Since the beginning of time there have been allegations of corruption, collusion and cons. This is true on SteemIt as well.
Nobody wants SteemIt to look shady, instead of beating down the questions, why not just answer them?
When the common response is "Whiner", "Witch Hunt", "Jealousy" to me that is a red flag. When people are proud of their behavior they want to talk about it. They want to say how they justify their behavior, what they do and what end they are working towards. When honest people get questioned they want to discuss it. They want the opportunity to clear there name or explain their position. Instead of attacking and calling names, fighting etc.
Why don't we just talk about the guilds calmly?
- What is the Mission?
- Who is involved?
- Who selects those who are involved?
- What is the process?
- How is it funded?
- What are you trying to achieve?
Why not just discuss how it is working? Did things go wrong? Are there ways to make it right again? Maybe you feel it is working perfectly. Why don't we just talk about it?
If we can't just talk about it why not?
If you are part of any of the large or small guilds, I invite you to tell the community about the guild, what your mission is and how it is working right now. Could it be better? Is it working as planned?
I agree we could do less with name calling and provocation. Complaints are valuable as long as its valid and not done in a way of FUDing the entire network.
By the way, all activities are as clear as day on the blockchain. As far as I know, all guilds (RHW, Curie, Steem Guid) have already answered all the 6 questions.
As for Curie/SG, basically whales (top influencers) put trust in the early adopters to distribute according to their own ethos. In Curie's case it's just a simple looking out for fresh, good honest accounts.
Whales do still do what they do voting on their own, but they've dedicated part of their voting power to be distributed more by a group of people managing that voting power.
We have (at least Curie) lessened the cost over time and now curators (and soon to be voters) aren't only exclusive for the early adopters like me who got into operating Curie since the early stages. It's opening up for open-participation.
In a way, there isn't any obligations for us to be doing what we do to open things up for the community, but we're doing it and it has been expressed since the beginning of Curie's inception. It needs to be understood that voting power is bestowed onto guilds for their own deliberation. It's just a way for whales to partially extend their ability to curate much more.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you for the reply and reasonable discussion. I agree there is no requirement for transparency, but I thought it might be beneficial just to calmly discuss it. To openly discuss ends the questions, the rumors, the sense of hidden "cult" like activity. As I said, usually when people are excited about their work and the results, they are also excited to talk about it.
Again, thank you for the calm reasonable answer.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like to think of guilds as "mining pools", which is exactly what it is, with an "outward" distribution added. But of course, IMO the best kind of guilds / companies are the ones that are made porous enough for anyone interested enough to join easily. (after all I wish I could conveniently join and experience companies like Google and Apple lol)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
jag gillar thanks
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Why does this post have Guild Wars in it's name? I see nothing relevant here.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of Feb 05. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $5.80 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Feb 05 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit