You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Hardfork 21 - Steem Proposal System (SPS) + Economic Improvement Proposal (EIP)

in #hf216 years ago (edited)

I am not presenting evidence because I don’t have any. I’m not trying to argue with you and say you are wrong and I am right. I am basing my decision on my own observations and understanding of how the stakeholders are behaving under the current incentives structure. My hope is that the new incentives structure will change stakeholder behavior.

You claim self-voting is a problem when only 6.4% of total votes are self-voted, a tiny problem by my estimation.

Where have I ever said this?

You claim the price of Steem is somehow related to these rewards distribution without evidence.

I don’t think I said this either.. The price of STEEM is 100% based on the supply and demand for STEEM. All I can do is speculate on what forces drive demand.

You claim that what really matters are large stakeholders.

Again, where did I say this?

the rest I earn by posting and you are trying to make it harder for people like me to earn my way.

I have told you already - I am not. My goal is actually to try and increase the amount of money that authors (who are contributing and adding value) make.

You just can’t see it because your paycheck depends on not seeing it.

I don’t know what you are implying, but I am free to vote on this hardfork however I would like. I am 1000 times more concerned about my paycheck going down due to the price of STEEM going down than I am of loosing witness votes for voting a certain way on this hardfork. You are correct that I am voting a certain way because my paycheck depends on it - just not in the way you think. I want the price of STEEM to go up (not down) which is why I am planning to vote yes.

Sort:  

You claim the price of Steem is somehow related to these rewards distribution without evidence.
I don’t think I said this either.. The price of STEEM is 100% based on the supply and demand for STEEM. All I can do is speculate on what forces drive demand.

In your post: https://steempeak.com/hf21/@timcliff/hardfork-21-steem-proposal-system-sps-economic-improvement-proposal-eip#@timcliff/pt9gg6

The following claim are made by YOU: "The STEEM price has fallen significantly from the all-time-high, and there is not much optimism for it going much higher than it is today. In fact, a lot of people are worried that it will just continue to go lower."

This is within the context of the rewards structure changes proposed in the EIC. If I'm getting this wrong it's because you've explained it poorly, but in context, I interpret this to mean that because of the current rewards structure, people aren't vesting and therefor the price is falling. Keep in mind here that when you make changes to this economic system based on speculation, you're taking us all on the ride with you.

You claim that what really matters are large stakeholders.
Again, where did I say this?

Screen Shot 20190619 at 8.30.50 AM.png

the rest I earn by posting and you are trying to make it harder for people like me to earn my way.
I have told you already - I am not. My goal is actually to try and increase the amount of money that authors (who are contributing and adding value) make.

You're right. What I should have said is that you will in practice make it harder for people like me to earn my way and benefit large stake holders. As a side note, you're decreasing transactional clarity for the public. If you want to see my thinking on this check out @thecryptodrive's thread on this matter.

The tour de force is:

I am not presenting evidence because I don’t have any.

Tim. If you were me and I promised you all of these changes were going to make things better, but then couldn't cite any real world examples backing up my claims from any other area of real world economic studies, would you trust me? If you couldn't see any detailed polling from the community if the proposed changes were what they wanted, would you trust me if I told you that it was simply based on my observations without showing showing you what data or experimentation led to your conclusions? If you were me, and you were told that your pay was getting cut, but that hypothetically you'd get more in some distant future, would you honestly believe me? We don't know each other. I have no way of trusting each other and I don't think that the number of your witness position necessarily makes adept at understanding how all these changes are going to affect us.

You just can’t see it because your paycheck depends on not seeing it.
I don’t know what you are implying

You know exactly what I'm implying, but just in case you don't, let me be explicit. You are a large stakeholder and you stand to gain a large financial reward from this change. Am I incorrect in this assumption? If so, I'd like to see the math proving me wrong. If I am wrong, I apologize.

FINALLY

You claim self-voting is a problem when only 6.4% of total votes are self-voted, a tiny problem by my estimation.
Where have I ever said this?

You're right. I must have confused you with someone else and so I apologize for that.

In the end, you and the other Top 20 have done a real crap job at convincing the rest of us that these changes are the right course of action, and you're right, you are free to vote however you like. The crux of the matter is that - at this stage at least - I don't think you or the others are worthy of your positions or have earned the right to make these changes.

This is within the context of the rewards structure changes proposed in the EIC. If I'm getting this wrong it's because you've explained it poorly, but in context, I interpret this to mean that because of the current rewards structure, people aren't vesting and therefor the price is falling.

That's fair. My main point is that our current economic model is not conducive for bringing in new investment. While I don't have sources to cite, it is based on a large number of conversations that I have had with existing and potentially new stakeholders over the past three years. I feel it is a self evident point to a large extent, as pretty much anyone here can have the same conversation with potential new investors and discover the same thing. (If you are actually able to convince people to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into STEEM - please let me know how.)

You claim that what really matters are large stakeholders. Again, where did I say this? ...

You are misquoting me. I was speaking strictly in terms of rewards. That is the way our rewards system works - the stakeholders with the most funds have the most control over the distribution of rewards.

If you were me and I promised you all of these changes were going to make things better, but then couldn't cite any real world examples backing up my claims from any other area of real world economic studies, would you trust me?

But that's the thing. I'm not sitting here "promising" you that this will fix things. I'm actually doing more the opposite. I'm telling you that I don't know whether it will work, but this is what I see as the best path forward based on my understanding of the economics and community.

If you couldn't see any detailed polling from the community if the proposed changes were what they wanted

The "polling" has occurred over a several year period. There have been several hundred posts where the community has discussed and debated a lot of these proposals.

I see it as my responsibility to do my best to understand what is best for the platform and community and act accordingly. I also see it as my responsibility to do my best to explain my reasoning behind my decisions, and accept constructive criticism and adapt if I discover that my positions are clearly wrong. I do not however see it as my responsibility to explain it to the extent where everyone agrees with my point of view and understands every detail of every conversation that I've had over the past three years to arrive at my decision.

I don't think that the number of your witness position necessarily makes adept at understanding how all these changes are going to affect us.

I want the price of STEEM to go up. I want authors who are contributing value to the platform to earn more. I want stakeholders who are "milking" the system and taking rewards without actually adding anything of value to earn less. While we may strongly disagree on what is the best path to get there - are we at least on the same page in terms of overall objectives?

You are a large stakeholder and you stand to gain a large financial reward from this change. Am I incorrect in this assumption? If so, I'd like to see the math proving me wrong. If I am wrong, I apologize.

I earned 0.987 SP from curation last week. Going from 25% curation to 50% curation would likely double that. I am certainly not going to retire from an extra 1 STEEM per week.

I am not going to earn a cent from the inflation that is going into the SPS, as I am not planning to make any proposals.

I do own 77,000 STEEM, and I earn ~300 SP per day from my witness rewards. If the price of STEEM goes up 2x, I am going to make a lot of money. If the price of STEEM goes down by 50%, I am going to loose a lot of money. My incentives are 100% aligned for me to care about whether the STEEM price goes up or down. My goal is to make it go up.

In the end, you and the other Top 20 have done a real crap job at convincing the rest of us that these changes are the right course of action, and you're right, you are free to vote however you like.

This ties into what I said above. I do not see it as my job to convince anyone. I consider it my responsibility to do my best to make the right decision for what is best for the platform. If I am not doing a good job at that, then I should be replaced.

The crux of the matter is that - at this stage at least - I don't think you or the others are worthy of your positions or have earned the right to make these changes.

There is plenty of legitimate criticism to make of the witnesses. For a lot of the witnesses (not going to single anyone out) I agree with you 100%. At least for myself though, I do consider myself to be the right person for the job. I take these decisions very seriously, and I work very hard to understand all of the repercussions from the decisions we make. I spent countless hours talking to users, stakeholders, other witnesses, and Steemit, Inc. in order to get the best possible understanding of what is going on.

While you may not agree that the decision I am making is "right" (and maybe it really is the wrong decision) - I assume you that I am doing my best to make as informed and correct of decision as I can to lead to the best possible outcome for our platform / community.

Thank you for being so detailed in your responses. I appreciate you and @thecryptodrive taking the time to explain yourselves and the actions of the broader Top 20. I think we're going to agree to disagree that what is being implemented is "best" for the community at large because objectively it favors large stakeholders such as yourself while hypothetically helping creators. That's just not good enough for me.

I love Steem and the dream it represents. That said, what I am most concerned about is new user retention, keeping the platform creator centric and the process by which changes are made.

The process is terrible, somehow simultaneously diffuse and opaque. It happens across many different accounts, on Discord servers and in the comments sections. It engenders mistrust and demonstrates that the Top 20 literally have no idea what they're doing. There is no outside consultation of experts, scientific polling and no public forums in a centralized place. TokenBB isn't going to cut it. I suggest regular AMA's on Reddit's /r/steem, despite the objections I've received for the heresy of even suggesting it.

For what it's worth, I believe it is your responsibility to convince us why the changes you want to implement are a good idea and to do it in a place we can all come to at the same time, on a platform that is devoid of the politics and mechanics of Steem.

You get to decide what happens here, which is a tremendous amount of power. There appears to be a huge backlash to these changes, and it's because that responsibility is being neglected. You seem like a competent developer, but people are at stake here. We all have a stake in the platform, and very little effort went into getting a coherent consensus on board.

You may not think it's your responsibility, but I assure you that it is. If you don't want that responsibility you need to power down your servers and your SP and find a place that will allow you to develop software without the burden of user interests and opinions.

Be one of us for a while.