This blog post is a proper response to his, and bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao to initiate a wider discussion on this topic. I will outline my concerns in my post, and open up a discussion. Bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao value of Steemit is in the people who participate with it.
So it is about the value of the social network behind the technology. This is a very valuable social network which is why posts can pay out so much, and why the market cap is currently high, but it is reputation which is the big picture, and in this case Steem Power is our reputation currency. So in my opinion the worth of the person does come into play. That could be the social worth, as in who the person knows and their social reach.
That could be any particular kind of wealth they bring to Steemit, whether it be beauty, intelligence, or something else. Steemit has wealth from we who engage with it, and only by giving large rewards to great people can we expect to retain them.
These rewards shouldn't to be measured in Dollars but in Steem Power because Steem Power is our reputation currency while Dollars are only useful to people who have bills to pay and I admit I do have bills but that's not to say everyone cares about bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao.
Steemit as I see it is about community, and is a social network, while the blog posts are about the value of the content of the blog, but at the same time there is reputation involved where a blog post by a particular high valued person within the community will get higher payouts. If Elon Musk for example were to post here, he might get a very high payout even though he clearly doesn't need the money.
The same with Dan Larimer who routinely gets high payouts on reputation alone. This doesn't mean their content isn't highly valuable, but more that the community values them as bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao whole person because the community knows them well. So I would say a lot more goes into the value of a blog post than just the value of the text, but also consider that Steem Power is reputation.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether the dollar values are attached to the posts, but it does matter what the individual is doing for the Steemit community or is trying to do for it.
In order to reward long term commitment to the community, I think we have to prioritize reputation and Steem Power. I think for example dollarvigilante gets such high payouts because of who he is, who he knows, and his established fanbase, and I think it's perfectly rational to reward someone like him higher than most bloggers.
I originally thought, why not reward individuals who have higher Q scores? I'm not saying to disregard content, but there are thought leaders, celebrities, VIPs, or just people who have been involved in the crypto community for a long time, and as a result, Steem Power flows to these people. I don't think you can separate "value of the person" from "value of the post" when reputation is what we are talking about and Steem Power gives a person more power if they are a top poster.
Basically whales have a certain status, and Bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao Power is the currency of status, and I think the trick is to make it more fun for people to compete for that status gamificationbut I don't see a way where you can cap in any direction without unintended consequences. So I would be able to buy without limits? But people who actually care about Steemit but who have nothing but time, cannot ever compete with my ability to simply buy whale status?
I think that is the source of the problem. At least as it is now, while it might not be fair, it's equally unfair to everyone. I'm not convinced the cap will be easy to raise once you set that kind of precedent, and I think corporations might love such a cap because it means bloggers can't really acquire Steem Power at the same rate when you consider there is also a frequent post cap.
In order for Steemit to function as a social computer, it has to compute something. Steemit currently can compute the value of a blog post in relation to the market cap of the Steemit community. This is an incredibly interesting experiment because for the first time ever, people who have been blogging for years, can finally see what their blog posts are really worth to the community.
This ability for the blogger to see the truth in terms of worth of his or her posts is lost if there bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao an artificial cap in terms of some socially meaningless dollar value. I understand people need to earn dollars to pay bills. I'm one of the people who has bills to pay. At the same time there is no real way to determine the true value of a dollar.
I don't know what a dollar is worth because it's worth something different to different people. The only way I can know what it's worth is in relation to other dollars which also really have nothing more than subjective worth, but what the dollar does is allow us to pay our taxes, pay our bills, and sustain ourselves. But what is the dollar in relation to Steem Power? A person with a high net worth in banking should not be able to simply leverage that to buy as much Steem Power as they like while those who have to earn it with time must compete for it and on top of that deal with both a "reward cap" and a post frequency cap.
In this way there is now a maximum amount that any blogger can get in terms of Steem Power no matter how good their posts, no matter how hard they work.
This approach in my opinion of having the cap would have short term benefits in exchange for long term pain. It seems the Steemit community is ultimately going to divide, so the question is how would we like to see it divide?
As the community gets big there will be a clash between people who think there should be a reward cap and people who don't. In fact, there are also people who are saying Steemit should have a minimum reward akin to a minimum wage such as what Trevon says in this video: I think craig and trevonjb mean well and want to create a Steemit which is perceived as fair.
Unfortunately I think due to game theory and other reasons, there is no way to make one part of Steemit fair without adversely effecting other parts of Steemit. In addition, I notice the people who are trying to make Steemit fair are focused very much on the dollar payouts instead of the Steem Power flow. The flow of Steem Power to top bloggers in my opinion is necessary if the whales are powering down, and if the power is distributed to everyone equally then it becomes a lot less fun for people who play to win.
In my opinion, the key to Steemit success is gamification. The idea is to make the pursuit of Steem Power a fun process. The casino element is controversial but it does add an element of unpredictability and fun for some players.
Seeing Steemit as a game is another dividing point because not everyone sees Steemit in that way. If it's a Social Computation Game then it has to actually compute something, which means putting some kind of cap on the output would make the results completely meaningless even if it would spread bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao money a bit more. It would be like having a cap on prices or on salaries in sports, and then with that you can never have the super star athlete.
There is indication that you can run a sports organization with the salary bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao. There is also the model used by the UFC which is a very top down model where fighters don't have much room to negotiate their salary yet fighters get retirement benefits in exchange.
The thing about sports is that you don't have a very long career in sports, and you make as much as you can while you are in your prime because you are an independent contractor, there is no retirement fund to take care of you when you get old, and in a way bloggers face the same realities. If we like we can think of bloggers like we think of athletes. There is a very low chance of making it into the NBA and everyone knows this, but people try their best because of the chance to get rich.
People also lose their money just as quickly because the time in the sun is very brief. In social media or blogging it's even more brief than in sports bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao a person can literally have one year in the spotlight and never be heard from again.
It's literally 15 minutes of fame for some people. It might be perceived as fair to some, and in some short term view it might diversify the content a little bit, at the same time it will create a long term divide, and cause long term controversies, and there are many problems which would only bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao apparent when you have hundreds of millions to millions of bloggers but which aren't currently apparent now. A popular complaint is that the top payout or trending blogs now are mostly people talking about Steem, or crypto, or anarchism, and this to me is no different from a month ago when people complained that Steemit bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao rewarding travel bloggers and the highest post was a make up tutorial.
People are going to always complain about whomever is popular at the time, and when Steemit trending was rewarding mainstream people, there were just as much complaints as today. In my opinion, it's not possible to make everyone happy all the time, and when posting anywhere else a person has no expectation to make profit, yet because the dollars are in everyone's face UIit encourages people to think about the dollar more than anything else.
This may be solved with improvements to the UI, and these improvements to the UI can also help people find similar posts from the same author or other posts voted up by the same group of voters. A few of us recently also looked into capping curation rewards however found it has weaknesses that allow whales to game the rewards.
We haven't recently looked as deep into capping the total blog post rewards. If a large group of steemers see a net benefit but it also seems to be a divisive issue, then it could be proposed to move to the new system for bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao a short period of time e.
At a bare minimum it will force a spread of rewards to other deserving posts, even if it's just a small effect. That effect will ripple because the handful more that are helped by this will be motivated to continue on and do their best to spread bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao to others. Too much power bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao too few hands right now. That's the hierarchy of government and major corporations.
Not a look we want. It might support it but when would it be justified to interfere to that degree in the market? Some kind of black swam event or because of some vague perception like fairness? Fairness is subjective enough that it could open Pandora's box to guide development into directions which cost freedom in favor of fairness and that is what I am a bit concerned about.
For people who see Steemit as a tool which promotes freedom, either from censorship or financial freedom, then having this sort of cap would possibly put their dreams to sleep. It's bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao of like the American dream sells the United States economy, and in Steem the dream is to get from minnow to whale, to get a lot bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao Steem Power, not from buying it but from blogging, and people compete in their own ways to try to be the top blogger, and this is good as long as it's fun.
But the problem I see is not enough gamification. I think ned would be able to benefit Steem more from hiring an expert on gamification to improve the economics in a way that make Steemit sticky and fun, so people want to buy or earn Steem Power for the unique privileges it provides. If we make it harder to earn it would be like dramatically raising difficulty for miners, but then if Steem is really cheap then people who earned their money outside the community, can simply buy ownership while this cap is in place.
The issue with the cap is we already have a situation where post frequency is capped, where payouts are capped at 30 days, and now there is discussion of what could be interpreted as a salary cap? Top bloggers will feel punished for being successful which is not a good psychological element for something which you want to be fun. The perceived fairness gain is great but it's measured in bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao not Steem Power which is the issue, as bloggers who might not even care what Steem is might bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao just to get easier to earn Steem Dollars.
I do see short term benefit of perceived fairness, but I see long term costs which outweigh it. If someone can find a way to implement it without the long term costs I could change my mind and I offered a solution which I thought was a good compromise, which is less payout in Steem Dollars and more payout in Steem Power, but same reward size. I'm worried if you set this precedent it could be as bad as changing the Bitcoin block reward arbitrarily or like the max block size, or like the DAO fork.
It's going to create the Steemit equivalent to a "class war" which at this early stage is unnecessary for only a perceived "fairness" which isn't truly going to be fair long term.
And honestly I'd probably benefit financially from such bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao cap because I consistently produce high bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao content, but I am more worried about creating demand for Steem Power and keeping Steem fun than focusing on making Steem seem totally fair in terms of dollar value.
Bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao best idea I saw was to allow a voluntary bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao in percentage from Steem Dollars to Steem Power so we get the benefit of perceived fairness without hurting the Steem Power aspect. I vote against the bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao because I think it would not be worth the negative psychological and political consequences.
At the same time if you and other developers are determined to do a trial, then bitcoin block size change manny pacquiao least produce some statistics so we can learn what we gained from it if anything is gained, but in my opinion the costs long term would far outweigh the short term gains because it would reveal just how much power developers have to do a sort of price control that culturally I don't think the current community could tolerate.
Of course I could be wrong but I would see the divide would be between people who want freedom and people who want fairness. It might be that it's a balance between the two. I also see a divide between people who want more gamification focus on fun and people who want to focus on making Steemit a more serious platform. As you know what sides I'm on in this debate, I'm just being fair to say there are a lot of people who would take the opposite sides. If I am being honest.
I would hate to see this tried first.
Taking weeks for simple customer service issues is a red flag. Probably. In this special, but fundamental and important field of real analysis the authors present the state of art.