Image: Author

Overview and Principles

OVERVIEW

I am a fan of steemit.com and I do what I can to make positive suggestions. They are not always right. I freely admit that. They do, however, come from a place that is of positive intent.

This post is not a prescription and there may well be a lot which is either implausible and/or unfeasible with the technology. It is written to outline a view of the future which can extend and thrive.

When thinking of steemit it reminds me of the American asking for directions in Ireland: “Well, I certainly wouldn’t be starting from here!”

Image: Pixabay

There would be little point in my scribing things such as this if I were a member of the many thousands of detractors out there who want to see steemit.com fail.

Since the launch of steemit it has declined as a place in which to experience human interaction and the atmosphere right now is verging upon toxic.

If steemit.com is to thrive it needs to look at itself in the light of humanity, not in the light of the Blockchain. I admire the Cryptocurrency specialists and I admire computer whizz-kids. A person with either of these capabilities and/or depths of knowledge does not render them qualified to be in charge of a successful social media platform. It is more likely to be a hindrance.

If steemit.com is to thrive, it should be attractive to users without the Blockchain. The rewards should be put to one side when assessing steemit in terms of being a user-friendly medium which subscribers will see as appealing.

If you say “But steemit is blockchain centred”, then you are missing the point. You should turn it around and say “how can the blockchain be more steemit-centric.

Technology is designed to serve, not be served.

PRINCIPLES

Principle 1. Steemit is untenable as a concept in the real world. The existence of well over 100,000 times value differential between people is a non-starter. The profiteering of anyone off the work of another will be seen as worse than the feudal system.

Principle 2. Social Media is a medium which comprises social communication. It does not comprise faceless, automated profit gatherers.

Principle 3. Hierarchy should be recognised through merit. That merit system should be seen to be equitable and achievable to a non-steemian.

Principle 4. Rogue behaviour should be mutable. If a user (A) of Social Media opts to behave in a manner which one dislikes, the ability of another user (B) to quarantine any actions of that user A should be possible. This is in stark contrast to censorship.
User A may see the activity of user B but have no impact upon B and vice-versa.

Principle 5. The hierarchy holds the keys to the protocols. Should any protocol be proven to be contrary to the common interests of the platform, that protocol should be instantly reviewed or removed. Users may not have equal stake but are assumed to provide equal input of labour. Protocols which purely serve the hierarchy are, hence, going to fall. This is a protection for hierarchy and owners, by the way!

Ownership has its rewards; it also carries responsibilities.

Principle 6. Decentralisation characterises Blockchain technology. Decentralisation of ownership and influence is mandatory in order for the benefits of decentralisation to be realised.

SUGGESTIONS AND RATIONALES

Some of these suggestions carry aspects which are inter-dependent or dependent upon other protocols.

Suggestion 1.

Redesign the rewards pool such that 60% of the rewards pool is distributed upon a one person one vote, all equal. 75% authors, 25% curators, as now.

In Total:
45% Authors
15% Curators
6% Witnesses
10% R&D and Marketing
20% - distributed according to a linear measurement of SP only
[Please note that a net distribution from a company of that magnitude, especially when under a year old, is HUGE).

There needs to be a recognition not just of ownership but also of contributors who build value. Both are important. The reliance upon SP as the sole power of stake has caused the current fiasco.

At present there is NO recognition of the builders of value.

Hence, the rewards pool needs to shift towards this recognition.

The SP Holders distribution will drop a few % per month of straight SP pro rata distribution and distribute that proportion on the basis of Reputation, being a measure of net votes, as recorded over a 12 month period.

The SP Distribution will drop down to a base of 10% of the rewards pool, leaving 10% of the rewards pool distributable to the builders of value over the previous 12 month period. A meritocracy will be created, providing everyone with four areas of recognition and income.

Suggestion 1. Rationale. A user’s post should have equal opportunity in the forum. It should have equal opportunity to be recognised for the value of its content.

Long-term users should be recognised for their commitment to the platform and they can build their own stake weight through accumulation of recognition of content contribution.

SP (stake weight) is apportioned daily, as is and is expressed in SP.

Through natural broadening of the ownership of steemit, the rewards will be distributed, to begin with, much as now, recognising the current stakeholders. As time moves on the distribution of rewards will become more based upon reward for input and contribution, as well as ownership.

Without putting numbers to it, the distribution will change as follows (the areas beneath the line in each instance having the same value):

Top whales' Income without doing a thing:

Please bear in mind that only two of these whales parted with money to gain this ownership. There needs to be a separate and compensating realignment for investors. Should anyone suggest that they cannot survive upon that, my response to them will be: fine, but you have to repay all the losses you have caused through your behaviour since 15th July. Steemit is NOT about income, it is about building value.

Suggestion 2.

Steemit requires decentralisation of influence via decentralisation of ownership. It needs about 500 whales, rather than the current 20 or 25 which truly ‘matter’. In the light of redistribution, whales should be permitted to sell their SP at a 25% discount to steemians and non-steemians alike.

Only SP may be sold. It should be sold in parcels of $1000 value. There should be no compulsory selling. Applications for purchase to be made to Steemit Inc.. Sales to be made from any account which agrees to sell on a ranking basis, starting with the biggest accounts and working down the SP ownership register as at a given date. This should be limited to the top 10 whales for rounds one and top 15 for round 2, top twenty for round and so forth.

No liquid steem may be sold under this system – to permit this is to put downwards pressure upon the price of steem.

Any SP purchased through this mechanism is to have a new name. This SP is to be ring-fenced for a period of 18 months to 2 years but it carries full SP stake weight.

Suggestion 2. Rationale. The redistribution of influence is critical to the ability of steemit to attract new users.
It is also critical to the positive outlook for the value of steem.

Decentralisation, increased subscribers and fair rewards distribution is the trinity of steemit success and the path to steem value.

The $1000 parcel size is to attract all investors and to create a multiple sale. If there is a $500 parcel size requirement or even $250, this could be handled on an ad hoc basis.

At 8 cents, (6 cents inc. discount) $1,000 will get you 16,666 SP.

Suggestion 3.

Outsource witnessing.

Suggestion 3. Rationale. Having witnesses who are the major stakeholders represents a clear conflict of interest. The provision of witness services is crucial to the blockchain functionality and can be performed by a great number of facilities. PWC, Ernst & Young are a couple of possibles. It will also save the platform money and will provide even greater transparency. There is a built-in redundancy factor as well.

Image: Author

Suggestion 4.

Accounts. All users should have one account only. This is social media. You are not two people; you are one person.
At present the system tries to inhibit the establishment of more than one account, though it is well known that there are those who hold tens and hundreds of accounts. To what purpose?

Exceptions will apply:

1. Contests
2. Aggregated content
3. Steemit Announcements
4. Guilds (needs to be defined)
5. Niche Organisations
6. There will be others

Suggestion 4. Rationale.

The rationale for this is that steemit is Social Media.
Holding of multiple accounts and using them for the purpose of pure profiteering is contrary to any ethos of Social Media. There are those who use different accounts for different aspects to their Social Media content. There will need to be a consensus. I cannot see any just cause to hold more than five accounts.

Image: Author

The holding of multiple accounts can only be for the following reasons:

1. Strategic Down-voting/Flagging
2. Profiteering via the transfer of stake into a bot account
3. Creation of non-transparent activities
4. Management of steemit activities as outlined above
5. Multiple characterisations of blogging activity

Of these, only number 5 can be considered ‘socially acceptable’.

Suggestion 5.

Voting should be limited to 20 votes.
How many posts do you/could you read per day?

There should be 20 votes per person per day and, if your vote value is less than, say, $0.05, you may have up to 5 double votes per day, leaving you with 10 singles.

Minimum vote strength for everyone is 50% (25% on comments).

Suggestion 5. Rationale. The plethora of indiscriminate votes flying around leads to conflict. Herd voting does not reflect upon the quality of content, it reflects upon a lust for gain.

If Greed is your motivator, Social Media is not the place to express yourself.

Image: Author

Steemit will thrive based upon mutual respect and self-management via a system of equality. Sure, there will always be issues but the issues will be less systematic and more identifiable on a case by case basis.

High voting numbers with little or no effect is causing a gang warfare mentality with the 1% and 0.5% and 0.06% voting behaviours. As has been said before:

“you would not treat a beggar on the street with such disdain, why treat a fellow steemian thus?”

POSTSCRIPT

There are many issues which I have not addressed, notably:

1. In the future, all posts should be max 50/50 steem/SP because we will want to encourage subscribers to utilise their steem in the ‘steem economy’ to come.
2. The metrics by which social media is valued will say that the adoption of such ideas adds value to the platform and hence steem.
3. The concept of regarding a comment as a post – if there were a mechanic to do this I would support it under certain conditions. Sometimes a comment is a two word response; sometimes there are very considered and valuable contributions worth more than much of the C&P drivel posts we see all too often.
4. Niches via Geography, Interest, Sub-tags, post feed control/filtering, post storage.
5. Steem dollars sem to be redundant. However, there is an application for the category of currency in the interaction with the fiat economy.
6. On platform links to exchanges would make sense.
7. DM and VOIP are obvious.
8. STEEM ON

Follow @ebryans for Content: