You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Steem experiment: Burn post #1

in #steem7 years ago

"introducing a cap on reward disbursement, e.g. 250 USD per post."

Caps are arbitrary, and generally only supported by Marxists SJWs who think "they know better." They also utterly fail in concept. The idea of applying the same cap to someone in the US and someone in Venezuela is so fucking laughable that it's hard to believe any thought even went into the suggestion.

"The main benefit I see with this approach is that it would foster the coherence of our community. further my communist SJW ends"

FTFY.

Sort:  

First of all, I had to look up what SJW means. Hope this counts as proof that I'm not a SJW :) Also, just for the records, the ideas of Communism and Marxism have zero appeal to me.
I do understand though that alone the word "cap" is like waving a red flag to free market believers (I consider myself being one). Therefore, I was somewhat prepared to get a response like the one from you.
What I would like to emphasise though, I'm not suggesting to cap rewards but to cap the amount that a single account can extract from the reward pool per post. The reward finding process would remain untouched and payouts beyond the cap would not be showered on the community in order to further social justice (something I anyway consider an illusion) but distributed in a stake-weighted manner to SP holders. I'm quite convinced that Marx would not have supported this idea.

Why shouldn't somebody in Venezuela get the same reward as someone in the US if they deliver the same quality and worth to the platform?

I submit flagging based on rewards being too high for a post to be just as Marxist as putting a cap on the post earnings. You can take an extreme situation where the user posts "Horay It's Saturday" and is obviously upvoting himself through bots but often I read about flagging when clearly that is not at all the case.

I agree with your view. Having the possibility to self-vote in the system is indefensible, I cannot think of a single good reason why it's useful. And I try to explain here how flagging based on rewards could do more harm than good.

sorin.cristescu: "the possibility to self-vote in the system is indefensable"

The comment then voted up $0.77 by a voting bot. Do you expect me to believe you didn't pay that voting bot to update your comment? This makes me smile. I'll vote it up too.

This is how @gentlebot works. It randomly upvotes people. One cannot buy a vote from it.

Well, believe it or not, I didn't pay that bot and have no idea who paid it. I don't know anything about @gentlebot. Shouldn't you be able to see on the blockchain if I paid for it ? Or maybe, by looking at timestamp, even what other account paid for it ?

I do use self-votes myself when I deem that the effort I've put into writing a comment deserves a payout, even small, and am not sure anyone else will upvote my comment. I've also used minnowbooster to indirectly pay random user to upvote my comments. Overall you may say that I'm experimenting with the Steemit system, taking it out for a ride.

The fact that I've tested features and decided to use some because it's how the system, in its current state, is supposed to be used, doesn't imply that I believe all its features to be good. :-)

Yes, so taking the money and burning it is much, much better because it's not "Marxist."

There's definitely no good content out there being missed because everyone's chasing whales in hopes of big payouts.