RE: Steem Works: A Funding Mechanism for a Worker Proposal System by ats-david

View this thread on: d.buzz | hive.blog | peakd.com | ecency.com

Viewing a response to: @ats-david/re-lavater-re-aggroed-steem-works-a-funding-mechanism-for-a-worker-proposal-system-20171217t152830845z

·@aggroed·
0.000 HBD
Please don't put words in my mouth ats.  Sometimes I find you very difficult to interact with.  If you could try to be less abrasive in the future that would be swell.

The 93% statistic was hosted on steemwhales.com, which hasn't been updated all that recently.  So, the number is approximately 1-2 months old.  The 93% was actually excluding Steemit's share, and makes the distribution worse.  Similarly the distribution is made worse because many whales have alt accounts and some with a lot of steem and that wouldn't be captured by the distribution number I mentioned.  So, best case scenario is 25ish people own 93% stake, but it's likely worse than that and by quite a large margain.

The proposal is to stop putting a stupid amount of inflation back into Steemit INC or any other mega whale.  I don't think it's helping to grow the platform.  We need new investors and new users more than I need Steemit INC to centrally hold another 5M steem.  So, we can either reduce inflation, keep inflation the same and reroute to the other distribution paths, or reroute it a worker proposal system.  

After some thoughtful discussion @timcliff and I thought it would be best in a worker fund because centralized funding for decentralized projects to help the ecosystem will help Steem take off and get out of our $1-2 rut.  This empowers lots of people to do small tasks that help the ecosystem and that's what we need.

I'm also not saying we should redistribute their steem.  You're the one calling for them to burn however much of it.  I'm simply stating it's time to stop giving them more for a passive stake.  This isn't a communist revolution post where we kill the Steemit Devs and take their Steem.  It's a post to say "Hey, I think we can do better than giving up to 15% of our inflation back to the largest accounts."  Let's give it to smaller accounts who do work on behalf of the network.

What I actually think hurts Steem as a community is high profile people running around calling Steemit Inc Stinc, and generally tarnishing an already hurt brand.  I think it's better to tweak the economics of this place to favor sustainable growth and try to get to work building it with a funding source that wouldn't cost the platform money so much as reroute from steemit inc to the rest of the platform to use.  I also think it needs some cheerleading to say "Hey, other than the distribution this place is pretty amazing."  So, I've been doing that too.

Lastly, I'm not anti-investor, but I am anti-dumb investment.  That inflation is basically imperceptible to everyone except Steemit, and I think we'd be better off putting our money in a decentralized place to grow.  At the very least we should stop funneling more money back to Steemit.

Just when and if you respond please try to be respectful of me personally, this ecosystem, and the people working their ass off at Steemit.
👍 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,