So, You want to change the reward pool?

schattenjaeger (71) · 6 years ago (edited)

I upvoted. Not because I necessarily agree (I'm in the process of thinking this through more thorougly).

But because the rewards were sitting at $49.95, and my upvote caused the payout to start with a 5, which gave me a feeling of importance and power, temporarily filling the infinitely empty void in my heart with an illusionary feeling of purpose - the hopeless void has been left there by the love I never had as a kid.

Thanks, Steemit.

$1.39

3 votes

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

Haha! You are funny, only now the price seems to have dropped and I am back to 4... So, I guess you just don't matter that much! :)

$0.00

schattenjaeger (71) · 6 years ago

Yeah, it's just like my father said.

$0.09

inertia (73) · 6 years ago

As my grandmother would say, "Whatever's clever, my dear." Then there's, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Funny thing is, the corollary does not imply, "If it's broke, you must fix it."

$0.60

personz (66) · 6 years ago

Good point, sometimes the cost of the fix does not justify the benefit of it. So perhaps we can add the lemma: "if it's broke, consider whether to fix it".

theguruasia (67) · 6 years ago

@whatsup,
If it's curve lets make it linear, if it's linear lets make it curve! This way we introduce a change!If curve not work lets go back to linear!
Whatever they introduce, we all will find a way to make money!

Cheers~

$0.54

jeezzle (70) · 6 years ago

It's going to be interesting to see what happens after Hard Fork 20.

I didn't like the curvy rewards, especially because they rely on big whales giving you upvotes and they aren't doing that nowadays.

Every now and then I make a post that does exceptionally well and I'm not sure how I would be affected by that change, but I'm against it at any rate.

I also think it would encourage the buyers to be even more proactive with the bid bots. That's something that might not be good for the system.

As for curation rewards...... I don't know. As a content creator curation is something that I don't look at very often.

$0.51

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

I think there is some fantasy that the bidbots will go away. I am not sure. I really don't even know how seriously to take the discussion.

Always an interesting site: SteemIt.

$0.00

steevc (73) · 6 years ago

Add those two things together and you have HUGE incentives to vote for those who you think are going to receive the most votes

We have this already. Strategic voting for curation rewards tends to keep rewarding the same people or you have to try and second guess what a whale is likely to vote on. I tend to think curation rewards should not be too big. I think whales already do quite well from curation and the rest of us just make cents at best.

What we need is something that keeps the minnows engaged. They need a chance to get some attention if they are doing good work without having to buy their way up the trending page. Maybe communities will help with this. We have the ad-hoc Running Project community and that's helping some people get more attention.

$0.26

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

While I know you disagree, the reason I like the bidbots is enthusiastic minnows can gain some stake! I know we have abusers, but they could be flagged.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

steevc (73) · 6 years ago

I've said several times I'm not bothered about minnows gaining a few extra dollars, although I understand the profits are low. It just seems crazy to see others spending hundreds to get on trending. It's an arms race that's for out of control. The big winners are those who sell the votes. I realise some of them redistribute the profits to delegators, so there's an argument it's spreading Steem around. It's just something I'm not interested in doing

$0.12

playfulfoodie (68) · 6 years ago

It just seems crazy to see others spending hundreds to get on trending. It's an arms race that's for out of control.

This is one of the biggest problems I see here right now. The bidbots are out of control and people can easily get themselves a reward of $100 +. I don't see how changing reward curves back is going to make this better. If anything, it'll make things worse and make bidbots even more profitable, as long as you have enough money to throw at them. It's taking away so much from people who try to be honest and not use them. I wish there was something we could do about these bots.

$0.20

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

People own their stake, they can rent, sell or buy stake. The site wasn't filled with quality getting to the top anyway. I don't have a problem with people investing in their content. It is a choice on all sides.

I understand it can be disappointing for those who don't want to use them, but I really question if they are an actual problem or the focus on it is the problem. My opinion they at least give people an option for visibility that they didn't have before.
The more options we have to stay engaged the better in my opinion.

There is no saltiness in my reply. :)

$0.02

playfulfoodie (68) · 6 years ago

There is no saltiness in my reply. :)

Oh no worries, I didn't think there was!

You are right ofcourse, it's people's own stake and they can use it however they like. I guess it's the idealist in me who doesn't like this idea though. I'd love to see a site where good content does rise to the top. Where rewards are based on quality instead of who you know and how much cash you have handy. To me, that would be a more interesting and inviting site and it would probably invite more people over than a trending page where either crap rises to the top through bid bots or where whale fights are in the spotlights.

I guess Steem needs other things to grow, because Steemit just shows us humanity at its finest, which is more of the same inequality you can basically find anywhere else.

And hey, as long as you don't check out Trending/Hot too much, you don't notice these things. Just gotta make sure to follow the right Steemians to make this site work for you through your personal feed :-)

$0.12

scottychams (61) · 6 years ago

I've proposed adding bot voting limits (idk how this could possibly be enforced, but if bot owners were able to be slightly less greedy in hopes to regulate overpromotion, I think bot bidding limits would be ideal

$0.08

tcpolymath (68) · 6 years ago

Buying a profitable bot vote is essentially buying resources from their community and bringing them into ours. I strongly encourage it. One of the things that's really hobbling our effectiveness is community-minded users buying into the idea that all bought votes are bad.

On the flipside buying an unprofitable bot upvote generally does the reverse, and a lot of bid-bot in the strict sense votes are really hard to make a profit on even when Steem isn't falling like a rock.

$0.07

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

I agree. Many of the accounts that are selling votes are not whales they are developers, who took the risk and rented delegation. The bots are distributing votes to non-whales. I see this as a win.

$0.00

scottychams (61) · 6 years ago

The main issue I think is promoting spam posts and them getting to trending

$0.00

mightypanda (64) · 6 years ago

Maybe exponentially reducing the vote value when voting for same person in 24 hrs. That will stop some exploitation. Stop sp delegation and people will start curating manually. Tie voting key with something more critical like transfer to stop vote selling.

$0.13

4 votes

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

I'm Interested to see how it all plays out. I am not opposed to vote buying and selling, some people want to build a "blogging site". I want to build a Steem Economy.

That makes Steem an asset, one that can be bought, sold, rented and leased for various business ideas. Who am I to tell a whale what they have to do with their stake?

$0.00

tcpolymath (68) · 6 years ago

The important thing to understand is that undistributed rewards pool shares are also an asset, and buying and selling them is no different from buying and selling any other. If you can get them for less than their value then you're winning.

$0.22

elliotjgardner (61) · 6 years ago

I think the mistake here is that you're assuming that the reward pool goes undistributed. My understanding is that if an account holding the standard 14.5 SP placed a single vote, and that was the only vote of the day, it would effectively distribute the entire reward pool to the content that it voted on.

Bidbots reduce your ability to grant rewards & in turn, negatively affect your curation returns. I think if the bidbots didn't exist to delegate to, the overall payouts would be larger as a result of inactive users leaving their stake unused - or perhaps if they were not inactive, the distribution would be wider than just those who want to pay to have their spam upvoted.

I've seen the dilution happen, it's very real - the 'pending rewards' dropdown says 'pending' for a reason.

$0.00

playfulfoodie (68) · 6 years ago

Maybe exponentially reducing the vote value when voting for same person in 24 hrs. That will stop some exploitation.

I love this idea, because it will atleast make exploitation a little harder to do on a large scale. Stopping sp delegation is also a good idea, because it might make the bid bots less powerful. I'm all for blocking their power.

$0.00

adarshh (54) · 6 years ago

bidbots force us to become investors in our community. Return on investment is maximized when you have investors on one side, worker bees in the middle and the speculating public on the other side.

In our case, we play all three roles simultaneously!

I have stated earlier that if one content creator has to reward another, then it is due to four reasons: quid pro quo, making money, altruism or genuine appreciation.

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged had a model of innovators working with each other and was the earliest block chain. but in practice it is a hard one to pull off.

the better model is to become outwardly focused. readers on the outside, no bid bots in the middle and creators on the inside. i think SMTs will help in this case if we can get a viable business model going.

this means that in addition to attracting a Medium or Hackernoon, we must also have our own group that will attract mass readership.

otherwise the law of diminishing returns will take over.

if we still try and persist in making money out of each other then:
it just makes me wonder whether blockchain will solve the problems that we expect it to do. will making transparency a virtue and money an everyday incentive, produce the results? Writing is hard stuff and generally requires skill, perseverance and luck. are we expecting too much of steemit once all the dust has settled down? i know it must have been easier in the beginning but that is always true of any venture. when the gloss has worn off, the enduring value must shine. Just like the moon, will steemit be reduced to a mere reflection of our own base motivations?

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

Great comment!

$0.00

playfulfoodie (68) · 6 years ago

The first change being discussed is to put some of the curve back into the reward pool

So basically, people with the money to pay for loads of voting bots (who are currently boosting their own posts up to $100) will get even more benefit at the cost of people trying to be 'fair and honest'.

Increase Curation Rewards, by giving a larger percentage of the stake to voters instead of posters.

And with this, voting bots will gain an even bigger income, giving everyone even less incentive to do their own work.

Wow, how many bad mistakes can one make?

Resteeming this for more attention.

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

I didn't actually think through how the bidbots would be impacted if they are impacted at all. I actually think the impact would be on the autovoters.

Something I've never used. If these changes go through, and I don't know how likely this is, it will probably be the end of my manual curation. I'll just pick a few friends to upvote and put my energy elsewhere.

$0.02

playfulfoodie (68) · 6 years ago

Hmm, I've been using a combination of the two for a while now. I use autovote on a few authors for two reasons: I feel they are under appreciated, or they have shown me a lot of support through many thoughtful comments and I want to return some of the love. Most of these auto votes are around 20% strength, so I have plenty left for manual curation.

I don't always have time to go through my feed and there are some people I feel deserve my support even when I don't have time. Whenever I do have time though, I go through my feed to find good posts to upvote. After that, I check out the rest of Steemit to find good posts elsewhere.

I like doing it like this, because it means I'm never at 100% VP, which would feel like a waste. I'd rather support a few people automatically so my VP gets put to good use.

I don't think this would change if they do implement these changes. I still want to have VP left to upvote random posts I enjoy.

$0.00

robertandrew (67) · 6 years ago

Yep, well to me there fine as they are. I'm open of course. But seems pretty good right now. Thanks @whatsup for posting and sharing this

binkyprod (67) · 6 years ago

Hey @whatsup, it's the first time I come upon one of your posts, I believe, so I gave you a follow :)

I completely agree with your points. There are too many upvote bots out there and automated curation systems to justify that change as better for everyone. As someone who has grown organically in the last year, I've seen how it can be so rewarding just to curate and post with human interaction without the use of any bots of that nature. Human curators are different, you tag them and they see valuable content and help people get noticed. Bots and automated curation systems don't see the quality of the content. They don't see the difference between my smoothie post or my videos. Someone who wants to upvote certain posts, by being there humanly and physically, they can select what content to upvote. They have freedom of choice.

One thing I've mentioned before and I'll say again here, I think a better solution would be to increase the amount of upvotes allocated at 100% curation. With only 5 upvotes, a lot of people don't know if they should upvote or not. That being said, I'm the kind of person who just upvotes posts I like at 100% ALL THE TIME and then comments I enjoyed at 25%, typically. I will upvote until I am down to 0% some days, if I am very active, because no matter the value of my upvote, I want those people to know that I upvoted their content because I found value in it. But a lot of people conserve their upvotes, which is understandable. With more upvotes at 100%, and THEN more upvotes per each percentage, people will be more incentivised to give out more upvotes, to curate more, as opposed to being stingy. The solution IMO is not to give more of the payout to the curators. That just takes away from content creators, and then who's going to want to keep creating content that has value, other than people like you and me. Most people will resort to spam or just post random pics with no great effort (not talking about photography posts) and just share anything, really, while those who post valuable content will suffer. And once again, the bots will win.

That's my take on it, anyway.

edje (69) · 6 years ago (edited)

Nice to read about other ideas. Too be honest, I dont know what is best in terms of post rewards curve and curation cut from the post rewards. I do know we have super large issue at hand. One of them is the influence of vote bots on the reward pool and the other one is quality of content.

You wrote:

I know things are not perfect, but I do believe we are seeing improvements in quality and meaningful engagement, but of course I can only base that on my own perspective.

I curate music related post and go through many posts every single day. At some point, earlier this year, the number of quality post was increasing, but I think we got a lot of new users into our community, therefore logical the absolute numbers of quality posts was increasing. However, what I see now, is very much different:

the absolute number of quality posts (music related) seems to reduce (note: I curate those posts with textual elements, the original music published I don't look into that much, so they are not part of my statement here)
number of copy/paste posts is increasing
the number of users spamming the system is increasing
the quality content creators come and most of them go quickly
good behaving users turn into bad behaving users

All of the above is based on what I see happening in #music and other music related tags.

I don't have the solution, but what I think is we need to start testing. We see current problems already for a long time, but nothing has been done to test solutions. Steemit is still in Beta, which means to me, we shall test, change something and see what happens. Not sure how ling test cycles shall be, maybe 2 to 3 months? We could have already had 2 to 3 test cycles since the last HF.

Added to that: Communities and SMT. We can wait for these the arrive, but when will they arrive? Given the situation we are in, the arrival of these features maybe way to late. Those who are here for the community, to interact, will be able to jump to another community since more and more competitor networks are hitting the market. And soon ONO will be available in international version and running on the EOS network. This network is quite similar to Steemit; Time will tell if ONO can make their promises real; But it will be a strong competitor to Steemit and Steem, I'm pretty sure about that.

I wonder what will happen with bidbots when TRENDING channels are taken away from all the UIs to the Steem blockchain.

$0.09

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

Interesting thoughts. I also don't pretend to hold the absolute truth, or know what will happen. We are all just doing our best to predict and guess the next best thing for the site to do.

$0.08

edje (69) · 6 years ago

Yeh, indeed :) That is why I like test cycles. One change a cycle, and thoroughly analyse the results, share with the community, to further fuel ideas, suggestions, opinions. I wish our witnesses would play a much more active role in trying to keep the community evolving to a long term sustainable one.

$0.09

roundhere (55) · 6 years ago

Government(SteemIt Inc) over site and regulation is rarely beneficial.

"If you want more users to be rewarded, simply vote for more users. "
This is a better solution, but it takes personal responsibility supported by effort and action without guaranteed results. It appears to be much easier to complain and clamor for someone else to make it fair.

$0.08

pompe72 (63) · 6 years ago

Get rid of all bots or make bot votes useless. Social network is for humans to interact, not bots.

$0.07

3 votes

tcpolymath (68) · 6 years ago

If you want to know how that plays out, just take the posts that have the most rewards, and take rewards from all of the rest of the posts and add it to those posts.

Why did I write 300 words on this topic? I should have just waited for you.

$0.07

blazing (70) · 6 years ago

well the intelligent people and developers will find out the right way but i hope its just equal for everyone :)

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

Nothing will be equal. Life isn't equal. We aren't born equal, we don't live in equal places, life just isn't equal.

$0.00

chireerocks (72) · 6 years ago

Thanks for sharing your perspective and literally speaking till now i don't know the math behind the payouts but i know i will soon cover it, but i read many posts where people are saying that payout module change can hurt and in my opinion already we are really Unbalanced Economy which is really hard pushed from the beginning and at this moment inclusion of new module when Steem Economy is unbalanced can bring that new tension and as you said possibly this change will help people who have large amount of Steem. And genuinely i don't want to see Steemit with same essence with centralised domination where big will become big and small will become small, and i know investment is most important aspect but it's better that if we think with perspective of whole community. Thanks for sharing this post with us and wishing you an great day. Stay blessed. 🙂

ange.nkuru (63) · 6 years ago

Lately I've been seeing these arguments a lot too. But since I wasn't around when the curve happened, for now I just kick back and try to imagine how everything was and whether or not going back to the old system would benefit us minnows.

Well I'm still not sure where I stand but I tend to find those arguments educational and quite entertaining so I'll keep at it. Cheers :)

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

:) That is how I learned as well. Once in a while, I even piped up to talk about it, and I was usually wrong. lol.

$0.00

mikesthoughts (58) · 6 years ago

Heh, and so the economies of the real world enforce themselves here as well. The powerful get more powerful and the bottom continues to struggle. Ain't no pure system in the world.

ange.nkuru (63) · 6 years ago

I think at this point we should all know that's inevitable :(

$0.00

mikesthoughts (58) · 6 years ago

We shall see. If we get enough people to fight it. I mean, it's straight up against the fundamental principals of the community....but then again, the people who want to change it don't care about community. Only got $$ in their eyes.

$0.00

sajjadk (49) · 6 years ago (edited)

nice overview .....and appreciate your view about changes that are gonna happen.thanks to keep updating us

$0.00

booster (68) · 6 years ago

This post has received a 17.10 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @whatsup.

$0.00

baah (61) · 6 years ago (edited)

Except that you make it seem as if:

A) The n^2 curve is what is suggested again, which is not, it's a compromise between that and linear, so N*1.2 or similar, which is to disuse stake splitting and encourage stake concentration in turn.

B) That a change in Curation Rewards is counter productive without a zilch of reasoning behind it and I quote your nonsense assertion: "It sounds good for engagement on the surface, but in reality most of the votes are cast by SteemVoter and various automated voters. "

So for A you discredit it without correct reasoning and saying that it's the same when it's not, and B you seem to think that because someone has the upper hand there is absolutely nothing to do but throw in the towel until "SMT" and communities which won't solve any of this because it doesn't address distribution in the least.

What I see is your reactive opinion which has little, if any basis to hinge on least consideration is something from an age long and long ago.

I remember you were the one that said SO WHAT to people self voting, you said SO what to people using their stake to flag without discrimination in the same thread and you're here to comment on what will and won't help and yet I have every reason to believe that you cannot see the clear detriment of supporting/condoning such callousness as wanton flagging because "it's your stake" and euqally self-voting, reasoned with the same short-sighteness, so do you really care about what the proposal aims to accomplish or are you simply offering your opinions, empty, completely devoid actually, of sense?

$0.00

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

Too full of anger and personal attacks to bother sorting through. Most days I don't mind sorting through your abusive speech to try to understand your points, but I just don't have time today.

$0.00

orisfina (45) · 6 years ago

@whatsup is only saying his opinion.
I feel you are taking it personal, maybe a long time biff you have with him.

Lets not attack ourselves that way, remember everyone is entitled to his or her opinion

$0.00

baah (61) · 6 years ago (edited)

I think you're too lazy to actually think about what you're suggesting and should you derive your opinions based on clear reasoning instead of the prejudice you hold over "it's your stake" or "you can't stop self-voting" or whatever it is that you base it on, you might consider the benefits and potential hurdles and have a discourse that will easily reaffirm those thoughts as no amount of nonsense will be able to confuse clear, sound reasoning, wouldn't you agree?

If I ask you to point out exactly what was "full of anger" I am certain you wouldn't find anything that speaks of my tone or such a tone, and there was not one personal attack, so to say there were personal attacks is nonsense, and if there was an attack you should have no problem evidencing the nature and harm of the attack but you won't be able to do any of that for I am certain of what I said.

I hold to what I said before and I add that now you're falling into the same trap of prejudice towards me and my response and should you take the time to respond with something that addresses anything I said or remarked instead of accusing me of this nonsense you might actually conclude in accord with me if we could have a conversation, even if I brought up the things that you would rather not discuss you can at least tell me that you don't want to discuss them or what you based it on, alas though I may be casting my words onto deaf ears.

If I can make what I said simpler it would be this:

If you want to know how that plays out, just take the posts that have the most rewards, and take rewards from all of the rest of the posts and add it to those posts. It basically makes the reward pool heavier on the top. (See Trending Page)

My account might even be big enough now to benefit from this, but I can't see how it is going to give anyone incentives to vote for someone else. Nor do I think it is going to change engagement or distribution, in fact I think it would hurt.

The reasoning you hold is that people concentrating their stake instaed of having it in numerous bots won't happen with the incentive of the curve, which is what the curve initially promoted and which is what the ADJUSTED curve will promote, a curve you seem to think won't do anything at all but make it worse, because look at trending? but I don't think you even cared to provide the reasoning these changes come with, no, I know you didn't care to do that, and the problem is that you make it sound as if the curve will concentrate power, because why bother explaining anything when you can make nonsense assertions such that neither simplfy or explain the reasoning behind the proposal but only undermine it and spread FUD, such is your "basically take the post at the bottom and add them to the ones on top/look at trending" nonsense. Had you actually been a little bit considerate in what you were espousing you'd recognize the injustice your callousness does to the idea by seeking to undermine it with utter nonsense.

Now add the other "idea" I've been reading about. Increase Curation Rewards, by giving a larger percentage of the stake to voters instead of posters. It sounds good for engagement on the surface, but in reality most of the votes are cast by SteemVoter and various automated voters. Those who write those bots also will understand the curation code the best and be able to "game" the system effectively. It would be easy just set up your autovoter and watch your passive investment grow by voting for the highest rewarded Authors.

Here you overtly try to undermine the idea and again you bother not in the least to explain or introduce it in any kind of coherent manner and postit the idea as previously in your nonsense now of "you cannot beat the bots" which hardly considers anything and run and hides behind some absolute position of superiority. There is ONLY surface to your consideration, had you actually done some consideration we wouldn't be having this discussion because I wouldn't need to call your nonsense out or tie it in as shortsightedness that you displayed in the past over similar issues, and then the attack you perceive is your own words and thoughts from that certain past, over similar, issues which equally held zilch for reasoning and like here you recoiled from giving them any nuance.

You're entitled to your opinion and whatever you base it on, and when you voice I I am entitled to question it and what you base it on, and you're entitled to telling me to shove it, but you're not entitled to make accusations and offer no proof for them, so Abusive speech is quite the concept since I uttered not ONE obscenity or made any personal attack and all I based my comment on was pure observation.

$0.00

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago (edited)

I titled the post as Opinion, it is my opinion.

I was here for the curve, and the curve multiplies the weight of the votes. In other words, it adds MORE value to the larger posts, and it takes that value from the smaller posts because the reward pool is finite.

I didn't and haven't addressed the bidbot issue in this post at all.

I disagree with you, that doesn't make my point of view nonsense.

I am going to try to directly undermine the idea with all the weight of my words and my stake.

I am fine with you drawing different conclusions that I do, and make any judgements you like on my shortsightedness. Since I have been here actively participating for nearly 2 years, I think your take on that is silly.

$0.00

baah (61) · 6 years ago (edited)

There wasn't ever a dispute that your post is opinion, was there, so why are you bringing up the fact that it's your opinion, have I represented something different with my comment or seemed confused in that respect at all?

I was here for the curve, and the curve multiplies the weight of the votes. In other words, it adds MORE value to the larger posts, and it takes that value from the smaller posts because the reward pool is finite.

Actually, the curve is not about the Posts Rewards but the voting power of accounts, so to tie it into the rewards posts make when it changes nothing in that direction is nonsense.

I didn't and haven't addressed the bidbot issue in this post at all.

So what is this then?

It sounds good for engagement on the surface, but in reality most of the votes are cast by SteemVoter and various automated voters. Those who write those bots also will understand the curation code the best and be able to "game" the system effectively. It would be easy just set up your autovoter and watch your passive investment grow by voting for the highest rewarded Authors.

I disagree with you, that doesn't make my point of view nonsense.

You make it seem that by simply disagreeing with me your point of view is nonsense. Is that what I said at all? Absolutely not.

I am going to try to directly undermine the idea with all the weight of my words and my stake.

You can undermine it but you cannot do it on its merits and you haven't, and not only that you cannot evade the consequences of your meritless and confused opinion once it leaves your mouth.

I am fine with you drawing different conclusions that I do, and make any judgements you like on my shortsightedness. Since I have been here actively participating for nearly 2 years, I think your take on that is silly.

You can make a habit of whatever you want, but don't accuse me of being Abusive or making personal attacks, you may speak on my tone all day long though.

$0.00

whatsup (75) · 6 years ago

I'll say what I want when I want. Thank you.

You can respond accordingly. Have a great day baah.

$0.00

baah (61) · 6 years ago

Yeah, even if that means spreading FUD and attacking people with baseless accusations? Or you weren't directly telling me that making up shit about me is what you'll do with that bullshit "I can do what I want"?

Stank you very much for your "great day", but no stank you, especially after you played the victim and proceeded to tell me now that you'll lie about me when you want.

$0.00

baah (61) · 6 years ago

Also, best you remember that the most powerful display of stake was and will continue to be the whale experiment and HF 17.5, the push you talk about ain't to Stinc, they can fiddle for 3 more years with SMT and communities for all I care, and you can call me crazy when I say this but mark my words, the fork away from Stinc will inevitably come around when moderation will still be absent soon after SMT from the noise of Stinc and with that fork the holdings of Stinc and NED and all others associated with the spinning of wheels will be frozen.

$0.00

broken.akay (53) · 6 years ago

I wanted to say something but I saw that the my ideas aren't that good. I myself don't understand too much the system but at the same time don't want it to change. But I can say this, too many rules and codes are never good, simplicity in the code is what attract people, it attracted me anyway.

$0.00