports, then does exactly the same thing... upvotes his own abuse report! And if he had any principle, he would leave his emotions out of flagging someone for no reason just because he doesn't agree with them. Talk about curtailment of free speech! David Knox once said "Some get it, some don't. Some will, some won't. Those that do, do... those that don't, dont." You obviously fall into that latter category!
In my humble opinion its not for you to decide if his blog is good enough or not, that's for him to decide.
You should also not be the authority on whether using your own name or someone else's is a problem, that's his decision, its his blog.
Stop telling people how to blog.
it would appear you used the lords name in vain :)
How about this: You buy more if you want more. And it's easy.
Get on a exchange or buy through @blocktrades.
Buy steem.
Send steem.
Power up steem.
That is not a new solution you can do that anyways. The question was how to solve the problem that new user accounts can interact more with Steem Blockchain without extra investing...read the post.
Posted using Partiko Android
Investing what exactly? Time, money, crypto, ideas? The real question should be: Do we really need a solution so new user accounts can have more interactions? I don't think so, because there are other issues that caused this in the first place that needs to be fixed.
I am not saying that you -need- to invest straight away, but if you, as an individual, want more interactions, you invest in the platform, instead of complaining that you can't do shit here. Hopefully, with this "limitation" people will think twice about what they are going to comment/post and actually make Steemit have fewer shitposts, plagiarism, spam and everything else that is giving a negative reputation to the platform.
As far as my concerns will go, the way how it is right now is good enough. Hopefully, the platform will filter out all the people that are here just for the quick bucks so we can invest our stake to those who are here to stay.