I have upvoted your story because I strongly believe your point is a valid one , but I only agree with your perspective up to a certain 'point'. Certainly it is imperative in these early stages to talk about potential elephants in the room.
To elaborate, I believe that founders, innovators and early adopters should rightfully stand to gain the most. Why? Because they have taken the highest risks, investments of time, energy, money and personal belief in their services/products. Getting from Zero to One, as Peter Thiel puts it, is a huge undertaking.
However, 'nature' or natural principles have a potent and powerful preventative law from allowing such innovators to truly dictate and/or control the eventual direction of the platform, and tha tis the Law of Diffusion and Innovation, or the Bell Curve.
Research shows (search on Simon Sinek for example) that innovators usually account for the first 2.5% of overall platform. Early adopters (stage we are at now I believe) account for the next 13.5%.
However, the Tipping Point is normally only reached at the 15-18% stage when the first rush, or early "majority" (34%) join the platform. This will never occur unless founder beliefs align and resonate with Majority (general public) beliefs.
I don't believe it is so much "How" or "What" Steemit does at this stage, but WHY it is doing it at all. The "Hows" and "Whats" can be ironed out as the system grows and develops, but unless the basic "Why" for it's existence in the first place resonates with enough people, and more especially, their core belief systems...
To sum up, if I don't believe what the rest of the fish believe.. that we all live, breath, and swim in the same water... sooner or later, I'm gonna find me some air.
Manipulation, conscious or otherwise, has the potential to destroy this platform before the foundations even set, and in that sense I totally agree with you, but I do not credit the founders necessarily with the amount of power or control you suggest they may have if they ever wish to see Steemit succeed.
RE: Steem: A Cult of Personality
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Steem: A Cult of Personality
Founders, developers and early adopters (of which, we should still be considered, IMO) certainly should be rewarded, but let us consider the ratios our masters have dictated... They got hundreds of millions in USD terms for starting the platform (some for just being around at the time)...and their investment will continue to grow without them doing much other than simply upvoting stuff they prefer (or even more nefariously, gaming the upvote system by upvoting sock puppet accounts they own).
55K users keeps us in "Innovator" land, IMO. Even as a % of target user base, 55K is miniscule. (Think about it, I have 33K followers on StockTwits, which has 1M+ users.)
When whales have the ability to determine what is "popular" or not simply with the power of their vote, and others "follow" whales' thinking, voting for the "best," i.e. highest rewarded, i.e. blessed by the gods, posts, giving even more default weight the whales' voting power, then it is no longer the voice of the majority that matters. (Which, BTW, I have seen "popular" posts with only a couple "pennies" because of no "influential" votes--which results in it slowly fading down the list of trending posts.)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Totally agree with your points. What is the solution? I suggest we will always need gatekeepers to inform us of "good" versus "bad" content, whether we call these people "whales" or whatever doesn't matter. Each tribe develops it's own language.
The potential for these gatekeepers to game the system for their own advantage will be ever present. Again, what is the solution?
I believe the solution is the market itself. The majority I spoke of is not the majority on the platform presently - I agree 55K is only stage one - but the millions envisaged as joining in the future.
Are these potential contributors/creators/curators/consumers going to be attracted to a platfrom they perceive from the outset as biased and dictatorial? I doubt it.
I truly believe that unless Steemit founders get their "Why" right pretty soon, and that this will align with the belief systems of the "majority" yet to join the platform, lots of whales, dolphins and minnows are going to be left floundering when the tide goes out.
If they get it right, great things can happen here. As Uncle Ben siad to Peter Parker "With great power comes great responsibility". Give the whales a chance, haha!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit