Here's an honest question - maybe I am missing something, anyone is welcome to enlighten me.
As a witness and developer (and very active with various groups behind the scenes to cause helpful change for Steem) - I wonder a lot about self upvotes and about the argument that those who hold SP are right to extract large amounts from the reward pool.
Since Steem generates new tokens every day and this inflationary principle is guaranteed to lead to a reduction in the price of Steem without new investment coming in - doesn't it make sense for investors to aim to minimise the amount of rewards they take just for holding SP and maximise the amount that goes to truly good content? This way, in theory, the price of Steem goes up and the profits can come via selling held tokens while also building a strong community to prop things up into the future. New users and thus new investors want to see practical, functional systems that add something to the human experience and the web in general. 'Proof of brain' offers a feature and function that really does do this when it works well - but as long as it is bypassed by massive self upvotes and bidbot wars etc. - the public perception of Steem is that it is at best 'broken'. I see that there may be a better chance of investors gaining a good ROI by everyone agreeing to increase the functionality and usefulness of the system in all ways possible - thus pushing the price of Steem up and then also making it's other features more attractive to investors. It's hard to know for sure whether this is an accurate assessment without doing it for real.. But I am fairly sure, after many years in the social software industry and related fields, that a site that focuses primarly on self aggrandizement and denial of the hard work of others is not one that most of the world needs or wants to use.
Free transactions and high speed ones at that!? This was unheard of at one point and yet Steem never took off due to these features because, imo (among other reasons) - the social reward utility function has not worked out so well. We all have a part to play in a social network's success and all of our choices effect the outcome to some extent. Steem combines numerous qualities and even industries into one place in a new way and there's no reason to think it would be easy to make it a great success - but at the very least it is a daily learning opportunity and imo an important early step is to learn to stop blaming each other.
All comments welcome.
Self voting is ok upto some extent.I think number of post per day should be limited otherwise its easy to be abused. Imagine peopl spit out posts every hour and self vote (you have examples here!!!)
It wouldn't matter. Plenty of people have multiple accounts.
Thats the big flaw in on boarding process .Never ever should one have more than one account.. KYC shall be strictly implemented. Without that the platform is rigged and abused
@Onosocial has identity verification and believe me when I say it doesn't do anything to prevent abuse. Abusers find ways to step up their game.
That may work well for most North American/Western European users, but totally falls apart for other parts of the world. Fake IDs are too easy.
I won't even mention decentralization because we all know this blockchain isn't really decentralized.
The hope is that some SMTs will adopt (multiple) Oracles that know of account ownership, then 1-account-1-vote could be used to Trend articles, and not the potential reward.