You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: An Objective look at Dlive's exit

in #dlive6 years ago (edited)

It wasn't exactly a nice way of doing business, and their leaving could have been quite a bit more graceful, and I don't trust the reasons they give, or, in other words, they are a bunch of greedy, ingrate pricks, and good riddance, but:

As far as I know, they broke law nor contract, and that could be the main problem right there: why doesn't this behaviour break a contract or agreement, when so much Steem was delegated to them? Are such amounts of Steem delegated on good faith alone?

Parties doing business in shady and untrustworthy ways do exist, and while I understand and share the moral outrage, isn't the real thing that went wrong the giving of a huge delegation by Steemit, Inc. without an enforcable agreement or even openness about the deal?

Sort:  

they broke law nor contract, and that could be the main problem right there: why doesn't this behaviour break a contract or agreement, when so much Steem was delegated to them? Are such amounts of Steem delegated on good faith alone?

That is why I think it's reasonable to ask for transparency for delegations, and I would even go as far as a democratic system for it.

I confess my spine crawled at the very thought of democratic approval for delegations by independently held stakes.

While I do expect the delegations to be informed by this particular result, and due diligence to be more in evidence hereafter, and further, have called for whales to delegate to users they think will be 'good' for Steem and Steemit, I'm not, and have never been, interested in determining for them whom to delegate to.

I'll be happy to see them tend to their knitting.

As far as I know, they broke law nor contract, and that could be the main problem right there: why doesn't this behaviour break a contract or agreement, when so much Steem was delegated to them?

I like your way of thinking.

That's the wake-up call and big lesson to be learned here.

" why doesn't this behaviour break a contract or agreement, when so much Steem was delegated to them?"

I note that the delegated funds were never at risk. That's a beautiful thing about delegations, and that thing changes a lot about how businesses can operate. While I do agree that due diligence regarding delegations is good, clearly it's not risking the principal and can be done on blind faith.

I actually see that as a vast improvement in potential business operandi. It is an example of my thesis that technological advance increases mutual felicity and beneficence, and I'd be sore if some kind of code or program made it harder to delegate to folks you have faith in.

Even if it only makes it harder for Stinc to delegate, I'd be sore about it. The present delegation mechanism falsifies the old saw 'Nothing ventured, nothing gained.'

Stinc, and we all, can gain from delegations that work out, while delegations that don't simply return the principal to the stakeholder.

Beautiful!

There are still these little things called opportunity cost and yield. The delegation could have been used more fruitfully elsewhere, even if they didn't risk the principal. Blind faith is never a good way of allocating resources, in any way or form, because there are always alternatives to delegate to that don't require blind faith but do give some guarantees. This applies to delegations just as much as to investments.

While I'm not claiming that blind faith is the best means of exercising due diligence, I am trying to point out that even nothing better than blind faith is able to preserve the principal delegated by Stinc, and that the devs and management of Stinc are the best arbiters of the effort they effect to craft the future of Steem, even if mistakes are made.

Certainly better due diligence and specific guarantees could be undertaken for large delegations, but given the lean team extant, I suspect that there is a point at which cost/benefit is attained which is far lower than is traditionally possible.

I do reckon better due diligence, and some kind of expressed expectations and performance is undertaken hereafter, given the manner in which dlive burned the community. However, I am not convinced much greater benefit might have been attained were even far more restrictive and costly impositions undertaken.

The opportunity cost of delegation is pretty damn low, and the potential yield may not have been much greater in actuality than was achieved.

Dunno, but the preservation of principal, and the cost to dlive of it's poor ethics may serve to lower the cost/benefit break point to practically blind faith. I'm not sitting in that seat that @ned is, and can't really second guess him or the rest of the Stinc team.

I don't doubt they're giving this event a lot of consideration, and that they will endeavor to best spend their efforts going forward.