...for me, at least.

[Edit: I think I am leaving the impression I am ragequitting Steemit, so I'll say this upfront. Nope, not quitting here. I am making my STEEM liquid, which requires undelegating and powering down...now you ask me WHY I'm doing this...read on, MacDuff!]

My apologies to @aggroed and @josephsavage. @minnowbooster, MSP, and @steembasicincome are good programs.

Other delegations I removed were:
@accelerator
@informationwar
@msp-shanehug
@smartsteem
@steem-ua

I don't see any point in investing in a system where the main accounts are powering down. More on this in the appropriate section.

Isn't saying the "death of Steemit" a bit dramatic?

Maybe.

There is still such potential in the steemchain that I am heartbroken to make this decision, but as I'll get to in a minute, I don't have any faith in the direction the developers are taking us.

And what killed Steemit?

Just a couple of months ago, I reclaimed my Dolphin status, and I was sooooo happy about my accomplishments here and the future of Steem, and even happier when it was announced we were leaving Beta...what happened?

Well, let's blame the devs first, but when we do that, let's not forget that the community has demanded some things from the devs that were never possible. Basically, all of us...

Starting with the devs...

• A 40% powerdown? See here and here as @steem and @steemit are in powerdown. Wow. I guess facebook's announcement of a token of their own cut loose some sphincters. Instead of recognizing the massive market opportunity from people facebook has shadowbanned or censored, it looks like it's time to RUN AWAY
  

The powerdown is not a new thing, and @ausbitbank pointed this out some time ago here

Usually, when you announce that you're leaving Beta, you don't simultaneously announce that you are continuing to monkey around with the basic reward mechanic.

Discussion of a 50/50 split between curators and creators? Wow, again. @truthforce laid out the argument against that very nicely here. I'll move into my own discussion about all the rewards shenanigans downpage, but right now i just want to note that as a creator I consider that to be bullshit of the lowest grade.

I wonder how many creators have moved to Weku and are chasing a WKD with a non-existent value rather than deal with the Steemit platform anymore

@truthforce also notes the discussion of another pool for flagging...smfh. I know, let's set aside a new pool of rewards made for posts created on Tuesdays by virgins riding unicorns, because it's obvious that the use of STEEM and it's derivatives isn't complicated enough for new users as it stands.

And while we're on the issue of flagging...seriously you guys, renaming flagging to downvoting will completely mitigate the underlying complaints about how the mechanism works.

But the devs are not the only ones at fault...ALL of us have had a hand in this doom.

This very basic issue that the community seems to ignore is that not everyone uses the platform for the same reasons:

• You have creators that make their SP by creating content
• You have curators that make their SP by creating discussion and bringing attention to content
• You have investors that drive STEEM value up, and who place ROI over platform value.

Part of this basic refusal to acknowledge these differences is the willful failure to understand that each group of participants has different goals...

...but the main thrust of the problem is the refusal to acknowledge that SP and it's use belongs to the holder.

Does that lead to:

• flagging abuse
• reward pool abuse
• use of bots
• circle-jerking groups
• any other form of abuse used by a Steemer trying to make his nut

Well, of course it does.

And this brings us to the issue of SUBJECTIVITY

How people use the system is subjective...
What constitutes a post of value is subjective...
Which subjects should be discussed on the chain is a matter of subjective judgement...

And all the screwing around with rewards is just a method to make other people use the system based on subjective visions of what Steemit should be.

@berniesanders flags the shit out of people to get the platform to conform to his vision of how the platform should work, and while I usually disagree with the reasons he does so in the specifics, the point is that his ownership of SP justifies that!

And people calling for mechanics changes are using social pressure to drive the platform into a model they subjectively envision.

Interestingly enough, as I just checked to make sure I got the account link right, I found that Bernie has a point illustrating the interest of what I called investors:

I've asked many times now and nobody ever seems to have an answer, why would anyone buy Steem and power up just to reward others?
If Steem is to survive, there's got to be incentive to holding it.

Everybody knows what makes an ass out of you and me, but all I see in the arguments for continued tinkering around with rewards are assumptions about what will happen once we make these changes...

• Steemers who can't use their SP in the way that they prefer will automagically start using SP in the ways that I think they should
• Steemers who have gamed the system previously will have no clue as to how to game the new changes!!!111!!!

I really would like to see some hard data that shows a link between these changes, or such changes in the past, that have not only ended the use of votebots, but that have made investors start curating dolphins, minnows, and those filthy, smelly, uncouth undeserving plankton-peasants.

My Masters program was geared towards working professionals instead of academic eggheads; there was a huge focus on organizational change and on policy development. What that all boiled down to was that when you make an intervention and it doesn't work, then YOU STOP THE DAMN INTERVENTION.

We have been chasing the Rewards-Utopia Dragon from Day One, and none of this has changed the basic drive of investors, none of it has made curators able to look at every new post and make an objective reward based on value, and none of it has benefited the creators who have populated Steemit with those things that readers like to read, to wit, content.

And none of it has ended the various types of abuse that come with power...because you cannot remove the potential for abuse from power

What else have we ignored while chasing the dragon?

Here are some things that should have been developed or at least discussed:

• A point that I have made since I have been here is that success on this platform comes from networking with other Steemers that share your interests; by commenting on their posts with some contribution, by sharing their posts, by introducing yourself. All of these require individual effort by the Steemer, as opposed to the Great Hardfork Manna Drop
• What could have facilitated the individual network effort? oh, I don't know...no one ever brought up the possibility of communities, did they? Why work on "communities" when we can be all godlike and play with the basic mechanism of the system over and over again?
• One thing I have considered to be a basic failure point has been the now nature of Steemit. If you're post isn't noticed and rewarded right away, then eff you. I've never seen discussion on ending the "first come, best rewarded" curation model. This makes Steemit fairly useless for creators who want to share their work on a long term basis. Get rid of Trending, Hot, and the basic principle that a post no longer exists if you aren't the first curator to upvote it. If you folks really want curators curating, then maybe you should give them time to read the content they are curating.
• This one is directed at the big big whales..if flagging abuse is a concern, then it's on you to take the financial and time-requirement hits to correct that. Consider it an investment in the future of the platform.
• Here's something to consider if you (Steem, Inc.) want to stabilize the platform in terms of power balance...instead of selling off STEEM, distribute it to Steemers on the basis of longevity, reputation, posts over a certain level of words (oops, that effs over artists, hmm), amount of SP earned minus self-votes, and other metrics that show someone has invested more than money into the platform. Hard to be decentralized when all the SP is concentrated in the hands of early investors, ne?

I'll still use Steemit...now and again

I just spent 50 STEEM promoting this post; my last gamble on getting some points across

In fact, barring a huge run on STEEM price, I will leave my STEEM liquid. All in all, that is about 4 months for everybody to get their head out of their asses and turn this ship around (it also coincides with the time it will take for the undelegations to take effect and to start my powerdown). Maybe the devs sell off so much STEEM it keeps the price low and my action a risk; maybe something happens and I reinvest into SP.

And I'll also write posts now and again (I'd hate for my SBI to be wasted LOL); I said before that I will be chasing steemcents and steemnickels, and as long as I can chase them with little effort, then why not? I have a pretty good workflow for informative posts that don't take too much mental effort. And one of the best things about Steemit is that it is harder to censor the kinds of things that I tend to write about.

When I first started using the steemchain (July 16), I understood it was in Beta, and that it would take time to get stabilized. After a year of being here (2017), I decided to give Steemit 3 full years. That time is now.

And I don't like the direction we are moving in

Video credits to Monty Python