We could have a whale come by and upvote us at 100% power!!
I'm sure that we could reach consensus on everybody wanting the biggest whale of all to come by and vote us once a month.
IF you disagree with having a whale vote your content, despite it being the worst post ever posted out of all the posts ever, then speak up and let us know.
My proposal is that the steemit account should vote the 40 votes a day that is optimal to maintaining voting power.
I think that there should be a bot put in place that votes the lowest sp first, but works it's way through all active posters so that each account gets one sequential vote.
Once the bot votes you, you shouldn't get another vote until everybody with a post in the last 30 days has had theirs.
Were you trailers to follow the steemit account's trail it would go even further to distribution of the sp in pursuit of a little democratization here.
I like to go here: https://steemit.com/cashout and vote the posts that are intelligible but didn't get more than 10 votes.
Currently if you don't get the attention of a whale directly, or one of the curators of the trail voters, then you have very little hope of getting rich quick, or any payout that registers on the ui, at all.
Steemit has worked fine for the popular folks, just look at those that got here the same time I did, but instead of being stiffed 21 times in a row they got upvoted on every post by a lot of sp.
I think that an assurance that at some point in the month Steemit was going to vote for one of your posts would go a long way to attracting regular users.
I can tell you that coming here and striking out makes it hard to interest new people.
With this feature they would hopefully be enticed to post for this minimum reward, even though they still have no chance of making $30,000 in two posts.
They would still have the chance to earn some cryptocurrency that if they just hold on to it could reward them big time.
It's like a free lottery ticket, and if they post once a month I think Steemit should support that and show us some love.
But what do I know, I'm not popular.
Have a perfectly peaceful day!!
Good. Steemit isn't a get-rich-quick scheme. We should stop expecting it to be. I get that it can be frustrating, but there's no guarantee that any user's content will be popular or that it will earn a bunch of money. That's just the nature of social media and it's how this platform was designed.
I've written a lot of posts that I thought were really great. And I earned pennies on those posts while others earned hundreds or even thousands of dollars for a few incoherent sentences, blurry pictures from their phone, and even plagiarism. It sucks, but it happens. I wish there was a better way, but this is the system. If it's to remain a stake-weighted system, then things like that are going to happen.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
'The System' is what we make of it.
What the system was is indisputable, but what it is, and what it will be, are open to debate.
What would it take to get you on board?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The system is a stake-weighted system. I'm pretty sure that's not going to change.
I would not be on board with socialism, so there's nothing that can convince me to try it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like the stake weightedness in voting, I'm not asking to change that.
I'd just like to see the @steemit account voting for the minnows, equitably.
I didn't ask you to question the crapitalust god, that was an erroneous interpretation of what I said.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Steemit Basic Income?
I dont think there are enough whales for all the rookies here. 100,000 people with less than 40SP that have posted at least once. (that is an educated guess based on my experience here)
interesting concept.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think that the cutoff should be accounts with at least 4 posts in the last 30 days.
Reputation could be added, but current posters is who I think the steemit account should encourage.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Socialism has failed everywhere it's been implemented - and Steemit would be no exception.
It's a "No" from me.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is where I tell you that socialism has never been tried, only some rule by force bastardizations of it.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia
Until you eliminate rule by force from the equation only slavery is possible.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The only way to enforce socialism is by force. It's definitely not a voluntary system. Anarcho-communism can exist in small doses, technically. A family can be a commune to a degree; things like forks and spoons can be collectively owned within the family unit.
But socialism on a large scale always requires force.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nope, as long as the workers continue to do the work, we can tell the accounting department to find productive jobs.
It's as easy as, keep working, stop paying.
Of course the dupes of the crapitalusts will never accept that this is true, but they love their slavery, just as Huxley said they would.
http://classes.dma.ucla.edu/Fall07/28/Engineering_of_consent.pdf
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What does that even mean? You did nothing to address my arguments.
Socialism is an ideology in which a social organization advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
When an individual does not agree with this, force is required.
People are not too keen on giving up their property and resources voluntarily.
Slavery when one is forced to work at gun point, while the fruit of his labor is kept by the person holding the gun.
Working for a profit is not slavery. It can be unpleasant, but unpleasant is not the same as slavery.
Also, why would I invest anything in Steemit, if I didn't have complete control over my own money?
That would be a huge disincentive.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Just because I don't answer in the way you endorse does not mean that the answer was not there.
I would never engage you in an economic terms debate.
I'm sure you are aware of 1984, and newspeak.
My proposal cannot be comprehended using the terms taught in crapitalust schools of thought.
If what my proposal, not this one, this one was about steemit voting for minnows, was taught as possible in a crapitalust school, nobody would choose crapitalism.
If it weren't for the guns of the dupes of the crapitalusts people would not starve outside full warehouses, nor go homeless outside an empty house.
Any system that starves babies because they won't get a job is not the kind of system who's followers readily accept alternatives to the ideas that they have been given as children.
Just to get back to the op, the question was: Would you like @steemit to start voting for users?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit