You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: A Tale of Two Steemits

in #steemit7 years ago

I found your blog when I checked out who gave me a nice upvote, and that led me to read your post from yesterday. You address many of my concerns exactly. I'm fairly new to Steemit, and like the concept of a decentralized and uncensored community. I also worked hard for my first 100+ posts and felt like I was getting nowhere fast. I looked at how Steemians with a wider following and higher returns on their posts did it, and almost every single one was buying upvotes from bots. I've started to do this, and it is leading to far more genuine uproots, readers, comments, and followers. I think that's just what it takes at this point in time. I like many of your ideas, especially the ones about limiting or devaluing delegated SP. Forcing, or at least incentivizing us to do our own curation would go a long way to rewarding quality content. Another idea would be to make it less valuable to upvote your own content than to "give away" the uproots. Not sure of how this would look, maybe limit to one self-upvote a day, or make self-upvote only 25% as much return, or some better idea someone more intimate with the finances of Steemit than me thinks through. Anyway, overall I think you are on the right track. Hopefully someone in a position of power sees your ideas and takes some of them to heart. Followed and upvoted. Thanks.

Sort:  

Thanks for the amazing thought and comment.

Yea, maybe there is a time and place for bots. The problem is when they become a necessity. Once they become a requirement to visibility and success on Steemit, then success will only be available to those that can afford it and those without means that may deserve it and yet will rarely earn it.

I guess we'll see and time will tell. Unfortunately, those with means are making a profit off this system, and they won't ever really feel the need to change it, which makes it seem more and more like a ponzi and not some some egalitarian blogging utopia.