You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why I have removed my witness vote for @ura-soul, and stand against @jerrybanfield ‘s budget proposal.
Well said Graham. To me, it reeks the same as a politician saying 'We need to implement this tax, for your benefit.' Of course this tax doesn't negatively effect him, just others who he decides can afford it. All for the sake of the greater good though, right?
This is SO messed up. The suggestion is to lower payments to WITNESSES. Both Jerry and I are witnesses - so it's only US that would take the pay cut. How the hell this has been utterly reversed into the claim that we are trying to tax everyone but us - I have no idea. It's a lie.
I suggest reading my comments here and the full thread to see how @kafkanarchy84 has edited my words for his own reasons and removed large parts that totally change what he is projecting I am saying here.
I will definitely dig deeper and recant anything I may have misspoke about. But I thought I read that the top 20 witnesses would only be effected (50% I believe), and neither you or Jerry are in the top 20 (Jerry I see at 23 and I don't see you in the top 50, maybe I am missing something?). So can you clarify how your witness 'payments' would be effected?
Jerry was in the top 20 for a while and could easily get in there again. I am nowhere near the top 20, yes - to clarify what i am saying here, as a witness it is me who is LIKELY to take the pay cut IF I reach the top 20.. it's not something that affects 99.9% of steem users directly. So therefore, if i succeed as a witness - which i intend to - then I will receive the reduced payouts that are being suggested. If I myself am totally happy to continue being a witness a that reduced rate and so too are numerous other witnesses who have spoken out to support the change - then why exactly is this some kind of extortion racket that I am allegedly advocating?
I, like some other witnesses, understand that the benefits to steem of such a change are likely to be greater than keeping the system as it is. It has nothing at all to do with some kind of tax, it is simply an economic and business logic observation that makes senses for the entire system.
If you had read jerry's post, you would know that he states clearly that the idea of giving money for projects may actually mean that the top witnesses get MORE money than they do now since some of them run very popular projects. It's really just a situation of making steem's budget more productive and beneficial for every steemian. I might not gain a single cent from the change unless my project is one that people like - so unless you are inferring that I can somehow rig the vote, then the claim that my support for the idea suggests malicious intent on my part has no merit.
I never said your intentions were malicious.
the comment from @intothewild - infers a kind of greedy and inconsiderate maliciousness on my part. i would also say that your claims about my alleged intent to basically remove private property from everyone infer a maliciousness that amounts to theft.
As my tagline states "Good ideas don't require force". When I see someone (even if he was at one point) not in the top 20, calling for that bracket to give up/donate/tax, whatever you prefer to call it, half of their 'income', to fund his idea, regardless of the proposed benefits, it is immoral in my mind. Unless there is 100% consensus among all top 20 witnesses, I don't see it as being a voluntary interaction.
My issues are not personal, clearly, as I don't believe I have ever spoken to you or Jerry. As a voluntarist, which if I'm not mistaken you claim to be as well, surely you can see my initial distrust and skepticism of someone who claims to be noble and just, but first has to take a bunch of money from people to facilitate his ideas. Sounds a lot like government saying we need to rob you so we can protect you from robbers.
My original response was not to portray maliciousness on your part. I just saw the whole thing as simply misguided economical and philosophical beliefs that I used to once hold as well. Essentially, trying to help the community at the expense of others.
I want this place to be the best place in the world, like you, but I want to see it done with voluntary relationships. If this plan can achieve its goals that way, I'm all for it.
Their income is only their income because of the rules of the system which are themselves open to change. The rules are effectively decided by the witnesses themselves since they are changed via the hardfork process and the witnesses decide which hardforks get chosen. I think you have misunderstood the mechanics here. AFAIK, the current percentage allotted to the witnesses was defined by @dan and @ned during the project's conception - it is not a god given right.
no-one can force anything on the top 20 witnesses and effectively, it would only occur through their own voluntary acceptance of it.
it seems you are assuming that jerry, i or anyone else has powers that we do not have.
You're probably right. Having lived under the boot for 30 years, I need to understand and recognize that Steemit isn't a dictatorship. Or even a democracy. So even though people may come up with plans for HF's (which I may or may not agree with), they can't just slap an approved sticker on it and away we go.
This is such an interesting time to be alive and see first hand how this all plays out. Hope you have a great day and it is my hope that we can cordially chat about more issues in the future. Peace man.
You guys are both not in the top 20, who would be taking the pay cuts according to the proposal, either.
Also, saying interest on SP would be/should be “irrelevant” to users and developers is hilarious.
Jerry was in the top 20 for a couple of weeks or so. I aim to be in the top 20 - I am operating the witness server at a loss, you would know this if you had been listening to what i am saying. I am obviously not going to be doing something at a loss and starting projects to help Steem if my intention is not to also be in the top 20 one day.
I did not say that interest on SP should be irrelevant to anyone - that was Jerry. I have already made clear elsewhere that Jerry's proposal is not perfect, I have never said that it should be adopted as it is. I personally don't even think interest needs to be effected by the solution.
Most witnesses response to jerry's idea was initially positive and the counter arguments lack substance - in fact many aren't even arguments. Some of your points are valid, but some of them are misrepresenting the situation.
That's a fair point. I did not know that. Thank you for clarifying.
Right. I said that Jerry said that, not you.
no problem, you are welcome!
you did not say that jerry said that in the sub-thread here and i read your comment here as if you were suggesting that I supported his idea regarding interest. nothing i have written on this topic is in support of the ideas about interest. as i have already said, i do not agree with everything in his proposal - it's a big proposal! i didn't for a moment, when reading the proposal, think that the community would just take his idea in totality and attempt to implement every aspect of it without discussion - that's just not how such things are done. a surprising number of people are demonstrating that they don't have much experience of implementing system changes among large numbers of stake holders and for their own reasons are just assuming that there is only one option - take what jerry says or dump it all. the reality is that such complex systems start with a rough concept and are then refined as more and more problems and challenges are highlighted and fixed. this is what i have been trained to do for any scale of problem and project - it is what i have done for nearly 20 years. it is true that i am not familiar with working on systems where there is such a vast number of eyes looking at the documents and writing, with such a diverse range of levels of experience of participating in such processes. I will certainly take that into consideration when commenting on such things in the future.
That's a fair point. And point taken. I appreciate you correcting my assumption here.
I'm well aware of this.
The common thread I sense with both you and Jerry is a lack of a real concrete understanding of property, and that is mainly what I was getting at with this post. You had asked me why I removed my vote for you as witness, and that is why.