So before I even start let me say this is not something I'm suggesting we do. The idea just came to me today and I thought it was interesting and that I'd share.
Currently when you make a Community you are the owner. You can decide who can post in the community with mutes, you can assign admins or mods, it really all comes down to you. As I was thinking about my own communities, one thing I struggled with was how to not make this "my" community, but feel more like "our" community. Before I'd thought the only way to probably get that in a tangible way would be to launch a token and people will have stake in the community.
Then something else came to me. What if upon creation of a community you were issued a token, and that token represented the ownership of the community. Your permission level in the community might be determined by how much of the token you own.
This would open the doors to community mergers and acquisitions. Imagine you build a community from the ground up and develop it for years, then life happens and you don't have time to manage it anymore. You could sell your controlling stake to the next in line or put it on the open market.
This could especially become lucrative as Communities start to develop more and break off into their own frontends, monetization, SMT's and economies. All totally decentralized without needing to engage with any government currencies or jurisdictions. Totally parallel economies that could be self sustaining and autonomous. Sounds pretty powerful.
What do you all think?
That's where SMTs would come up, right?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
An SMT would allow for users to grow a stake in the community, but not exercise any ownership of the community. The user who made the community has the sole power of ownership. IE they can create admins, mods, mute people, etc. They could change the whole nature of the community if they wanted, or for whatever reason tank it by muting everyone.
If the community did have an SMT, and people had invested in it, I wonder if that's a bit too big of a central point of failure.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes you are right.
But there is a VERY SIMPLE alternative.
If the owner account or management do not share the same value as the community (stake weighted? one account one vote? whatever other system), a new community can be created and everyone who agrees with its principles moves into the new community. There is the possibility to share the owner key between multiple members - that's already better than having one owner.
If the old management has no support, the old community will be dead.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think that's fine, but the only thing would be if there was a community token as well and people had bought it. It would be associated with a particular community. I know I'm just inventing Black Mirror scenarios at this point, but yea, that's where my head went.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
SMTs will be available to work in tandem with communities. It makes sense, to me, that they will be an option and not automatic.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So, you basically described how steem works.
Every steem power you have represents your ownership of the steem blockchain.
But since here we can only influence through upvotes and downvotes, and only the rewards, your idea kind of expand the steem concept.
It would be as if you could use your steem to vote for a mute/ban/create sections/whatever other function was needed.
It is a good idea, it should basically how communities should actually be implemented.
You trade sbd (not steem) for a token of a community, now you have the power to influence on it though votes proportional to your stake.
Too bad it won't happen.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not even sure I'd want it to happen. Just an interesting idea I thought up and thought I'd share. It introduces a lot of new variables that would have to be thought through.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like the idea, earning a greater share by how you interact with the community seems fair. My only concern is that some could gather more influence by acquiring tokens from others without being active members and end up with too much control.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well right now the community owner has 100% control, so I suppose it only would make for the chance of decentralization.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think this is the way the SMT's will work in the future, to monetize a community. If they don't i will be very dissapointed,lol.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, it will work like Steem currently does, but Communities introduce a new variable. There is an account that "owns" the community and has total control. Over who can post in the community, who can become an admin or mode etc. What I'm talking about is tokenizing THAT ownership. Not the stake in the community that would come from an SMT.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think that the owner is the one issuing the SMT and so the largest shareholder, in a way the ownership is already tokenized. If you are the owner and you sale all of your tokens you are no longer have any control at the economy of the community. But you have the control of the social side. Now this could be tokenized, i dont know. Maybe an inside team token could be issued and create an economy among the team members like curators, moderators and other roles. Interesting stuff:)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm with you on this. I thought this was the whole point of communities was incentivization through owning SMTs.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And this is why they launced the Communities first and the SMTs later. Steem Engine and the Tribes is the first experiment of how things could work. I believe that in the future the already established tribes could turn into Communities. I like how things are rolling,lol
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's simultaneously a cool idea and also terrifying (especially if amount of stake is tied to permission and you can buy stake).
I'm probably just biased in that last regard after watching a Facebook group I used to be on back when I was on Facebook descending into chaos and anger before one of the main instigators causing the trouble took over the group and triggered a mass exodus (I'm pretty sure the roublemaker was somehow fully expecting the opposite result of what actually happened).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes i'm very interested in the success of community owned communities... or DAO structured communities.
The technology that needs to be worked on for this to work well is multi-sig type stuff. Meaning if 5 people were all partial owners of a community and thus the account that either made decisions or owned money they'd need some sort of technical way for sharing ownership and decentralizing risks.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit