RE: Let's talk about Steem
But I'm not on par with that statement. SMTs and Oracles go hand in hand; and in the video - @ned and @theoretical sounded pretty serious about the math and logic behind account voting.
Ned really likes conceptual work. Which is great, I do too! But you can't really take them as signs that that thing is coming the way he talks about it. That's not necessarily inappropriate in this case, as SMTs are Hardfork 22 at the earliest, and that's probably next summer. (#21 is Hivemind.)
Anyway, thinking more about how this fits with my proposal, maybe I'm extrapolating what you're saying too much here, and please say so. But it sounds like what you would like is to keep the PoS function of Steem running but remove the content voting system from Steem entirely and migrate it to a new SMT.
I think that's interesting but it seems like it's essentially how EOS and ONO work and they're already there, or nearly so. Maybe that will turn out to be a better idea but I'm not sure getting into it a year+ behind is worthwhile.
I'm not convinced that stake-weighted voting fundamentally doesn't work, either. I think it's very appealing to have a vote that gains value based on how much effort you've invested here and how much you've contributed. That may be weighted farther toward external financial power than it would ideally be, and certainly the distribution of power is currently a mess, but I don't think those are insoluble problems.
My vision of Steem five years from now is one where there's a large population of established users with $1-$10 votes who can collectively guide the growth of the content and the community.
Something is 3 Steem HFs away from us? Too bad, people don't live that long.
I should have mentioned that estimating how long things take not my strong side is.
But it would still be interesting to get some feedback from Steemit Inc regarding your date estimation. @andrarchy?
Don't worry, what you're saying is valid.
What I would like to see and what is possible are two different shoes. But the first step is always writing down the optimal situation. And that's, what my goal was with this post.
Stake-weighted voting has value, but I'd rather see it in closed communities - for example if a company were to have a community / SMT with own rewards pool. In that case, the CEO should have a bigger voice than an intern.
With all respect, 5 years is a long time and we should ideally reach that goal in 1-2 years. But again, my time estimation isn't the best ;)
If Steem Inc. wanted to do it we could have that in months. Even without busting out the ninja-mined stake, if they wanted to give @themesopotamians one of those million-SP delegations I could make 3000 dolphins a year.
Without their support it's going to take longer. I'm conservative on the five year estimate because it's just taking into account the projects that are active and communicative right now. Hopefully we will also be growing.
Maybe @kpine has a different estimate, it seems like he might be doing similar things to what I am with much more power and much less talking about it. I haven't included him because I don't really know.
We would be just under two years into that growth if stinc, et al, hadnt given us this crap by hardforking out the n2 and the whale xperiment.
So what if the investors dumped, the coin was at a dime anyway.
So what if they dump now, they are killing the network effect with their greed.
~980k people have said we are a failure, and left.
Cheap steem would bring in more $100 investors.
1m $100 investors does more for steem than 100 $1m investors, if we want to be a currency.
Bring back the n2 and the whale experiment.
@dan made those the rules because they had already been down this road and knew it wouldnt work.
Or we can wait for some more pie in the sky while rewards go to folks that havent earned them each and every day.
The no whale experiment was run my Smooth, nothing stops you from running that same experiment, apart from a few million SP.
Yes, i was here. I saw my vote go from rounding down to .06sbd.
I saw how excited that made everybody.
Too bad stinc, et al, hurried up and forked to stop it.
Ran @dan off, too. Vote selling was the plan and he was against that.
Smdh.
We might have become worthwhile for the newbs to stick around.
Well, that and it makes less sense under linear rewards.
If we are trying to become adopted as a currency the network effect of giving coins to an abusive few makes less sense than exciting a feeding frenzy by making the math attractive to $100 investors.
As it is now 1m users have said we are a game not worth playing, but the same exclusive group is happy accumulating more making the disparity even worse.
Instead of acting in a manner conducive to diminishing the negative aspects of the disparity we have increased it.
I guess that is how stinc, et al, wants to be known.
Not interested in broader adoption.
Seems to be working for them so far, at least they have done nothing to fix their mistakes.
I don't have time to fight your nonlinear rewards scam all over the platform but please don't direct it at me.
Says the guy that never experienced them.
There is a reason that stinc enabled the whales to keep abusing the pool.
Its too bad that you are a beneficiary of that abuse, or maybe you would see things differently.
If proof of stake is a good plan, how is nonlinear rewards anything different?
The problem was in the imbalance that the whale experiment solved.
But you wouldnt know that, and apparantly sticking your fingers in your ears is your solution.
Ok, by me.
Honestly, i think there is a deeper problem, that is the definition of Steemit itself.
We all talk about quality content, but in the end, there is no long term incentive for good quality content creators stick around Steemit. There is better fields out there to publish your work.
I talked a bit more here:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@phgnomo/why-steemit-is-not-attractive-to-quality-content-producers