You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Steemit is not decentralized and it's causing a retention problem. Why not give some power to the people that earn it? Here's my suggestion.

in #steemit • 8 years ago

What do you think about my related idea of "hindsight rewards"? Would you consider it something that violated this agreement?

https://steemit.com/steemit/@hilarski/steemit-referral-program-and-incentives#@the-ego-is-you/re-hilarski-steemit-referral-program-and-incentives-20161224t190500192z

Also, can we get something straight... are we talking about an actual verbal agreement, an expectation or a "social contract" (popular perception, in some cases used as a BS argument for real world conscription)?

8 years ago in #steemit by
$0.00
    Reply 1
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 years ago (edited)

    What do you think about my related idea of "hindsight rewards"?

    It's a really interesting idea, and I am not opposed to it.

    The biggest challenge is that something like that would be really difficult to implement at a blockchain level. Someone really smart would need to spend a lot of time and effort in order to figure out how to make it work.

    Also, there would be ways for malicious users to game the system by creating and posting from new accounts.

    They are not mutually exclusive ideas, but personally I would rather see an actual referral program.

    Also, can we get something straight... are we talking about an actual verbal agreement, an expectation or a "social contract" (popular perception, in some cases used as a BS argument for real world conscription)?

    That is a really great question!

    It is definitely not a full blown contract in the legal sense. It is closer to a social agreement. Nobody ever said that the blockchain rules wouldn't change.

    That said though - people who invest in a crypto coin like BTC or STEEM are doing so with the understanding that the blockchain code works a certain way, and follows certain rules. To change the rules means that the people who bought the 'product' no longer have what they paid for. It is a violation in that sense.

    There are two problems with changes like this:

    • fairness- the people who invested did do so with a certain understanding of what they were getting. To change what they have for the good of others, but at the expense of the people who already made their investment is not fair unless the original SP holders are OK with the change to the rules
    • It is very discouraging to future investors to know that the blockchain rules are subject to change at the whims of the community. Why would I invest in a coin to get 75% control over the the blockchain if the community might decide to change it again down to 5% in just a couple of months?