I was asked directly earlier in the day for a vote, and now I'm assuming many other people were too. To be completely candid, I didn't expect him to jump this far this fast. I expected him to end up in the 30-50 range and just slowly accumulate SP much like the other backup witnesses do (and I did for a long time).
For me - charlie is someone outside of the existing "groups" that exist on steemit today, much like myself. I joined steemit of my own accord, then started doing and working on things. I saw him do this as well, with his posts and the projects he's put effort into so far.
I kind of feel for @charlieshrem... this whole situation could have totally been the same, except with my account as the focal point. So I'll just close out by saying if we're going to highlight an issue, it's the voting, and not charlie himself.
My 2 cents.
I couldn't agree more. Jesta for witness!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree! My post was not about Charlie.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@jesta
Part of the problem is that people want to believe that that Steemit is rather decentralised or anarchic. They are dissapointed ideolically.
Steemit has nothing to do with anarchy or decentralisation so far. We need to accept this. Steemit is a free market capitalism scheme, based on inherited plurocracy.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Plutocratic and free market are contradictory. When you have power to vote and influence, because you hold a stake in a company, it (eventually) motivates more wise direction by those with more influence. It is not always the case but eventually there is a scandal and afterwards consolidation.
Meritocracy is based on having influence indexed by your 'skin in the game', if you direct the group into a dead end, then as the biggest holder, you make the biggest loss.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
well loki, I like what you wrote and my addition is this:
Our actions show what we think of Steemit. We are here. We post or reply often. It means we think it is something worth our most valuable resource.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"meritocracy" is a fancy way to hide ingroup preference and all types of bias; why there were/are less black men in silicon valley and wall-street. This isn't a comment regarding Steemit. I just don't like the cultural meritocracy revolution. Same shit, new names.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You know, you know where you can go if you prefer the social networks where hidden, non participating users completely regulate the agenda of discussion, social networks that still haven't got a working business model that yields actual profits (You do realise that Twitter and Facebook still haven't turned a profit, right?).
The bad behaviour of big stakeholders is bad for the network as a whole, but it is worse for them than anyone else, in terms of the result in their portfolio. I have an idea this is why regular stock markets include 'Preferred' stocks, where people can hold a stake without having any influence in the democracy within the system - they simply may not want to. In the case of this system, the reason for such a variant not having voting power but getting bigger yields is visible: Unlike in a corporation, voting provides yields to those who get the votes for their ideas. If you don't want to vote, you get no benefit of having a say but no benefit in exchange.
It is a recent change, you can now, yourself, disable your voting power. But it does not take your voting power's monetary value out of the equation. It should come back to your share in part as a dividend. I see several big stakeholders who seem to me to be unhappy about having to be active voters to gain a benefit, they hate the constant seeking of their attention and the attention seeking behaviour in general. Their share of vote rewards does not return to them unless they vote, in the form of curation rewards. I think it should be possible to own a stock in Steem without granting vote power.
Group preference is a natural outcome of a group, as all individuals have preference and as a total there is a tendency for the group towards certain things. As I say, if you don't like it, build your own, go somewhere else where there isn't a monetary impact of human behaviour. The developers of Steem are working to liberalise the rewards for participation more outside of vote power allocation based on share, but you can't just do something and then say it's solved without monitoring and adapting it to the result.
I think that even in the 2 months I have been here, there has been significant changes in the way people are behaving because of the changes in incentive that have been made. It is definitely a better place now than then, and the devs don't rest, they keep monitoring, reading people's ideas, and the best ones have a way of bubbling up to the surface and becoming clear imperatives.
Besides, the only thing the Whales have in common is a big stake in the success of Steem. This is not a criteria that leads to nepotism. That can only come from privilege granting from a top-down hierarchic arrangement. Here, you can jump in at the top if you slap down enough cash. Maybe you think that disadvantages you because - like me - you don't have a lot of cash. But over time, having good ideas can prove to be more powerful anyway. I started with nothing, and from good ideas I have built up my power to influence, and anyone can do this if they are determined and have good ideas.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@l0k1
Nop. You can inherit money and still operate on free market. most of the world functions like that. Money is power. You do whatever the fuck you want if you have them and it is pretty much "free market".
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Money = power as does voting = rights so a free market can only exist to those whom maintain the network and whom hold its value within the network. A community is going to have disagreements but should always maintain the data allowing time to tell. Personally, all of yall are heroes in my book! Rock on~!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Idealists; the perpetually disappointed
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nice turn of phrase there @radioactivities ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You took the steps and you seem know the best way!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit