Steem Proposal System// Potentially cutting author rewards across the board
Just a heads up for those that read my stuff more then what Blocktrades writes. haha LINK TO POST
STEEMIT.INC decided to pay Blocktrades to develop a "STEEM proposal system" similar to "Bitshares worker proposal"...
How it works is: You make a proposal and get funded from a reserve pool of funds if the project is determined as being beneficial to the STEEM blockchain..
The thing is that these funds have to come from somewhere... A few people mentioned that Donations were the answer, but the truth of the matter is that donations would not work...
The distribution right now is extremely one sided, the richest accounts getting most of the STEEM, meaning that you can throw away any notion of the "community" donating anything.
Best you can hope for are donations from a extremely small number of, lets call them, charitable whales like Blocktrades, Acid, etc.. But even those donations would remain extremely small.
So donations really go out the window.
The solution that was presented was taking a cut from author rewards of aprox 20% across the board.
DAYUM.
Folks will not like that.
Content creators are the lifeblood of this platform, if you cut their rewards STEEM will fail!
WRONG!
If you look at post payouts then you can only conclude that content creators are nothing more then customers for vote sellers and miners for the few curators.
Lets not kid ourselves.
Content isnt king. Content is simply an excuse for creating inflation.
Payouts arent a reflection of quality nor does STEEM attract or encourage quality.
But i think this could possibly turn that around.
I always found curation to be an extremely flawed concept detrimental to the platform with the current status quo.
With this proposal cutting author rewards we could essentially remove bot influence completely and make proof of brain an actual thing..
When Kevin Wong made his god-awful curation proposal couple months ago that would essentially destroy STEEM as a whole (i wrote about it in detail in one of my posts), he called for a increase in curation which would have led to increased vote selling after adjustment..
This could possibly do the opposite... I know its counter-intuitive, but this could actually change the STEEM philosophy across the board and actually benefit the authors who would have their author rewards cut.
There are many working parts to consider, so id need to sit and think it over before writing an indepth post like i did months ago on Kevins proposal, but when you cut author rewards and dont increase curation (since increase in curation would benefit vote sellers the most) then you reduce vote buying and reduce bot influence..
Let me know what you think.. Ill see you around.
20% gets deducted from my low rewards and I'm gone.
If you had suggested this when the STEEM currency was worth 1 = US $10, maybe I'd have listened. Definitely not now.
Another point - we are told again and again that we should invest in STEEM...who would do so if you are doing all you can to steal what incentives there may be? Not me! I'd rather cash out my little bit of SP
Anybody else feel the same way (I'm assuming there will be a number of readers of this post).
Well it all depends on how you see STEEM. If its only a blogging platform then i could see your point, but really if im correct and this could potentially eliminate bot influence then the authors could actually greatly benefit from this. This could completely change the philosophy on chain.
The authors already have 25% of their earnings taken - with some of those members who have high esteem (Rep) and SP in the hundreds of thousands acting as judges, reducing the rewards of many posters who posted something of talent and worthy of the reward, while they leave alone their fellow thick-skinned elephants who earn in the hundreds or thousands per post for something really stupid and more deserving of a flag... and now, of what is left, you want to reduce their rewards by another 20%
I'm not certain your reply answers my comment, as I spoke about investing in STEEM, for which I would obviously expect a return.
First, I suggest, look to finding ways to stop the misuse of the system by the thick-skins, instead of depriving income from the poor.
EDIT
Sorry, but your last argument about changing the philosophy of the chain...it is too vague and unbacked by facts for it to convince the majority...or me
"taken" is a bit of a exaggeration. The only reason authors get anything is because of the SP powered up. So its really not "taking" its closer to sharing.
And yes, some folks do act like judges/executioners . I mean there are some stake holders that are more then willing to "destroy" your blog because they can. Offend or disagree with a few whales a couple times and they get a perverse pleasure from destroying your blog.
Some people will kiss those whales asses and some will ridicule them. The fact of the matter is that this is a stake based system and we subscribed to this when we came here.
But.. If you think about it, Those that earn the most and abuse the system will be the ones paying for the worker proposals..
I make 25 STEEM a week... Haejin makes 4000 STEEM. Who is the one taking the biggest hit with a 20% reduction?
The guys that destroy "proof of brain" will pay for the benefit of the STEEM blockchain, for the worker proposals.. And this will potentially eliminate bots.. Which is again an amazing thing for "proof of brain".
So, what you are saying is that the little I am awarded by those who liked my post, was not earned. After all, if it was earned, then anybody removing the awarded amount or part of it, is taking something I earned.
If 'taken' is an exaggeration, then it means I did not earn and thus deserve what was upvoted, so I then can only view it as some form of charity - and I have never accepted charity from anyone.
I will ask a few of those who often upvote certain of my posts, so that if it is charity I can stop them by no longer making posts. If they disagree with my course of action, I'll suggest they discuss it with you, since I cannot - you are too enamoured by your ideas to be open to anything I say.
By the way, I see more and more people claiming that governments should not have the right to tax us, but if we apply your logic to the real world, it means taxes are not being 'taken' from them, since they did not earn it - it, the money, is only available to them because of the Reserve Bank printing the money, so they have the right to claim it back.
You have earned a new follower with your logic on these above comments. I feel strongly as you do, that'taking' or 'taxing' the authors is bullshit . When this firs started I thought they had a fund pool to pull from for these developments. The second they start' taking' from us , more than they do already, it will have negative results from some of us who do NOT earn high rewards. Thank You for speaking your mind.
~RESPECT~
Thank you.
Out of curiosity (and courtesy) I took a look at your posts...but due to my older OS and restrictions for security, I cannot watch any of your programs.
However, I hope to see you grow as people come to know of you.
Thank You. Can you watch on vimm.tv?
~RESPECT~
Sure. If it deters dumbasses like this guy here:
https://steemit.com/backscratcher/@backscratcher/backscratcher-introduction-get-upvoted-for-upvoting
But, what do you expect from a career scammer anyways?
It could be a good thing, as long as the projects can be hold accountable for producing progress. Otherwise, it's just exchanging the reigns from circlejerks to technocrats.
I mean there must be a solution somewhere. If you dont shuffle things around you cant hit anything close to what could be a sweet spot.
People tend to focus on losing 20% of their 50 cents they make per post, acting as if we are talking livelihoods here.
We tend to lose ourselves in this delusion that we will strike it rich here and forget that this is a social media platform most of us come to have fun and mess around on. No one is making you rich here, they might try to become rich off of you though..
Maybe 1 day the STEEM we bought, earned will be enough to buy ourselves a nice dinner or go visit Rome for holiday.
The focus should be imo to create a more just system. I think this does that.
I dont care if i make 18 STEEM a week instead of 25. But if Haejin makes only 3000 STEEM a week instead of 4000 and those 1000 STEEM go to bettering the platform, i might giggle.
Greed has no bounds. Too many entitled people for something that's not even a job.
I agree with you that it's better that they try something and realize it doesn't pan out than sitting around stagnating.
As long as it doesnt make things obviously worse im all for giving it a shot.
I think a 20% cut is too much, but this system can help the development of Steem and can advance the Blockchain as a whole. If the Steem is wisely spent on worthwhile projects and proposals, everybody is going to benefit from it.
I think the 20% cut would have other positive effects that maybe arent obvious. We shall see. But i do agree that everyone will benefit from it.
I for one are more then happy to give up 20% of my earnings if this goes forward.
Congratulations @lordbutterfly! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click here to view your Board
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPThis post has been included in the latest edition of SoS Daily News - a digest of all you need to know about the State of Steem.