Half on each side
There is what you want in the future and, what you are willing to do to get there. Have you thought much about the second one? I have talked a lot about powering up, future opportunity and potential for large gains but, there is more to life than that in my opinion and that is where the willingness to do really comes into it.
Even though that for the most part, most people want a place where they can grow and flourish, live in safety and have enough resources to support themselves and their family, there are many approaches and a great deal of variation on the path to this. Some are at any cost people and no matter the harm to the environment or others, self-maximization takes precedence no matter how much has already been collected. As is so often expressed, There is no end to human greed. I would also add, there is no end to the suffering humans can inflict on others to achieve their own goals.
We see it in so many ways, in this world, so much suffering as our quest to take maximum for ourselves or our group crushes the opportunities of others to even have a basic level of comfort. As an example, it is estimated that about 1 billion people in this world do not have a electricity for a light bulb in their home yet, look at photos of Las Vegas at night. We live in a world of contradictions, we want what is best for all yet actively act in ways that threaten that very idea.
When it comes to self-maximization I do understand the drive as most of us in this world feel that we are struggling and want what is best in the future for us and the people we care about. However, it is unlikely to be the best if to get there we must inflict suffering onto others, restrict their ability at opportunity as the competition for resources between groups will always end in arguments, conflict and eventually war.
I don't think anyone's idea of a perfect future is one where we all still live in a constant battle for enough because, that is where we are now and I don't think many would call it perfection. Balance is required. I wonder if for example, everyone went 50/50 on Steem where 50% of personal resources went to self-growth and 50% to community, what would happen. Would it speed distribution, would it increase retention, engagement, opportunity? Would Steem price reflect the changes?
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
Yes to all of this.
One of the versions of that I keep seeing is the call to increase the curation to 50% though, from 25%. And I’m not sure that is an improvement as it will once again increase the stake of those who have most more.
That is the eternal struggle.
But the principle of 50% in itself is correct. Which then would imply that everyone does their task: 50% of their activity is focused on sharing, i.e. curating. But that’s an illusion as long as there’s mechanisms to maximize only a minority will be focused on their peers. If you meant increasing the curation share... that’s maximizing the return of held shares and that will only make the bidbot situation even worse as more and more will jump on that bandwagon and operate their own bot. That’s a wrong short term perspective which will possibly increase the value of Steem but exclude more people from its awesomeness than envisaged, or than the platform could actually carry and influence the lives of.
No, I don't mean increasing the curation share. Once upon a time perhaps but not with the bidbots operating. Take away delegation and it might be a compromise but still, not great.
I think it is more the general idea but anyone expecting a 90-100% return is not really much of a community thinker. Even if people limited their delegation to the bots to say, 40% and then went out and manually curated it would be a much healthier place however, I see people with 100k SP and 99K delegated to bidbots.
So many heavily staked people are now community blind that they don't even see what is happening on the ground. They are set and forget profiting which is not a great path forward for a social platform based on interaction.
Not that long ago I even saw somebody who’s a management member of one of the most prolific curation teams post about different options to maximize held SP.
That’s when you know there’s a real issue, an echo chamber issue which becomes always harder to outrun. It’s becoming always more difficult to not see the negative as the main thing and to apply perspective on it.
The reality is that if a majority focus on community... the platform will thrive and the middle class will grow.
A strong middle class can achieve lots. Even if it can’t nevessarily change the world, it may have changed the lives of most of its members.
Delegation was well meant but eventually damaged the platform because of the high stakes involved. That can be rectified. If the governance understand that being governance also involves at times to make not popular decisions.
Without that... we need to make things happen ourselves.
That's a real food for thought. The way we battle against ourselves, even in the midst of abundance says a lot about where we're headed. If we can all take life as a 50 -50 give -take game, we'll be much better off
I think so too.
If 50% would go to the community and would be well spend than I could life with that!
I do think that this will decrease the activity here. People are selfish to the bone. There are exceptions of course but for most of us we only care about our selves!
But on the other side everybody could profit from it, as long as the 50% would be spread out over the people who do put effort into the Steem blockchain. But this could mean an increase of spam posts 🤔
So lets conclude that I have no idea how this would turn out! Something to think about during lunch! Really like those posts, keep them coming!
I think if more people spread their 50% to people who are community builders/engagers, the place would look and become much healthier quite quickly.
That could be true! This is a little bit what we are trying to do with our Steem Betting Community!
We are trying to motivate people to post and interact with each other! Try to educate them how the steem ecosystem works. What does work and for sure what are things they better can't do!
Perfection even in the future is a facade to attain if we as a people cannot compromise on a balance.
Just like every other good initiative, some peoples greed will not allow them to commit their 50% to the community, except there is a regulation that enforces development of both community and self, then we may never see any profitable result
Perhaps the Oracles will have an effect on this later. I am not sure how they will work tbh
Are people who try to live the 50/50 lifestyle foolish? I do not know.
yes. I think so.
I'm pragmatically motivated by healthy caution and a desire to provide for my family.
Other people are helpless puppets to fear and greed ;)
This is the balance, healthy caution would mean to make friends rather than potential enemies, it is the fear and greed that polarises us.
I like balance as you've heard me say often. My way of thinking is that if you build everyone up to the same level of having enough, why would there be a struggle as you would not need to support anyone else.
Your giving to someone with less would have gained you freedom in a way. You gave and therefore you received.
As for the platform, why can it not work the same here?
I'm sure someone by now must have already suggested this but, man, you should aim for running as a witness. The changes you could bring about could be huge for Steemit.
The idea you express feels like a nice happy medium between socialism and capitalism on the platform... And though I don't understand the economics of Steemit nearly enough to know for sure how things would go if people's general attitude changed towards this, I truly think it would be better in the long run. The problem is, how to implement it?
I mean, it seems like the only way is to do what you're doing... Try change people's general attitudes... Myself as a key example (stopped buying votes). And another small example: I'm a curator with the new initiative @thenewalchemists and as curators, we get 50% of our curation posts. I've decided to forego my 50% while our group is new, to help it grow faster.
Not blowing my own trumpet, just showing as an example what could be possible simply through grass-roots type changes like the ones you're regularly expressing in your blog.
Some people have suggested but I don't think I am that type of person, at least not yet.
I think that it is a good way to go and it is natural at times that people will build more or help more but, there should be some balance found overall.
Wouldn't that mean 50% all posts paid out for everyone would go to the reward pool, and mean that 50% of the reward pool would always remain?
I don't just mean for the voting, I mean from a more philosophical sense too. Split the effort self and community growth. But no, I don't think so. I can cut an apple taken from a tree in half and we can both eat.
People don't seem to care about others, or they don't seem to care much. Alot of people go to bed hungry and alot of food gets wasted. Alot of people live in poverty while other waste lots of money. Some believe because they worked for it they can spend it has they please
Glad to see you posting again.
Your words got to me my friend, thanks alot