Steem experiment: Burn post #1
It has been suggested by some stakeholders that the rewards currently being paid out are excessive, relative to the size of the community and the value being added, and are so large as to be contributing more to incentivizing abuse than adding value to the platform.
This post offers an alternative. By voting for this post you are voting that rewards be reduced by the amount allocated to this post. Any rewards received by this post will be burned (sent to @null) as described below. If the belief that excess rewards are not adding value is correct, then the reduced money supply accomplished by burning should increase the value of STEEM/SP.
Burn procedure:
SP: equivalent amount of STEEM sent to @null
SBD: sent to @null if SBD is trading for no more than 1 USD. Otherwise, traded on internal market for STEEM, which is sent to @null
This procedure is being used rather than setting beneficiary to @null in order to avoid reducing SBD supply when SBD is overvalued. Therefore some trust is required that I will actually burn the rewards. Vote accordingly.
Proof of burn will be posted as a reply after payout.
If there is positive stakeholder response in terms of votes, I will continue to make more such posts as a series.
I support your approach because it is a possibility for larger stakeholders to address the issue of excessive rewards without changing the platform mechanics, and thus doesn´t require Steemit Inc. endorsement.
However, in case Steemit Inc. considers this an issue too, I would propose the following changes for consideration (I´m careful here , since I might well miss some technical or game theoretical obstacles).
The main benefit I see with this approach is that it would foster the coherence of our community. No reason anymore to envy trending authors, since every user (with SP holdings) benefits from their success. The reward pool remains the same, yet an excessive allocation towards individual users would be prevented. Also, it would add a further incentive to hold SP.
I´m glad to see you contributing again.
"introducing a cap on reward disbursement, e.g. 250 USD per post."
Caps are arbitrary, and generally only supported by Marxists SJWs who think "they know better." They also utterly fail in concept. The idea of applying the same cap to someone in the US and someone in Venezuela is so fucking laughable that it's hard to believe any thought even went into the suggestion.
"The main benefit I see with this approach is that it would
foster the coherence of our community.further my communist SJW ends"FTFY.
First of all, I had to look up what SJW means. Hope this counts as proof that I'm not a SJW :) Also, just for the records, the ideas of Communism and Marxism have zero appeal to me.
I do understand though that alone the word "cap" is like waving a red flag to free market believers (I consider myself being one). Therefore, I was somewhat prepared to get a response like the one from you.
What I would like to emphasise though, I'm not suggesting to cap rewards but to cap the amount that a single account can extract from the reward pool per post. The reward finding process would remain untouched and payouts beyond the cap would not be showered on the community in order to further social justice (something I anyway consider an illusion) but distributed in a stake-weighted manner to SP holders. I'm quite convinced that Marx would not have supported this idea.
Why shouldn't somebody in Venezuela get the same reward as someone in the US if they deliver the same quality and worth to the platform?
I submit flagging based on rewards being too high for a post to be just as Marxist as putting a cap on the post earnings. You can take an extreme situation where the user posts "Horay It's Saturday" and is obviously upvoting himself through bots but often I read about flagging when clearly that is not at all the case.
I agree with your view. Having the possibility to self-vote in the system is indefensible, I cannot think of a single good reason why it's useful. And I try to explain here how flagging based on rewards could do more harm than good.
sorin.cristescu: "the possibility to self-vote in the system is indefensable"
The comment then voted up $0.77 by a voting bot. Do you expect me to believe you didn't pay that voting bot to update your comment? This makes me smile. I'll vote it up too.
This is how @gentlebot works. It randomly upvotes people. One cannot buy a vote from it.
Well, believe it or not, I didn't pay that bot and have no idea who paid it. I don't know anything about @gentlebot. Shouldn't you be able to see on the blockchain if I paid for it ? Or maybe, by looking at timestamp, even what other account paid for it ?
I do use self-votes myself when I deem that the effort I've put into writing a comment deserves a payout, even small, and am not sure anyone else will upvote my comment. I've also used minnowbooster to indirectly pay random user to upvote my comments. Overall you may say that I'm experimenting with the Steemit system, taking it out for a ride.
The fact that I've tested features and decided to use some because it's how the system, in its current state, is supposed to be used, doesn't imply that I believe all its features to be good. :-)
Yes, so taking the money and burning it is much, much better because it's not "Marxist."
There's definitely no good content out there being missed because everyone's chasing whales in hopes of big payouts.
This is an interesting approach. I don't like protocol changes for anything that can be resolved without.
Creating a whale account to downvote at 6.5 days any posts with rewards in excess of 250 USD would have a very similar impact, except that the overage is redistributed by Rshares instead of by stake, and could be implemented without a protocol change... and that's what flagging does, but the unfortunate decision to use the 'flagging' iconography and terminology instead of calling it downvoting or redistribution makes it seem much more aggressive.
Thanks for your reply!
I think the impact of such a modality would be very different and quite problematic. As you say, one difference is a psychological one which is that it would be perceived as a negation of rewards in contrast to the distribution of rewards to the benefit of all stake-holders. True, Rshares would be freed-up for re-allocation, yet only authors with posts in pending payout would benefit. Non-publishing stakeholders or authors with no active post would remain empty-handed.
However, the main concern I have with this measure is that it would impair the reward finding process for posts above the reward cap and thus eliminate reward levels as a needed ranking parameter. If it is certain that every post will be trimmed down to a certain reward cap shortly before payout, then there is no incentive to vote on posts that are already performing above the cap. Because all curation rewards of those votes would be nullified with that downvote at 6.5 d. The result would be a big cluster of unranked posts with a payout level at the cap.
Otherwise, I fully agree with you that the "flagging" terminology is highly unfavourable. Calling it a downvote is just marginally better. In contrast, redistribution, yes, that would be something!
E.g. like
🔼: Allocate rewards
🔄: Redistribute rewards
instead of upvote/downvote...
I love the idea of calling it a redistribution!
I agree with you for the most part. Some changes or improvements to content discovery are needed.
At the present juncture my main position is to wait until we see how the upcoming changes to curation rewards actually impact the ecosystem.
lol Yes, I made a whole topic on an alternative to "flagging" for inexperienced users, it's kind of like a warning instead of a down-vote LOL
redistribution is pretty much a commie term in political circles, but used in a free to join, free to leave "vote with your feet" place like this it could work, and likely work well. More like "dividend sharing" actually, and I like that idea better ;)
Agree, "dividend sharing" is a much better term. Cheers!
Thank YOU! :D
I support the idea of calling it Redistribution... Though all of this seems too technical for me. I'll try to leave leading the ship to people who are capable of that.
It's just that it's hard to know who qualifies to save the situation.
It´s every single member of our community that qualifies to make proposals how to resolve any issue that arises.
If the technical aspects of Steemit are a source of negativity for you, then simply ignore them. Just focus on your content and engagement with the community (like you just did). Everything else is of lesser importance. So stay onboard, don´t leave the ship!
Cheers
I credit @josephsavage for having the idea of relabelling downvotes as (reward) redistribution. Let´s see whether we can create some momentum for a #proposal.
You look at post like this
https://steemit.com/seoul/@shinhan/32pqgo-seoul
Is that worth 16 SBD?
I personally would say no, but something like a fair valuation of content simply doesn´t exist.
Hey guys. Really refreshing to read constructive comments after I just scrolled through some flagging wars... @shaka, those are very interesting ideas. I think that a reward cap is a great idea. Calling it redistribution sounds really constructive as well. What do you guys think about a maximum value of an upvote which would lead to more diversification?
Apart from that, what do you think about the Steemit hierachy? We have Witnesses and that is about it. Do you think introducing other levels, like "Admins" who can decide about problematics regarding individual posts could be an approach?
Exciting times, I hope we are sailing in the right direction.
Wow, that's a good idea. I see so many people arguing/complaining about the reward pool rape and/or unequal SP distribution, but no one suggested a good systematic solution except you (as far as I know). I think that you should make a post about it. Cheers! : )
Yes, I think we should act now rather than wait for it to get worse by the day. But I ask of you to change it slowly but steadily, rather than making an abrupt change cause it may affect the big ones, leaving them dissatified. But we need stability for long term benifits; I support your campaign!
I second that!
dear @smooth thanks for your poste becous your poste is very helpfull for me so me flow up vote restime my poste https://steemit.com/allah/@thawfiqur/islam-is-our-religion-so-who-love-islam-please-up-vote-becous-all-muslim-love-allah
Yes! I have favored the idea of a cap since day one, but have had zero traction whenever I bring it up!
If you introduce a $250 USD per post, you won’t find any posts that are worth more than that on this platform. In other words, writers who value their time more than $250 USD per post won’t write here. I don’t believe that’s the best strategy for the future of Steemit.
I have a different propossal, sometime ago i created the account @delega, inspired in cultivating and promoting the right attitude.
I made this post a few weeks ago, sadly it went mostly ignored,
https://steemit.com/speakyourmind/@nnnarvaez/lets-make-minnows-curate-delega
What i prpose is to use those rewards to power up and delegate 100% to new comers, there you are about to burn 826 $ at current Steem price it is about 800 SP that will make 4 minnows who actually believe in the platform to start curating.
My post to delegate to cultivators received 15$ ...
I think there is something wrong with our priorities if that is what we really want to do.
Proof of burn
Author reward 352.107 SBD, and 74.806 STEEM POWER for smooth/steem-experiment-burn-post-1
Sold 352.107 SBD for 522.854 STEEM on internal market
https://steemd.com/tx/0378dcff18a9689d908d0092f071c5a4dd23c0d2
Total burn of 74.806+522.854 = 597.660 STEEM
https://steemd.com/tx/1ddc2d0ab6407797e93a9b2d12ee4f7d9289c06c
What are your thoughts on the $225 in curation rewards on this post for those who support this project? Does that incentivize people to be involved, even if it ends up being worse in the long run for the platform?
During the witness forum yesterday there was some discussion about the rewards pool and STEEM distribution. Some feel there's a problem with not enough distribution of STEEM and those who have the most of it get too much control around here in terms of flag wars, reward distribution, self-voting, etc. If the rewards pool is decreased via burning, won't that further entrench those who already have a disproportionate amount of STEEM either by increasing the price of STEEM and/or decreasing the rewards pool which might distribute STEEM more broadly?
I guess in the end, anyone can upvote or downvote whatever they want. I currently want my voting power to go towards valuable content and authors I want to support, so downvoting something like this (and with only the Steem Power I have, not even full whale status) doesn't make much sense.
I think curation rewards mostly just incentivize people to participate in voting at all (which may be good or bad, depending on your point of view, but I think mostly good). You can vote on one thing and get curation rewards or vote on another thing and get curation rewards, so with respect to the content itself, they're mostly neutral. It doesn't make a lot of sense to argue that people vote for post A over post B 'for the curation rewards' when curation rewards are available from either (or countless other posts too).
Which is why declined-reward posts, and downvoting, can be disadvantaged: in that case it is not neutral, since they don't pay curation rewards it requires the voter choosing to deploy a vote in that manner to incur an opportunity cost. This is really a poor design choice, though I don't know of a good way to address it for downvotes (in the case of payment-declined posts, I think voters should get the normal curation rewards for their contribution in helping establish the visibility of the post, and also to restore content neutrality to the voting).
First of all, let's make clear that the reward pool is currently inflated by about 3-6x (depending on rapidly-fluctuating market prices) due the actions of SBD speculators (and deficiencies in the SBD pegging mechanism). We would have to reduce rewards through burning by at least 65-85% just to restore the system to its original design parameters on how much stake should be distributed via rewards. That is highly unlikely, and with far less being burned, this is hardly entrenches anything, it just distributes at a less artificially accelerated rate.
Beyond that point on magnitude, it depends how much of the reward pool you believe is currently being allocated in a wasteful manner that doesn't really help the distribution (such as the self voting your mentioned as well as various ways that reward distribution). IMO if that is a large portion then we are better off taking a 'pause' on paying out maximum (inflated) rewards inefficiently and instead return some of that value to the STEEM price (and SBD peg health) until those problems are being better addressed either via the community or platform changes.
As much one might wish for some outcome such as 'better distribution', the mere act of paying rewards doesn't necessarily do that unless it is being done effectively. If a lot is being siphoned off by relatively well off whales and scammers, it is conceivable it could be making the distribution worse, and even if it isn't quite that bad, distribution is only one consideration. If value isn't being added then the rewards are wasteful and making both the platform and its stakeholders worse off.
I liked this post from @transisto on the matter of what rewards are supposed to accomplish: https://steemit.com/steem/@transisto/my-version-of-steem-is-not-content-based-it-is-contribution-based
Let's ask ourselves whether it is even possible, or likely, for the community given its current size and activity level to be making contributions that are adding value of $500K-1M per day, or if the gap between what is being paid out and what is feasible to really effectively use is too large (leading to a proportionately larger share of self-serving schemes and other waste). In that context, a little tapping on the brakes is warranted. I respect that you may disagree and want to vote elsewhere.
While you can vote on one thing or another thing, voting on things you have a pretty good expectation of being valuable does increase the curation reward. In that sense, this experiment does create an incentive for people to participate purely for the curation rewards, but I guess the same can be said for voting up any other popular author with a history of high value posts.
I wonder if the inflated price of SBD is being done specifically to inflate the rewards pool for the advantage of those earning through the rewards pool. In a way, inflating the SBD price may push the opposite experiment of what is happening with this post by giving more value out as a way to fix lopsided initial distribution concerns. I'm personally not too concerned about it because all of that SBD is still only convertible to STEEM at the $1 price and because few would do that now anyway. You make a good point that a larger rewards pool doesn't automatically mean it will be distributed fairly. It could, as you said, cause even more unequal distribution.
Maybe more visibility via tools like this may be helpful: https://steemdb.com/labs/author
Exactly. There is another effect too. The more of these posts there are, the less each one is worth, meaning smaller "windfall" curation rewards to those few voters who are in early, and more opportunities to be early on reliable posts (which in turn tends to spread out curation rewards more widely). There are a lot of zero-sum (in the short term) aspects of the reward pool that end up being self-balancing.
Interesting possibility. I personally doubt it and think it is just speculation on a token that, to the extent it is already well above $1 becomes somewhat free-floating ($1 is too far away to matter). But I don't rule out other possibilities.
You're so nice for commenting on this post. For that, I gave you a vote! I just ask for a Follow in return!
Flagging for comment spam.
You say people have their head in the sand because they won't flag things and then you go on irrational flag retaliations if someone even talks about flagging you. On top of that, you won't even have a civil discussion about it.
This flagging aspect of Steem is very divisive and negative. Look how it ends up with you two fighting each other and making noise which makes Steem look bad to readers.
There’s a much better way which would convert differing perspectives into more degrees-of-freedom rather than force everyone into the same basket where they’re induced to battle. It will be known as algorithmic decentralized curation and my project will be the first to bring that to the market, not Steem and not EOS.
This plan wasn't very well thought out.
Short term reward manipulation aside this plan is actually going to increase the problem it is attempting to address even though that problem might not even exist to begin with.
For some reason the premise here is that rewards are too high in value and that this is incentivizing abuse. On face value that premise is absurd and no analysis supporting it has been shown but I will continue to use the premise to highlight how bad the plan is.
The solution to reduce the immediate payouts is to lower the current amount of funds going out and also burns them thereby taking them out of circulation and limiting the supply.
You are now burning supply which will increase prices as long as demand remains steady. If the prices go up then the value of rewards goes up and you've accomplished absolutely nothing. The incentive to abuse remains according to the premise.
You are in effect trying to hobble the market differentiating value proposition that you see as incentivizing abuse but is also the biggest reason for success, new user signups, user engagement and market demand. It is what incentivizes the whole platform.
This is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
This is simply mathematically wrong as I've addressed elsewhere. Hypothetically if voters decided to allocate the entire reward pool to burning, then the value of rewards would not go up. Now would they go up at 99%? At 90%? I'm pretty sure the answer at these levels is no, and it may well be no at every level.
What I believe is that there is a certain amount of rewards that are useful for that purpose. The system design is for about 9% per year of market cap to be getting paid in the form of rewards, which might well be reasonably balanced in terms of new value being added vs. expense (and if it isn't then the system is poorly designed). But what is actually happening given the overvaluation of SBD is that something like 50% of market cap is being paid out per year. It isn't plausible in my view that so much new value is being added by the rewarding process, meaning this excess is just being wasted.
Returning a portion of that excess to stakeholders hardly 'hobbles' anything, in fact with any reasonable expectation of how much might be burned, the reward pool will still likely be much larger than it is supposed to be, just a little less so, with a bit of that windfall directed to helping the price of STEEM (which, let's be frank, has horribly underperformed the cryptocurrency market during one of the biggest bull markets the world has ever seen in any asset category).
Secondarily this should have at least a small effect on reducing the overvaluation of SBD, which helps get at the problem of absurd rewards from the other direction as well.
" then the value of rewards would not go up."
The displayed reward level may not increase but the market value for which those rewards would be trading on would indeed go up if you reduce the supply.
" But what is actually happening given the overvaluation of SBD is that something like 50% of market cap is being paid out per year"
On a blockchain level that is not true at all. That is uncontrollable free market prices that should come down over time with sustained sell pressure from an increasing SBD supply. You are fighting against that by burning supply. This burn project literally helps prop up the high price of SBD.
The formula for production of Steem and SBD is still printing at the intended rate. As long as people chase the high SBD price by buying up Steem and increasing it's price then the rate at which SBD is printed will increase.
Burning the supply doesn't help alleviate the free market over valuation of SBD.
"Returning a portion of that excess to stakeholders hardly 'hobbles' anything"
If that is true then it also achieves nothing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say this is lowering payouts only for abusers, it lower payouts for everyone.
If your premise is that high paying posts attracts abuse you have also recognize it attracts legitimate use as well. High paying posts are a fantastic marketing tool and lowering them across the board would indeed be hobbling that.
"this should have at least a small effect on reducing the overvaluation of SBD"
Burning supply does not decrease market prices if demand remains static. I see nothing that addresses overall demand so this would increase the overvaluation of SBD.
Your goals aren't in question you seem to be trying to achieve something in a decentralized fashion that is completely fair. I just disagree on how it will work out.
You missed the point on this. If all rewards are being burned, then rewards paid out for self-voting schemes and other abuses is certainly not increased!
In order for rewards paid out (and not burned) to increase on net, the STEEM price would have to increase by proportionately more than the amount burned. For example, if 50% is burned then the STEEM price would have to double just to maintain the same payouts (much less increase). If 75% is burned then price would have to increase by 4x. I find all of this reasonably unlikely given that STEEM has a market cap of roughly a billion dollars and something less than one million dollars per day is being paid out. There will likely be an effect on price, but not disproportionate with the amount burned.
Also, since you mentioned market value, the market value of SBD plays a role and this initiative seeks to (most likely slightly) reduce SBD value by 1) dumping 100% of the SBD rewards directly onto the market, and 2) increasing the supply of SBD by increasing the STEEM price.
Remember, rewards are paid out both in SBD and STEEM/SP, so both market values matter. So if the initiative increases the STEEM price while decreasing the SBD price, that may have no (or very small) net effect on the overall market value of rewards.
My premise (and FWIW it isn't really mine but mostly originates with other stakeholders who have expressed it, though I mostly agree) is that the rewards are outsize from what added value the Steem community can actually, realistically contribute to the platform, in terms of attracting users, creating content that promote itself, building brand value, etc. There are other limiting factors besides money, notably time, community size, and good ideas. (To say this another way "throwing money at a problem" is often extremely wasteful.) By contrast, abuse has no such limiting factors and is easily scaleable to absorb whatever extra money speculators throw at it. This also has the negative secondary effect of making abuse more frequent and pervasive which actually damages community morale and brand value.
How much more sense such a post would make under n^2 ...
As it is now, the abusive voters will profit even more compared to me, when I vote for this post.
Sounds interesting. Would love to get a lease on Minnowbooster would love to be better able too predict prices that would be accepted.
One thing I think we need to work on are some tools for creating visibility to issues that require discussion.
We say we are decentralized and yes there is a vote and comment session on important issues, but it sure would help clarify this investment for many if we developed a way to ensure that stake-holders had a chance to weigh in on these issues. In order for this to get visibility for discussion it would need to be voted on, thus compromising your assumed "vote"
Tweeted on Twitter for potential discussion and visibility to prospective investors.
For the record, I laughed at "Rewards too High, and Creating Abuse. Based on WHAT?
Yes that is a great point! So do you imply that it would be helpful to have similar voting to the witness voting, but for relevant community topics and issues?
In addition, I think a better distribution is something we should strive for and with that in mind, I will be flagging as many rewards as I can from this post. (don't worry, not much) With no insult intended at the Author. Waiting until it will not harm visibility, for the sake of fairness and discussion.
No insult perceived nor offense taken. I respect disagreement and am a supporter of downvoting/flagging (though I hate that it is displayed as "flagging" which very much suggests something other than what it actually does) as a means to express it.
Appreciated.
I'd prefer the steemit account burned ...
Or at least put to some good use as a functional GUI or a person keeping people informed about the things done by our worldclass developer team who obviously finds no time to inform us what is happening. E.g. what will happen to the 71 mio Steem that are put on power down right this moment...
My theory on the power-down is that they have contracts with SMT investors that require @steemit to provide the STEEM needed by those investors at some contracted price, rather than the investors buying in the markets. (In thin markets, substantial power-ups can create massive price spikes.)
Since the contracts would be subject to non-disclosure agreements, @steemit is in a bind and can't announce or explain the reasons why they are powering down.
" they have contracts with SMT investors that require @steemit to provide the STEEM needed by those investors at some contracted price, "
In other words, they are fucking all of us over by selling at a below-market price to Steem newcomers, subsidized by fucking over those of us who already paid market price?
I don't care much for your explanation, frankly, though that is not an indictment of you.
However, framing this as anything but shady bullshit theft from the rest of us is STINC supporting propaganda.
The shady bullshit theft happened two years ago with the massive premine. That there are still consequences of that is not a surprise so much as an inevitability. I choose to be here because I see potential in spite of that.
@josephsavage is correct - the shady shit was the pre-mine.. Selling them at any price - giving them to friends, burning them, who the fuck knows - none of those actions hurt the community any more than the initial pre-mine did.
In fact, breaking up giant whale accounts and distributing them to new users will strengthen the community in the long term.
I remember a time when Bitcoin bagholders all started up Bitcoin faucets in order to distribute the coin into the community.. Were they fucking over those who had mined or bought BTC because they were not selling at market price?
That's my most probable version, too. Funny, I wrote about it like a minute ago...
Fucked up if true, means Stinc is fucking us all by selling to new investors at below market prices.
How does that hurt you?
It doesn't...
I have in the past given my Steem away for nothing.. Did that fuck you over because I didn't charge market price for them?
No.
FYI it is on power down.
That's what I've seen and that's what worries me. And thats what should worry every investor with half a brain, as long there is no further information. steemitblog is silent, ned is involved in his in his ex-marital disputes with dan and has even no time to wish a "happy new year" or "merry xmas" to his great community.
Sorry for the bitterness... I am all into positivity and actually DOING something good, but THIS is just some unneeded BS.
(Burning SBD would probably be a working patch for symptoms, but as long as some big whales are more interested in making even more bucks by selling their votes for short term gains instead of stabilizing the ecosystem, I don't see a chance for anyone imitating your efforts.)
Don't worry, he does have time to self-vote himself $6000 dollars while he argues with his ex-boyfriend:
LOOOOOOL, saw that
Imitation isn't needed, only votes. 10 burn posts per day can consume all or nearly all of the entire reward pool if they get enough votes, and I can certainly set up a bot to make 10 of these posts (and also to automatically burn the rewards). But as you say that is a drop in the bucket compared to the steemit account, so these aren't really the same issue at all.
Out-of-pocket-expenses... :-)
Could the same result plus a bit more not be accomplished by utilizing flags VS what someone views as too highly paid content? I feel as though the community under-utilizes the flagging mechanism out of fear, which needs to be overcome. @berniesanders and his plethora of monikers such as @nextgencrypto, @rewardpoolrape, @theyeti, @randowhale, etc. for instance, they could use more flagging against them. They're the definition of abuse of the platform. He always flags back out of revenge because he's a child, but ultimately, it helps the platform if he's wasting VP and people are negating his VP that he always allocates to himself out of greed.
At any rate, consider this 100% upvote to this post as a contribution from @agoric.systems :-). Burning stake is always good, but I feel as though negating abuse via flags is a better alternative as it prevents reward pool allocation being given to parties that do not deserve it.
This is a tiny, tiny, tiny dent in the issue, but hey, every penny counts, right?
Not exactly the same results as flagging (aka downvoting) just shifts rewards to other posts. If the problem is simply too many rewards being chased by too few truly valuable contributions then the shifting means other (less noticed) abuse and low value content being better rewarded, and an even higher incentive to post more of those.
I'm all in favor of flagging of garbage or anything that you think doesn't add value, and in this case we can set a baseline of add more value than burning.
Hm, is it platform with $1 266 466 951 capitalization? I think this method of fight will have a fail. I'm think steemit is a great idea but have to make some global changes.
For example, I'm don't understand why I can upvote myself comments and get some rewards from this action. It's a bad option if you build social network.
Because this is how DPOS works. Every other DPOS coin simply automatically gives you your share of the daily stake.
Only Steemit, the whale-commie-SJW paradise, has it setup so that whales take all their own rewards (generally) while browbeating all other users into donating theirs away.
It's a genius scam. Like televangelism.
https://steemit.com/steem/@lexiconical/code-is-law-only-when-i-want-otherwise-it-s-abuse-the-shaming-syndicate-of-steemit-our-own-brand-of-sjws-and-social-repression