You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit has problems. I have The Grand Solution.
If the true purpose of Steemit was to promote and reward quality content, then there'd be no weight staked voting.
1 person, 1 vote.
Sure, you'd still have people with lots of sock puppet accounts and the circle jerking vote blocks but their influence would be a lot less.
@sweeeetsssssj would still get huge payouts because half of Asia votes up her shit. But she is so innocent and lonely looking.
The true purpose really depends on who you are. In many eyes, the true purpose is to make a profit on the market while some losers write shit. To others it's to have an uncensored media platform to push one's agenda without suppression. For the most part, it's far more about making money than content and we shouldn't try to hide that. 1 person 1 vote is putting too much emphasis on an idea with its footing in a non-existent utopian society. To assure this utopia, drastic measures inevitably get made and things end up more like Communist China (slight exaggeration I know) or the US war on drugs.
Embrace the greed and make it work in everyone's favour, I say.
This is why the retention rate for all accounts opened on Steemit in 2016 is ~11%.
Embracing the greed will never work in everyone's favor. It will only continue to concentrate wealth in the hands of the greedy. Apparently, ~89% of folks aren't greedy, at least in 2016.
I dunno. I get your skepticism but you haven't yet pointed out a reason why my idea wouldn't be a far superior situation to the current one. Obviously as I said it may not actually be the ultimate solution, but as far as progress goes here, this is likely the best we have realistically
You're right. Every word.
And she is innocent and lonely looking.