I dunno if you've seen the video made of his remarks in Korea, but I suspect it might change your mind, at least a bit.
While egalitarian voting, which he calls one account one vote, may be a sort of mob rule, that is the essence of social engagement and the heart of curation. I am not a communist, as you may recall, and prefer the term autarch to anarchist, but I know we both want actual freedom and simply come at it from different directions.
@ned has every reason to simply fleece Steemit for all the cash it can produce, and there's no lack of folks that want to do that with his help. I note that he has proved that is not his purpose, or intent, by enraging many who openly profiteer on Steemit, and have a great deal of Steem to do so with, with his remarks on stake-weighting.
A recent post on Oracles, Communities, and SMTs provided specific mechanisms of enabling communities to create their own approaches to stake, voting, and every metric under the sun, that @ned has clearly been working very hard to make happen behind the scenes.
Given the nature of opposition to such power being delivered to communities to prevent profiteering, the complexity of the world-changing potential such communities will have, and many prior examples of hardforks with unintended consequences, I find the extended silence from Stinc, and the length of time necessary to develop these ideas appropriate.
I chafed and spoke disparagingly as much as anyone. Having seen what he has been doing, and considered what he has endured to do it, I have greatly increased my respect for @ned.
YMMV, but the world is the result of stake-weighting. I am confident neither of us has any desire for such corruption and profiteering to continue, here or in the world our posterity will inherit from us.
@ned has devised a way to make freedom possible, and speech and communities more important than money. As to stake-weighting being the essence of Steemit, I feel rewards are the essence.
It isn't the chance of winning the lottery that is a whale upvote that separates Steemit from Reddit, but the mere fact of rewards. Stake-weighting perverts that into soliciting, pandering, and sycophantic groveling from folks that are convinced nothing is more important than money by their indoctrinations.
I believe stake-weighting can't avoid that, nor the profiteering enabled by it. What does the contents of one's wallet have to do with the value of their opinions on things other than money? There will be communities focused on that, and that embrace bidbots, self-votes, etc.
I believe those communities will fail quickly, for good reason. What do you think?
I think it is best if the whales are left free to rape the the platform, but dont, because they think it is better not to do that.
If folks are restrained for reasons other than selfdiscipline then they havent learned they are just bullied into compliance.
If @ned had let the whale experiment play out i would have more respect in my tone, but instead he appealed to authority knowing this was the inevitable result.
Id find more respect if he let us go back and try that experiment again.
Rather than allow the system to work as designed, he changed it to fit the fit the system to the people.
I say we go back and if the bad whales sell, great, cheap steem for everybody.
Once the system is made to work for the little guys we will see stake weighted voting negated by the community deciding it is bad, dealing with it on their own, and not appealing to the authority of the code.
Im at the point now that i dont believe anything stinc says until i see it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I can see merit in your point here: that encouraging good behaviour is better for folks and society than restraining bad behaviour.
However, systems potentiate behaviours, some behaviours more than others. Simply allowing any and all voting behaviours creates a system that is but a reflection of extant culture and increases the power of propaganda and indoctrination to impact and mold culture.
SOC potentiates every possible combination of restraint and empowerment, allowing people to seek each what they consider optimal society. In such an ecosystem, I believe that folks suffering the effects of indoctrination (all of us) who can but understand some of that impact, but also feel there is a 'right' or better way to interact that they haven't learned, can seek along a continuum of communities for that right way.
Further, such a continuum allows for personal evolution and graduation from the first steps along a path to 'righteousness' to that glorious landing of fully realized human society all of us wish we lived in--but each define differently.
Given that we are all variously imperfect, and define perfection variously, there are gonna be bad actors. One global system just forces the most rapine to the top overall. SOC can prevent that winner take all result, by confining such rapine actors to rapine focused communities that the rest of us with no interest in maximum extraction eschew.
Such actors won't be members of communities whose resources are invested in systems better balanced, and dedicated to other metrics of optimization socially. This prevents utter megalomaniacs and psychopaths from controlling the resources of communities uninterested in supporting them, creating freedom from such actors oppressions that isn't possible in meatspace today.
That ability to create communities online can eventuate communities in meatspace able to counter oppression there, in time.
We'll see if Stinc can bring SOC to fruition. The power of money IRL to control systems, such as we see impacting Steemit, has been offended by @ned's mere statements. Were he intent on simply perpetuating and participating in hyperextractive economics, that act of stating opposition would not have been undertaken.
He may not be able to make it happen. It is, after all, a heretofore impossible system, but I can gladly await his best effort based on that evidence he is intent on it.
Not like I can do anything else, anyway =p
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yep, we are not the masters of our steem destiny.
I still see a return to the whale experiment, either through smts, or on steem.
Any smt can be dominated by large buyers, and will be, if they interfere with the profits of the abusive whales.
Imo, we are better off reversing some aspects of hf18 & 19 and letting the whales duke it out.
Nipping the abuse in the bud, and setting the tone of the community to 'no abuse tolerated here'.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It will be interesting to see communities effecting such experiments, and all the experiments that ensue, indeed.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit