You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Arguments For Keeping the Steem Reward Pool Whole
I posted this via Busy for multiple reasons, one of which includes to illustrate that point. Currently Busy is very Steemit-like in features, but has added additional ones and has potential to find new uses for the Steem platform. Furthermore, like Busy, more apps or websites can be built on to Steem. The more limited Steem is, the more friction there is to building such apps. Can you imagine if Twitter said only four tweets per day could receive any retweets, or something so arbitrary?
I completely agree with this and I am now firmly in the anti-reward-pool-splitting camp. Also, I think that a solution that would work would be if steemit took a more hands-off approach to the development of the steemit.com interface and focused its resources on improving the code. There is a lot of room for improvement in the way that
steemdis implemented, and I am pretty sure per cost for development the website is more expensive. I might even say 'hire busy to do it'.I am in agreement with @l0k1 on the steemd: https://steemit.com/steemit/@mindhunter/a-mindhunter-opinion-why-i-believe-the-steem-rewards-pool-should-be-split-and-how-steemmd-could-do-with-some-code-improvements
I'm now in complete agreement with pfunk. I have been on both sides but always felt more inclination not to support reward splitting. Thank you for the post pfunk.
thank you maybe weigh the best cases for each or the worst cases if you can keep it short :D