RE: SteemWorld Support tomorrow ON or OFF?
Hey, @steemchiller.
I really figured that this would be a slam dunk no brainer.
But then, I'm thinking about the every day STEEM user, the one who's interested in knowing what they're doing statistically, and maybe even others, and to do with it with ease of use.
I'm also thinking about those who appreciate all of the one stop shopping that has been packed into Steemworld without much compensation over the last several months, and certainly since the bear market began. I mean, there's so much that can be done now, and there's even more coming.
I was also thinking that once you were funded, you would stay funded. I didn't know that it was like being a witness where one big account could vote you in or out, or change where you were in line based on voting on something else.
I mean, I think the Return Proposal is a decent enough idea—kind of wonder why it's not just built in to the SPS in the first place, so that the Return Proposal doesn't need to be there doing whatever it is that it does sitting their approved.
So, maybe keep providing updates on top of the SPS? The whole witness thing seems like it could be more of drain on your funds than a help unless you get voted up high enough which seems to be an issue with your no-brainer Steemworld proposal on the SPS.
Why does everything have to be so dang difficult?
What's the point of doing any of this if you can't be constantly funded for the duration of the project?
I appreciate not wanting to fund unnecessary stuff, or things no one uses. Tons of us use steemworld.org, though, and everyone should.
Anyone who cares about posting, commenting or curating, and many other things STEEM-related, that is. :)
Judging how things are going, it looks like the SPS is only useful to fund the projects that the top whales support.
If that's that case, then I bet the majority of us would like to have our money back and see this SPS nonsense be thrown into the trashcan.
Hey, @trincowski.
I guess that means one always has to be in campaign mode in order to keep up with the votes that others may be getting. It also means that the bar is always being raised, and that uncertainty is the only sure thing. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do anything under those circumstances.
Taking a look at what is currently being funded, while the top three don't last more than four months, I'm not sure what they truly add to STEEM in the long run, other than some folks really want their stake liquid sooner, and others want to pay for documentation.
Number four is returning unused funds back to the SPS, which seems like the SPS should do that automatically, anyway.
I don't know. I thought I was for the SPS, but seeing it in action, it seems to be lacking something.
It's also interesting to notice that the Steemworld proposal has over 10x the votes of the top 3 proposals and yet, it's not going to be funded.
In this system, what 300 rich people want is more important than what 3000 people want... and, in my opinion, that's just dumb.
I understand that Steem is not a Democratic System but it also shouldn't be the Oligarchy it has become. 🤦♂️
Hey, @trincowski.
It probably needs to be a hybrid of the two—stake weight and one account one vote—but even then, who knows. I get the argument against one vote—those who have 100 alt accounts will vote 100 times. Whether or not there's enough of them to overcome 3,000 normal voters, I don't know. My recent looking at the diminishing numbers tells me that it could very well be the case. Stake weighting brings all of those accounts to bear once.
So, if we could handle some kind of know your customer without it intruding on rights, liberties, privacy, sensibilities, whatever—something encrypted, something that just the system can see—I don't know, I'm not a developer—we could solve a lot of this.
So, when the top three are no longer funded, unless people pull their votes, wouldn't Steemchiller move up by default? Wouldn't his proposal be within the bounds, unless something takes it's place? I mean, I know he doesn't want to be sitting around waiting 90-110 days, but at the very least, that's how this will work, right?
Who'd know... your scenario has just played out.
Let's see what happens because at the moment, no Proposal is being funded. 🤣
our money back? Did you make direct donations to @steem.dao ?Total inflation haven't changed, so you're not paying more for this than you were pre HF.
We're all taking a 10% cut to fund... just a couple of projects. It seems to me like the same could easily be achieved with a 1% cut instead.
That s the way it works, and it has been voted through DPoS.
More of the @steem.dao will be used when more projects satisfy the exigence of the stakeholders, it's how it's designed to work.
We're just building another Oligarchy in here, aren't we? 😂
I believe Steem has been working by DPOS since you've joined. What changed? What alternative would you propose?
I'm not a minnow but I m not a whale either, I would love my votes to matter more than they do, but on the other hand, we have to be realistic and realize that there s no other reasonable solution to decision making.
This is just a big experience but I had the thought that the main goal of the Blockchain Technology was to free us from the old, archaic Oligarchich Models that riddle the current economic system.
If we're simply copying them and transposing those Oligarchies to the Blockchain, how are we any better? And what's the point of it all?
It's like we're fighting fire with fire. I don't believe that will achieve anything good.
I see your point, but on the other hand you have to recognize that we can't have a 1 account 1 vote system either, unless we ask everyone to doxx themselves for proving that 1 account = 1 user.
And even then, it would make Steem even less attractive to potential investors, since their investment could be destroyed by users who don't have skin in the game.