RE: Normie Talk - HF21 Explained (SPS + EIP) What it is and what happens next
Well content creators aren’t taking a 15% cut to fund the SPS first of all, the whole entire author/curator part of the inflation pool will be reduced by 10% and redirected to the SPS, or at least it’s how it’s proposed.
I am not against the funding being funneled from many places and it was asked for those deciding on that amount to give a bit of detail about how they came to that conclusion. I know there was some mention of allocating from the witnesses portion made little change as it only consists of 10% of the entire pool (versus author/curator being 75%) as well as it impacting the back up witnesses more than those actually in the top 20. I will leave that for them to explain though as I’m not sure of the specifics that led them to the decision.
What I will say is that content currently receives the largest cut from the inflation pool and therefore should be returning the most value. To me, as a content creator and curator, I think it makes sense to redirect some of that inflation to an aspect that could essentially improve all of our investments and make that STEEM we are rewarded worth even more.
The goal is longevity of STEEM and increasing its value. Proving a mechanism that encourages beneficial development and improvements as well as providing a decentralized way to fund it from a shared inflation pool to me is the way to make sure we all benefit long term.
Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up. It still should be 10% reduction across the board and not just placed on the shoulders of content creators unless the witnesses are willing to donate their increased value in steem from these SPS projects to all us. I'd be in favor of that :)
A 10% decrease across the board would look like this -
65% Author/curator | 5% interest | 0% witnesses | 30% SPS
Who will run the nodes? 🤷🏻♀️
Also, the only “profit” seen by a successful SPS would be an increase in the overall value of the STEEM currency and therefore benefit anyone holding STEEM. Also, it might actually encourage more to invest in STEEM.. which again adds benefit to everyone.
I agree that multi funding allocation would be ideal, but I don’t think that a 10% cut from content creators (including myself) is them caring every thing on their shoulders, especially as they will great benefit from the SPS themselves.
I think is more an us vs them thing based on lack of involved on platform from many witnesses and therefore they are not seen as “on the same side”.. but they are here and are actively contributing as well as many actually investing in STEEM, which means that it benefits them to increase the over all value, just like it does to everyone else.
Do I think they are great leaders, no 🙂 but I do whole heartedly believe they want what’s best for STEEM. While I don’t necessarily agree with all aspects of this change or the bundle, I do believe this is an attempt to improve it for all of us.
Going from 10% to 0% is 100% decrease, my dear.
I apologize, I read your comment as wanting an equal reduction. 😄
Yes, I’m not against redirecting a bit from each pool and have communicated that. When and if I get the reasoning behind the decision I will link or share it here.. as I remember it being brought up but don’t remember the specifics.
I must point out that often folks intent on aggrandizing themselves promote policies, they speak a lot of rhetoric that has no basis in fact. This is politics, and money is on the line. Some folks are gonna lie to get more money, and foisting the cost of SPS on content creators while the vast majority of benefits will inure to substantial stakeholders is a practical way to get more money and spend less.
Please do be skeptical of claims. That doesn't mean calling people names or necessarily accusing folks of lying, so please don't think I'm advocating that. I'm just expecting that will be necessary when an honest person is confronting lying profiteers. All the substantial stakeholders on Steem today are profiteers, and I am certain some of them will lie for money.
So, don't expect Mother Teresa to be providing answers to your questions. Sorry if that came off preachy, but if I've offended you, I probably deserve your ire, even if I didn't mean to.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
They are losing even more money than that... You have to remember that not only is the total author/curation pool going from 75% to 65% but that authors are losing 25% of the pool they have been getting. So, in theory the curators were suppose to be getting 18.75% and authors 56.25% of the total reward pool, and after this change it would be curators receiving 32.50% and authors receiving 32.50% of the total reward pool. This means authors are taking a 23.75% loss here.
Sure, there might be way more upvotes out of the deal, but that's a big maybe and 23.75% of the total reward pool is a lot to make up. Not saying it can't work, but its a big maybe, and now there will be a 25% free downvoting feature which means people will downvote for any stupid reason they can think of downvoting for.
Downvotes always just shift rewards from one place to others so they have no effect on the total rewards. If you manage to get fewer than your share of downvotes, even if you still get some, your share of the pool will go up. The idea is that obvious reward milkers especially the larger ones, should be clear downvote magnets, so for most users getting fewer downvotes than they are should not be difficult (unless you are a reward milker).
How effectively downvotes will be used (or even if they will be used) remains to be seen.
I understand the reasons for the downvotes and I respect the goal of shutting down the reward pool milking. My problem with this is that in a future world with Steem as widespread as Facebook it will not be major holders of STEEM seeking to honorably use their stake to keep the network clean and sacred, it will be special interest groups attacking opposing ideologies and effectively shutting down smaller communities.
I completely sympathize with the objective to keep Steem a place of quality material, a decentralized Medium is a perfect future for Steem in my eyes. But there must be a better way than using downvotes, because downvotes bring in a toxic mindset of aggression. When you upvote someone, you effectively downvote all others, but that does not create an aggressive atmosphere.
I'm thinking about the long term health of the internet as a whole. People are already to vicious and rude to each other, but thanks to Steem they will now actually be able to have real power over each other and abuse each other. The vast majority of communities on the planet will be the weak ones that can't defend themselves against large interest groups and better funded opposing ideologies. It will be used for harassment and for the creation of a two cities system on the web like never before.
This is also likely a major liability for the survival of Steem. Yes, I agree with the Witnesses that this will bring in money today, but it could cause the loss of Steem's tomorrow. There has never been a more inappropriate time for a downvoting system, because it is a form of financial censorship (I know no one likes admitting that, but if people are calling Patreon bans censorship, downvotes count too).
We are entering an era of rebellion against Youtube, Twitter, Patreon, Instagram censorship and demonetization. The downvoting system is indeed demonetization and that is exactly what the renegade economy of cryptocurrencies and blockchain are fighting against with LBRY, Minds.com and other upcoming platforms. Steem was suppose to be the father of that ambition for social media, but downvoting is in every way a contradiction to the spirit of free speech and self-sovereign content.
If Steem so early sells its soul to the hopes of lambos on the moon it will pump, but then it will quickly wither and die. I'm sure the founders, witnesses and all current whales have good intentions with their downvote usage, but they will sell off large amounts of their stake when they can, and then the true bad actors will utilize this tool for bad things. Entire communities will rally to harass other communities, which will drive those other communities to fork away just like you see with Gab and Dissenter.
Minds.com, LBRY, Bitchute, Akasha, Gab, Dissenter and many other networks are popping up to fight against the tyranny of the few against the many. Steem was a leader in that ambition, but downvoting is not consistent with that aim. Steem will need to decide what side it is on, because while the stakers of SP may not be the same people as are in control at Google or Facebook, they are still a small number of people giving themselves power over the masses. The masses are done being controlled, and if Steem wants to have a tomorrow, it needs to recognize which side its taking.
How to unpack this gently, as I've confronted you previously on a post regarding how steem is like LinkedIn regarding this and you avoided or did not conclude the discussion.
Why wouldn't it be both and why do you think that downvoting will shut down any kind of activists, do you really think so little of the ones who in today's world risk their life, their families and friends as well to bring the truth into the world consciousness, that they will be silenced by a completely transparent curation mechanism, that they will go off into the night because they were downvoted, that they will relent one bit because of something so inconsequential?
The downvoting activities will be noted, they aren't hidden and no activist will go out because they have been downvoted, as much as you forsee such, it is only because you think so little of them, but it is completely counter to what they stand for.
There is no better way. Not only that, but labeling words as toxic is no different from labeling someone booing and jeering as toxic, and no one is corroded one bit by words, or booing and jeering alike, and sure enough neither are downvotes anything more than the exact same kind of response. When one downvotes, they are expressing themselves. Expression as such is not toxic or corrosive, expressing one's disagreement over rewards is an inherent freedom of expression in a medium where people can express their opinions on rewards.
There's no such thing as "the internet as a whole" that can be pointed to or discussed in any kind of meaningful way, and it certainly is not the responsibility of one platform to "shape" such a non-thing. Furthermore, you are actually saying the same thing again, emphasizing how a inert expression, that doesn't threaten life, limb or property, that doesn't harm anyone, is actually what can "actually" abuse. It cannot. Words do not equate to actions, words and expressions do not harm unless they are threats of violence. The analogy that exemplifies this incredibly twisted view is very visceral :
Giving people weapons, now they can actually kill each other, we should not give them weapons.
It's twisted because people have had weapons for ever but they have been used to defend far more than they have been used to victimize and your twisted perspective indicates that you think very very little about people in general, that they are evil, that they are full of hate and indifference, and that given weapons, they will be vicious. Those that wish to be vicious will do so with a sharpened stick, with a rock, with a poison or any number of deadly things that are available in nature. The problem isn't that, the problem is taking people's tools away, because a weapon is nothing more than a tool, an instrument of defense, which means a life saved Vs a life lost. So too are downvotes only a tool, and like words can be turned into instruments of violence by the way of threats, so too can any other expression do the same, but the answer isn't to ban words or expressions.
They can. And they will, and they will do it with the free publicity that such actions bring. It is called the Streisand Effect, and more than that, it's not as if anyone can be suppressed from posting, commenting or engaging with whoever they wish, which is what your entire twisted view is underpinned, that if people aren't rewarded with steem they will be silenced, as if that follows at all that no rewards means no voice.
Expressing disagreement over rewards cannot be harassment. People getting negative reviews is not harassment. When you participate in a system where your contributions, be it votes or comments or articles, are rated, having your votes negated, having your comments and articles rated poorly, is not harassment, it's called freedom of expression.
This is your twisted perspective of people in general. It doesn't mean that people will give up on steem, on it's premise of transparent, censorship proof and decentralized social media platform.
This is more twisted reality. In reality, no promises were ever made by steem, by he system, that this was anything other than Rewards. Once those Rewards are finished being voted on, then they are financing the author / curator, until then, no guarantees exist. You treat a game mechanism of rewards as a paycheck or as a remittance from a subscription, and that is not correct at all, it's only your twisted perspective, this time not of people or activists, but of the mechanics of Rewards. Therefore, it's no wonder that many have strong reservations to agree with such a contorted view, and it comes to me with no surprise that you simply assert it nil explanation, because the mental gymnastics required would undoubtedly peg it clearly as incorrect and outright nonsense.
It's no wonder yet again, that all you resort to are more twisted nonsensical views and assertions nil references or explanations. No, rewards are not guaranteed, no matter how much you think they are or attempted to insinuate such by likening them to remittances from subscribers, or from ad-sharing. Rewards are not crypto at all, and no one can censor or stop anyone on here from funding directly whomever they want, and it should never be that rewards are guaranteed or that the reward pool should be a crowdsourced fund, that is not why it was intended and that would ruin the entire premise of the platform as the moment it stops being anything less than rewards it stops being steem.
Not likely that any "true bad actor" will see a transparent, censorship proof, decentralized platform as a way to censor anyone, and that is not at all what happened with Gab/Dissenter, as far as I know, they are the exact same thing in case you were trying to say that they split, and no "entire" community rallied to harass another.
There is so much nonsense packed into this conclusion that I am not going to address it until I hear a point by point rebuke of everything I pointed out.
My brief response:
We spoke for a very long time, comment after comment. It seemed that the conversation was only going to remain at an impasse. You simply do not agree with me and nothing I say would convince you, and while I try to be someone that can be convinced, I never found anything you have said to me convincing. Not meaning to be rude, but all I see your writing style to be is spin.
It appears to me that all you aim to do is reduce my point by spitting nonsense over top of it rather than making any constructive suggestions or pointing out the WHY something can't work. Perhaps its not intentional and just how your mind thinks, but I find your logic more of a twisting of my point rather than a valid argument against what I said.
There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with me, but your style of response to my expressions do not intrigue me into responding to you.
But here is my general response to your comment:
Youtube is full of people complaining about Patreon censorship. What censorship? The cryptocurrency world is full of people pointing out how Youtube and other platforms de-monetize people. In the eyes of many people and not just me, de-monetization is a form of censorship. You disagree, cool, but you are not disagreeing with me but with many many many people that are angry about it.
Don't want to call it censorship? Cool, then don't. I will, I won't stop calling it that. But we can in this conversation call it de-monetization. That's a bad word in the eyes of many people as well, the very thing the banks are beginning to do to businesses they disagree with.
Call it de-monetization or whatever you want. Its still a bad thing and contrary to the idea of crypto.
Hopefully I did not offend, but this is what I have to say in response to your comment. And I'd rather not get involved in another reply storm. We disagree.
So it's not what I said but how I said it and what you think my intention was, which is basically a combination of mind reading and tone policing.
I do not disagree that demonization is censorship. I disagree that "not getting rewards" is not demonetization. You see, twisted Rewards into Income.
This isn't a semantic disagreement at all, stop trying to spin it as such. Rewards are not guaranteed. X number of views is attached to a guarantee, x number of subscribers the same. X number upvotes does not come with any such guarantee. Treating rewards as given when they are not is what we disagree on.
So because I don't see anything to suggest, as I've said, that means I'm "reducing your point?" or what?
Also, you want me to point out a negative, basically to provide you reasoning why it cannot work when you assert that "there has to be a way" so I have to prove why there cannot be a way? Do you understand what you are asking me?
I'm asking nothing of you. When you reply to something I say and refute it you should be refuting it with some logical basis for refuting it. You do bring out nothing but semantic arguments trying to say "reward" and "income" are different.
They are not different, the people that have SP have a vote amount that can be calculated, this means its fixed. The only reason upvotes are not reliable income is due to downvotes existing in the system. Do you think Patreon tips are any more reliable or any less of a "reward" than upvotes? They are both voluntary systems of rewarding content producers.
Also, I do not just say "there must be a better way" I gave in this comment area the very solution.
The solution:
If the incentive for stakers was an RC delegation economy and not raping the reward pool, we would not see bidbots, self-voting, reward pool "milking" and we would not see downvote harassment such as Markymark and others experienced simply for disagreeing with someone on something.
See, I don't just say "there has to be a better way" I give you a better way. You're welcome.
As if that isn't exactly what I have done and been doing. You tried to talk about my intentions and my tone instead of taking your own advice, which if you did would certainly have nothing to do with either my tone or what you believe my intention is. Furthermore, when you assert something like "there has to be a way" I don't have to refute it at all, because there is nothing to refute with logic when all it is is a baseless assertion, and assertion without evidence to support it is refuted by an assertion to the contrary, that is the only logical thing to do. So when you ask me to prove a negative, and now you avoid that logical fallacy as if it has any kind of merit what am I to do, keep wading through more assertion and insinuating nonsense, such as that I didn't refute things with logic, so that you can make up some more nonsense that you try to pin onto me without any merit? No thank you, first acknowledge your own shortcoming because there is nowhere to move other than that, unless you think it logical to jump around all your fallacies and shortcomings simply to entertain the nonsense?
They are entirely different. The later is the product of a guarantee for work done, the former is a Chance, a matter of Luck, not any kind of guarantee what so ever, and here you are try to say that we disagree on defining the two when you offered nothing to define either, only insinuating that they are the same ad nauseum.
It being fixed or completely random does not make them as given or guaranteed in any way, that is the point, the vote being fixed or not is irrelevant, what isn't is the lack of guarantee that otherwise is completely inherent in income, from subscribers or from ad-sharing revenue.
What about when votes stop coming in? What about when a lot of votes go only to one or two accounts? What about when a bad actor buys and buys and keeps buying stake and then simply "rewards" themselves? Is that demonization? It goes to follow that if you think votes are guaranteed that when a person stops voting then they are breaking the guarantee, the same when self voting happens, which will go completely unchecked and ruin steem far faster than if everyone was give 10000x the downvotes. Simply seems that you hardly stoped and consider this.
The fact that you still continue to compare two different things as if they are the same won't change that they are Inherently Different. Should I waste my breath on addressing yet another strawman, another false analogy?
No thank you.
Yes you did just say so, stop trying to twist it. If you want to be accurate and correct you would acknowledge that in that comment you Just said so, without any kind of reference or indication to the contrary.
Now, I just read your so called "way". I will emphasize what I think it is:
I had to emphasize it, because in all of that the only thing that remotely addressed voting on rewards was that, and to put it gently, this has been suggested in one form or another for over three years, possibly thousands of different times by thousands of different people, and I base that on the fact that I've seen it suggested at least a hundred or so times, and the only thing I have to say, which has been repeated ad nauseum for such suggestions, is that one person with multiple accounts circumvent the suggestion.
So, what am I welcomed to? To repeating something for your benefit because you didn't take the time to think of all the ways that it could be circumvented? You know what's really awful, thinking that a bad actor will buy stake to "censor" people by downvoting them, but not considering that a bad actor would buy stake simply to milk the system.
I've done no careful examination and calculation of the destination of rewards flagged back to the pool, but since whales get about 90% of the rewards, it's safe to say that the share of even unflagged minnows is far lower than flag resistant whales of that returned stake.
It isn't a lack of VP that prevents minnows from flagging whales. It's retaliation. The downvote pool is going to hugely and dramatically increase censorship. Multiple accounts with no other purpose exist now, and they will hurt more creators with a bunch of free flags. Bernie is gonna go nuts. Reasonable minnows will not suddenly be immune to retaliation, and won't be using their flags to discourage lame content botted up on trending.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
Aren't content creators also taking a hit when their rewards go from 75% to 50%?
As I stated in the post the overall affect for authors -
Yes overall percentage of the pool for authors will be reduced by 42.2% but the rewards pool will be bigger and therefore their cut will be worth more. That is the desired effect anyways.
OK, I don't really think it will work, but I do wish you the best.
how should care more about steem price? minnow content creator that gets maybe 1 steem per day if he/she is posting every day, or witness that gets 250?
Everyone who invests or earns STEEM should care about the price. Many have invested money out of their pocket and others have earned for contributing here.
Sure those that hold more have more to gain, and they should (otherwise why would anyone buy STEEM) but they also have more to loose.
But we all should very much care about the price of STEEM.
i asked the question wrong. if the price of steem goes up, will it be life changing for me with 2500 steem or for someone with 500.000/1.000.000 steem?
10.000$ is not really a life changer, 5.000.000$ kinda is.
"Proving a mechanism that encourages beneficial development and improvements as well as providing a decentralized way to fund it from a shared inflation pool to me is the way to make sure we all benefit long term." you seem to be missing that millions of dollars have already been wasted on useless projects, can never increase the value of Steem by punish content creators.
There is no punishment, as content creators don’t own the pool.. is shared by all.. and they benefit as much as anyone else. But with that being said, I am very much in favor of it coming from multiple places.
As far as millions spent by I assume you meant Steemit Inc.. that’s sort of the goal of the SPS, for the community to take it into their own hands.
We can certainly do that without being taxed. When we look at the evolution of taxpayer funded entities today in America, I bet most of us would prefer to be able to voluntarily fund those we think are a good idea and well implemented, rather than be compelled to pay for all the fedbloat.
I am also sure that proposals incapable of securing voluntary funding will not secure funding for damn good reasons. Lastly, the whales currently extract ~90% of all rewards, leaving actual content creators (which whales are not) with about ~10%. This SPS funding tax will land on content creators most of all, and I expect this to have a dramatic impact on retention, particularly when coupled with author rewards halved in favor of curation, and the damage the free flags will do when censors expand their suppression of free speech for free.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
A tax implies you are paying something on money that is yours, the inflation pool is not yours or any of ours. So no, it’s not a tax as you don’t own it. It’s a shared pool made from inflation that is currently allocated to things that are supposed to return value. Reallocating it to something else that adds value is not a tax. It actually comes from those holding stake and if they didn’t hold stake it wouldn’t be there. So if you are set and determined to think someone is “paying” for it, it’s the large stake holders.
A couple more flags will not greatly change unjust flagging, it’s not a free for all after all.. and censorship implies you are restricted.. if you were censored I wouldn’t be able to read your comment. It’s not censorship, it’s an annoyance and unjust flags need to stop.. but I believe downvotes down correctly can do wonders, if they are used.
Pick any credible source you want, but the SPS funding mechanism meets the definition of tax on all of them. The caveats and specifications you use to define tax are not superable by actual definitions of tax by credible sources.
First, we're not talking about a couple more flags, but a pool that allows 25% of flags to be based on the stake of stakeholders without costing them VP to fly. This is a substantial source of flags, and not inconsequential at all. There are already several accounts that do nothing but flag in order to censor people, and this is not because flagging is not censorship. Creating the downvote pool will be very likely to cause many more accounts to be funded for the purpose of censorship, and IMHO, this is the actual purpose of the proposed downvote pool: to censor people like me, that insist on rational discussion of these matters that the substantial stakeholders - all profiteers - need to prevent to keep on extracting almost all the value of rewards into their wallets.
Again, pick any credible source you want. None of them will support your contention that censorship is only the complete elimination of information. Indeed, using your definition, censorship is absolutely and utterly impossible to effect. Information is always able to be routed around censorship. Flagging on Steem front ends is definitely censorship, as it is certainly suppression of my speech. Consider Alex Jones, or Julian Assange. Do you doubt or disagree they have been censored? Yet, I'm sure you can find posts from Alex Jones with nothing more than trivial effort. Julian Assange has been far more censored, because he has been physically held captive and tortured to prevent him from making any posts. Even so, I can show you video that has been created after he was captured and his torture in Belmarsh prison began. Censorship cannot only be the absolute eradication of information, because absolute eradication of information remains impossible. It is a matter of degree.
While you're absolutely correct that downvotes are necessary to the platform, it is also necessary that they incur a cost to prevent what the downvote pool is going to engender: flagrant and widespread censorship.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
I don’t feel your sources actually confirm what you are trying to say, but we can definitely agree to disagree. And no the goal of the downvote pool is not to downvote people like you, that response is quite ridiculous. The goal here is to improve Steem, we are all in this together and this post is the place for us all to openly discuss. I understand and respect your concerns and am doing my best to ensure the community’s concerns are heard by those making the decisions currently.
I can agree to disagree, even about facts. Our belief isn't formative of facts after all, and we're free to be wrong without changing the facts.
It's not ridiculous to point out that censorship is happening on Steem front ends, and your belief that your opinion is certainly correct is no more than hubris, which will harm only you should you fail to control it. What the rhetoric claims and what the actions of the substantial stakeholders show aren't identical, and failing to acknowledge that difference isn't reasonable. A stated goal is not necessarily the actual goal. Bernie, for example, is one of the most substantial stakeholders on the platform, who also invented bidbots. That he seeks to censor me is demonstrable, and further, he also seeks to extort self-censorship from you. His above comment is a direct threat to you, and you will act per your sole option regarding that.
Nonetheless, it's demonstrably and provably censorship, and giving Bernie 25% more flags he can fly without cost to his VP will have predictable consequences, and one of those consequences will be many more flags forthcoming from his bot horde. While no one has stated that is the purpose of the downvote pool, failing to acknowledge that will certainly be one thing it achieves is disingenuous, and, indeed, is actually indicative of concealed purposes by those promoting the downvote pool.
That prevarication on the part of downvote pool promoters is one of the strongest reasons I suspect increased censorship is a core reason for the proposal. Honest people would acknowledge and discuss it amongst the pros and cons. This is an indication of the nature of the proponents of HF21, and is a good reason to be very skeptical about the rhetoric they use.
I note that you are doing exactly as you claim, while also having personal opinions. Please understand I am not saying you are prevaricating or disingenuous in your opinions, and do not confuse your opinions with your explanations of what HF21 is. I also am discussing those proposals, and also engaging with you personally on your views regarding them. In neither case am I painting you as someone profiteering or making false or misleading statements.
I certainly have seen no evidence that would lead me to suspect that of you, and hope you do not feel I am characterizing you with those you merely agree with the rhetorical statements of. I appreciate very much your post here, and your dedication and investment in engaging with even I, who do not agree with these proposals.
Thanks!
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.