RE: Why don't people comment more on steemit?
> So the system is broken. Instead of solving it "abuse fighters" are flagging small users to death for "abuse" while leaving whale "abusers" alone.
Horseshit statement.
You can only stop the bigger guys by having more SP than they do. Not only that, but by a wide margin. Think about that for a second.
You ain't making a statement by landing a tiny downvote on them. They will laugh it off and make sure you can't stop other "abusers" while they still make out like bandits.
Not being able to zero them out means you will never stop them. Did you know @spaminator has been flagging two whale alts for ages and it did nothing because they are spamming thousands of comments a day at 0.10 a piece?
There is a point they become pretty much unstoppable. In fact, once you have over 500K SP, there's not much anyone can efficiently do short of dropping STINC's 32M SP on you.
When bernie was spamming like death few weeks ago why was nobody doing a thing about it? I don't believe that nobody wouldn't have noticed it.
Not that i don't get it, it's the same like a suicide mission. Nobody wants to end up like fulltimegeek. But it's like the DEA equivalent of busting a few small time pot dealers for a few grams while leaving pablo escobar alone because he got a good army.
Not that i'm against spam, the truth is nobody really cares about spam. Check out this poll it got some very interesting data: https://dpoll.xyz/detail/@niel96/what-things-should-be-improved-to-make-steem-great-again/
The real problem is bit bot abuse. But it's like cooling a hot plate down with a few drips of water. Because the system is faulty at it's core. As long as there are voting bots people are going to abuse them, it's to easy not to. My point is: proof of brain failed. There are better ways to curate content.
The problem is that steem only takes upvotes into account to rank content, that doesn't make any sense. Because we all know that upvotes are not an indication of good content. What they should do is rank content on different factors. How long is the content, how much engagement is there, how is the reputation of the author, how much is the post shared, ...
Steemit is pretty much thumb when it comes to ranking content. Youtube is much better in this, you can spend 6 hours on youtube without even noticing it because you get showed all the things you are interested in. The algorithm is very good in figuring out in what people want to see.
That's a front end issue. I don't even use Steemit to browse these days. They are able to gather those metrics, if they don't want to implement them, that's their problem.
You know how peeps in crypto always preach
be your own <insert whatever bs here>. Yeah, maybe it's time to actually do that instead of blaming the people trying to curb the big guys with very limited resources.I like how
decentralizationis only a slogan when it suits their agenda. Otherwise, it's always some other "entity's" fault as they stay on the sidelines.What's even the point of all this in the first place. Upvotes are financed by inflating the currency so in essence the community pays for upvotes. So we all just pay ourselves in some way.
Usually that's not how business works, you can't just print money and give it away to the community. As long as the growth is bigger than the inflation it's not a problem but this is not something sustainable.
How is this any different from what central banks are doing with their QE? This is even worse because the whole business model of Steem is just printing money.
I'm not saying it will fail but it's not really a free lunch, you have to fight off the inflation.
A system like this is also easy to abuse.
What's the difference between that and the various forks in crypto for quick cash? It's not just a Steem problem. lol
Have a few more dickheads like CSW and your top 10 will be filled with random BTC clones with at least 21M tokens a piece.