Open Letter to Ned and Dan: You Badly Need a Communications/Community/Content Expert and I Hereby Nominate @stellabelle or @donkeypong For That Job

in #steemit8 years ago (edited)

HearNoEvilb23ca.jpg

Everybody is talking about it this week and no one else will post this. If we cannot express a politically unpopular opinion on Steemit, then what kind of free marketplace of ideas is this? So I’ll do it; I’ll post it. Here are the ideas that much of this community has been talking about for a week in the chat channels, but no one else will publish. They have families to support or Steem businesses that stand to lose; they have too much at stake to handle the blowback. But I’m just a former lawyer who lays carpet and grows his own tomatoes. So I don’t care; I’ll post it.

And I’ll go a step further. At the end of this lengthy and well-documented complaint, I’ll suggest a solution to this mess.

Confession: I was a Steemit PR Writer

A friend introduced me to Steemit early on. Within days, I was making long posts, and the most popular ones were about the Steemit opportunity. I wrote several early articles about curation rewards and how someone could earn good money by voting.

atm4691a.jpg

Back then, if I submitted a Steemit post that didn’t hit $800 within the first 10 minutes, I considered it a failure. We were telling Steemit’s story and we just scooped up the rewards. Whales loved that we put the information out there for the community. And the real writers hadn’t arrived yet.

How does one go from a dense whitepaper and the code on Github to actually communicating with a social community of typical tech-deficient people? There were two main ways. First, Dan’s posts have been pretty good at explaining why things are important, but they have fallen far short of explaining what they mean to average people and how a Steemit user can benefit from using them. So second, it took writers like @donkeypong and @gavvet and @cryptoctopus and @nanzo-scoop to tell that story early on. When @stellabelle got here, she took things to a whole new level, though she didn’t write many Steemit infomercials.

We were hired guns for Steemit, Inc. We hired ourselves; they didn’t have to do it. But we would check with the developers and witnesses about pending releases, try to get a layperson’s understanding of what was going on, and then we would post articles that made $1,000 or more for explaining some aspect of this system and how real people could use it.

My point: They needed us then. And today, they have that same need, but a much bigger gap has formed. Top writers have mostly moved away from writing about Steemit, because the big whales will not reward those article topics anymore. While that’s the right direction for the platform, we have been left with a communications void that is much larger than it was before.

Now writers and curators have no clue what is happening behind the scenes. And Steemit, Inc. is not capable of explaining things to the community any more clearly now than they did before.

Result? A bloodletting on the markets this month.

But read on, dear friends, since I propose a solution.

Open Letter to Ned and Dan


Dear Ned and Dan,

You have created something special here with Steemit. But it is suffering due to your team’s awful communication. The communication has been lacking since I got here in May. But the last two weeks have set a new low. Now we are hurtling towards Hardfork 14 on Tuesday with its deeply unpopular vote balancing change and NO ONE, outside of perhaps 10 people on Github, has any clue how to prepare.

How do we set the default voting strength? What will the algorithm do? Will there be a user-friendly “web interface version” for idiots that sets the default voting strength so that peoples’ voting strength is not zapped automatically, something they can understand easily enough? How can these large curation operations prepare for this fickle cliff?

A lot of minnow posts next week are set to go unrewarded and frustrated people may quit the platform, because curation operations have no choice but to take a deep pause.

And wait for clear guidance from your team that may never come.

Mins4e9c9.jpg

Why? Because nothing has changed. Your team still has not shown that it can communicate effectively with the community.

This vote rebalancing was unnecessary, it is deeply unpopular in the community, and it makes the site worse. A close friend of mine showed me a private message he’d exchanged with a senior member of the Steemit Team who actually wrote on Slack that the pending vote rebalancing change “might have the adverse effect you mention” after my friend had suggested that it may kill the platform. I’m sorry to throw that insinuation out there without proper attribution, but the source is very credible, the person who wrote that is one of the few people who work directly for Steemit, and I stake my reputation on it as a co-author of the Steemit 101 e-book.

So the Steemit team itself is not sure that it won’t kill the platform, yet the vote rebalancing change still has not been stripped out; it’s included in the HF 14 release that’s going live on Tuesday. And this change is extremely unpopular in the community, an opposition which your team has dismissed as “uninformed” when in fact those dissenters have some very strong reasons for objecting. These reasons simply have been ignored by the Steemit, Inc.

Which can only mean that this change is being forced on the team and community from the top down.

TopDown54111.png

That’s some decentralized, community-driven decision-making. And if you believe the community doesn’t get it, then whose fault is that? As usual, there has been no decent communication.

Instead, Dan took precious time to post an article which addressed some wacky proposal for letting people cash out Steem Power right away. To me, that speaks to a serious lack of confidence or misdirection. Most people who saw that post laughed at the idea; even the author may have been laughing.

For Dan to write a long post in response was quite unnecessary when there are clearly much large issues that must be communicated and explained to the community. In fact, it smacks of being very seriously out-of-touch with the community.

Do you guys believe in the changes you are putting forward, such as this power down penalty? Or are you just thinking these up on the fly, throwing stuff at the wall, and seeing what sticks? As a former lawyer who has analyzed the comments that both of you have made on many posts, I sadly believe that it’s the latter. Is this no more than an experiment, even though peoples’ livelihoods are at stake?

If we don’t have a proposed change that’s definitively better than the current setup, why not just keep this and work with it? If it ain’t badly broken, please don’t throw a monkey-wrench in it. Let this thing develop and grow. Haven’t we come too far to play those kinds of games?

Apparently not.

timeoutf0e8b.jpg

The Most Uninformed, Dismissive, and Disrespectful Comment I Have Ever Seen on Steemit Came From One of Your Own Employees Last Week. And Nobody From Steemit, Inc. Addressed It.

I understand that there have been some nasty politics in recent months. I understand that people get passionate about beliefs and they say things they might later regret. I also understand that @nextgencrypto has disagreed with Dan and his team on many things, notably the most controversial previous fork in Steemit’s history. And that some people said he was a real jerk about it. And that he has sold some Steem, as many have (how else do you get it into new hands?).

None of that justifies a comment like this from a Steemit employee. I have been waiting for it to be deleted or for someone on your team to apologize for it (to the community, if not to the person to whom it was directed), and yet none of you seem to care. It still sits on Steemit as a testament to how badly your team’s communication is failing. Is this amateur hour?
Screenshot180a2742.png

Apparently so. Amateur stuff. @smooth knows better, as you can see from his replies.

Apparently, @val missed this post by @donkeypong : https://steemit.com/steemit/@donkeypong/announcing-project-curie-bringing-rewards-and-recognition-to-steemit-s-undiscovered-and-emerging-authors

And this one by @curie : https://steemit.com/project-curie/@curie/project-curie-s-daily-curation-list-8-sept-9-sept-2016

And this one by @furion : https://steemit.com/stats/@furion/homepage-payout-distribution-power-law-and-project-curie

Along with a host of others.

By the way, here is the chart from @furion’s excellent post (below). @furion is not involved directly with Project Curie. But he analyzed every vote that the project had made in a certain period and came up with this. What are you looking at? Rewards for posters on the Trending page.

And EVERY SINGLE RED LINE was a Project Curie post, upvoted and rewarded by @nextgencrypto and his friend @berniesanders . @nextgencrypto donates a ton of voting power to this project and he shares his curation rewards with the team, who pay it out to curators in the community who find worthy, unrewarded posts from people who are not established authors yet.

FurionChartddc7b.png

You can dislike someone, maybe for good reasons, but to accuse that person of not curating to help the site when @nextgencrypto does this more effectively to help others than anyone else on Steemit right now, that is a statement that the Steemit group should have apologized for…and did not.

By all accounts, @val is a valuable member of your team. I’m sure he does great work on the site. But in defaming investors and whales who are funding some of the most effective projects on Steemit, projects which have the power to save this site from its failings, it’s clear that @val understands little about how Steemit really works beyond the code.

As a former lawyer, who is qualified to give only a layperson’s opinion (not legal advice), I will even mention that this statement is worse than dumb. It may qualify as actionable defamation (libel, in this case, which is a civil cause of action in court). And still no public statement from Steemit, Inc.?

Libel3c1ca.jpg

Did you read the @curie post above? Here are some screenshots (below). This is just ONE DAY of @nextgencrypto ‘s curation. His votes rewarded EVERY SINGLE ONE of these people. These posts sat for hours at under $10 before Project Curie rescued and rewarded them, thanks to @nextgencrypto ‘s vision and support. His whale votes were the reason these posts rose to prominence and that the authors felt encouraged by their experience on Steemit, not discouraged enough to leave it forever.

Screenshot181a87f8.png
Screenshot1827c10f.png
Screenshot183846f4.png
Screenshot184d42ba.png
Screenshot185b5150.png
Screenshot186f4fd4.png
Screenshot1874be88.png
Screenshot188d91f7.png

That’s just one day. @nextgencrypto is rewarding deserving posters like that every day. Now that’s dedicated curation.

Do you still think that this large investor/whale does nothing to help Steemit and that all he does is cash out?

You guys should let your people out once in a while. Or maybe breathe a little less venom in their direction, because apparently they take it as gospel and extend it to make entirely invalid criticisms. I love that you let everybody post and air their views. But any reputable organization I have ever worked for would have released a comment by now disavowing that employee’s statement, even if you supported his right to make it. It is utterly unbelievable to me that we have not seen this statement addressed.

There is no true communications presence at Steemit, Inc., nor is there much understanding of the work and needs of writers and curators. This site will die if you don’t listen.

Fine8aa7a.jpg

You Need a Content Expert and Someone Who Can Explain Things to the Community

There are two people in this community who are above it all. They are better than this petty political shit. They see beyond the code. They know how to write and how to curate. They know what content creation involves, which I’m pretty sure your team takes for granted and does not fully understand. These two people are so successful that they have written their way up to whalehood or whaledom, becoming the two most successful Steemit writers in terms of their Steem Power holdings.

They give of their time to help others. They have formed deep, loyal friendships throughout the community. Combined, these two have mentored or given a real boost to probably 30% of the authors who regularly hit the Trending list on Steemit. Everyone in this community looks up to these people.

And they know how to explain things in terms that a layperson can understand.

I hereby suggest that you create a new position at Steemit, Inc. for a Content Advisor/PR Writer and that you offer this position to either Leah Stephens @stellabelle or Tom Janowicz @donkeypong . One of them would transform your communications problem in a hurry. They would add instant credibility to anything they help you announce and explain, because the community trusts them and because they know what content creators need in terms of information and support.

One of them would solve these problems.

And as @stellabelle herself has even suggested on forum channels, perhaps it is time to convene a Council of Content Creators (Writers, Artists, and Others), which could be advisory to the Steemit team. It’s become clear to us that there is little understanding or support for the work that we do to create the content that drives Steemit.

If I can be of any further help, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Richard Kaplan, @steemship

P.S. As a reminder, we have a hardfork scheduled for Tuesday and no one in the community understands a f****** thing about how to adapt their behavior to accommodate this vote balancing.

Trustdcdab.jpg

#steemit
#steemit-ideas

References: Post links included. Thumbnail image is public domain from Pixabay. Other images are public domain or used under license.

Sort:  

Dear Richard,

Wow. That took some serious guts to write. I commend you for your honesty and I thank you for thinking about me in the context of what you see as a solution. I believe that @donkeypong would be an excellent choice in that role.

I have also been experiencing the same things you mentioned with regards to the cognitive dissonance. It suddenly dawned upon me last month that Steemit was not created by artists/writers/curators who would instinctively know what needed to be done for future artists/writers/curators. We have a very detail-oriented programmer/visionary and an ex-private equity fund manager who knows a great deal about finance and markets. Steemit is an excellent bank and I greatly appreciate the blockchain and all the technical aspects of its construction. I also feel indebted to this site because it rewarded me for my writing, in a way that no other client has ever rewarded me for. Like all things, however, now, I do feel that I am not able to speak my mind, for fear of backlash and flagging. I did not see this coming.
I agree with your assessment that there seems to be a lack of emotional intelligence and an inability to listen, take feedback and then turn that feedback into action. This kind of thing does require a certain kind of personality and it also requires life experience and maturity.

I see the primary issue as a tug of war between attempting to create a decentralized, transparent system and a centralized chain of command. By posting as individuals on Steemit and letting the community comment freely, it gives the illusion of a decentralized system. However, when an unpopular hardfork goes into effect, despite the fact that many prominent members, @donkeypong being the most visible voice, it gives rise to a pause. I don't think anyone really knows or understands why the vote count is going to be changed to 5 instead of 40. In my mind, a reduction of votes equals a sort of constriction effect, like a boa constrictor wrapping itself around my neck, which leads to a sort of rationing of energy which leads to stress, which leads to me wanting to get off Steemit in order to reduce the stress levels. And, no, I still don't understand what the restriction of votes mean. I read a bunch of posts and rebuttals, but to be honest, even I don't understand why it was changed. I doubt that many people even have the foggiest idea. Perhaps in theory it is a good idea, but to an artist, with a visually-enhanced imagination, I equate fewer votes with a scarcity mindset. An abundance mindset would mean that people would not have restrictions and would be encouraged to love the posts on steemit so much that they could vote to their heart's content. This is the cognitive dissonance that Richard is describing so well.
When you have Vulcans (And I use Vulcans in a good way, as Spock is one of my favorite characters) making rules for regular people, it turns out that the regular people don't really understand the rules at all, and continue playing their own game in spite of the rules, because they were never made for them in the first place. Vulcans just need to be balanced by regular people, that is what I meant to add.
I guess if I ran this place, I would send a huge apology to Richard. And then I would thank him for opening my eyes to the truth. Then I'd sit down, get several drinks ready and just sort of soak in everything that has gone down so far, while continuing to sip my drinks. I'd start listening to the people who are the power users and I'd really start reading everything that minnows are complaining about. I'd take several days off the regular grind, and dive into solving the issues for the users, because I'd realize that the users will either make or break my future. I'd start with reading every response from The Steemit User Survey because I would realize that the answers to the problems lie inside there. Then, I'd build my own surveys, in an attempt to collect more data on how to improve Steemit. I'd respond to the data and make changes based on what I found, not on preconceived notions of how I wanted to change it.
I guess that is what I would do. I would not give up, but I would not continue down the same path either. I would become more like water, less like rock. I would realize that I would still be in the running to alter the course of history. That is why I'd change.

I think the voting thing isn't really important, and may be helpful. It's just not been explained very well.
Because of the slider, it doesn't change how much voting power you have overall. It just means that you can give one single vote a higher percentage of your total voting power for the day.
So, you can set your power to 10 and vote 50 times, all at the same power. Or you can do 5 at 100%. Or you can do 25 votes at 50%. Or you can mix it up.
So, to me, this could be helpful, depending on how one wants to use it. Set your voting power at the right setting and leave it alone, then you'll have the exact same thing as if you voted 100% today. It just needs to be communicated better.
As for some of the other stuff, yeah... communication could go a long way.

this is absolutely false

Looking through your link, I really don't see where there's disagreement. Not sure how you could say it's "absolutely" anything.
If your article is accurate, then I said the same thing. Thanks for your article btw, it was helpful and lined up with how it had been explained to me earlier.

Because of the slider, it doesn't change how much voting power you have overall. It just means that you can give one single vote a higher percentage of your total voting power for the day.

Again, this is absolutely untrue. Your total voting power will change. If you're an active curator, it will go down. If you can now cast $50 worth of upvotes a day, you will be able to cast some dollar amount less than $50.

Hiding behind subjectivity doesn't change this, and neither does misrepresenting it as a feature. Or a bug fix for that matter.

Oh, I agree that it's not a bug fix. I'm still not grasping the nuance you're stating.

I have $40 worth of voting power for 24 hours today and I vote 40 times at 100%, each gets a buck.
I have $40 worth of voting power after update and i vote 40 times at 12.5% and each gets a buck? Or I can vote 5 times at 100%? Either way I get the same $40 worth.
Is that wrong?

I have $40 worth of voting power after update and i vote 40 times at 12.5% and each gets a buck? Or I can vote 5 times at 100%? Either way, I get the same $40 worth.
Is that wrong?

Yes, that's absolutely wrong. As I explain in detail in that post. I'm not sure if you just didn't read it or what. I literally have no idea how you could read that and think the above quote is what I believe or was trying to explain. In fact, in the comment section to that post, i even accepted a bet that the above statement wasn't true.

If you start at 40/day max before the fork, you will end at somewhere between $5 and $40 max per day after the fork. Either extremely is unlikely, and it will probably end up somewhere near the middle. It mostly depends on how many people prefork were casting their full 40 (the more that were the less you will lose)

But after biophil's comment, you seemed to affirm his accuracy - though you didn't expect folks to work that way.

biophil - One thing you left out of your model is the fact that Andy can cast most of his votes at 12.5% slider power, and then now and then cast a mega-vote at 100% power if he wants. This wouldn't change any weekly averages, but he could grab a bunch of influence in spurts. Still, he was almost certainly a lot better off before the change.
Your response
Now a big question is are they going to "dial down" their 100% votes. Given that theyd be acting against their own interest, its hard ot believe they would.
That seemed to click for me. But in your article you stated
To use shennanigator's model, if you could cast 40 100% votes per day worth 10 cents each before the change, after the change you would be able to cast 5 100% votes worth 34 cents after the change.
In this example, the total voting power drops from 400 to 170? Does this point to the inconsistency in the total between now and after the change that I am apparently not grasping? Don't knock yourself out. What happens will happen. I'm just trying to understand.

Even in biophils comment that you quoted, he says "This wouldn't change any weekly averages, but he could grab a bunch of influence in spurts. Still, he was almost certainly a lot better off before the change."

Basically, what hes saying is that you'll still lose out overall, but you will still be able to cast more vote power with your 100% vote (just not much more)

In this example, the total voting power drops from 400 to 170? Does this point to the inconsistency in the total between now and after the change that I am apparently not grasping?

Yes. So your 100% vote will be stronger, just not 8x stronger (like it would have to be for you to "break even" on going from 40 to 5 votes.)... How much stronger depends on how many inactive curators there are that get a bump from the change.

Active curators will definitely lose out.... it just has yet to be seen how much. If I had to make a spitball guess, I'd say theyll lose about 1/2 of their daily vote power in money terms.

Because the total daily reward pool is fixed?

If that's the case, then THAT is what wasn't clicking for me. I was stuck on individual numbers.

Its two main reasons:

  1. Like you said, a fixed reward pool.
  2. People who only vote 5x a day (freds) are getting a huge bonus.

Right now, infrequent voters are leaving a huge amount of meat on the bone. The change to a 5 vote target effectively optimizes them. The extra money infulence they get has to come from somewhere.
Now the question is, how many of them are there? Its tough to speculate. More than none, for sure.

Ahhh, finally. Thanks for taking the time. It was the total pool that messed me up. As soon as I saw that part, it all clicked.
So my perspective was certainly too simplistic.
Thanks again.

what happens if I do what I did the other day, which was I think I voted a bunch of times, maybe around 30 or 40 times with my voting power set to 100%? I have a habit of voting for almost anyone who leaves a comment on my posts, sort of a thank you for taking the time to interact with my post. So I vote a lot. If I can give 14 people each $1.39 for leaving my post a good comment, then I feel better, less stress. What will happen now if I upvote 14 people who leave a comment on my post at 100% voting strength. What is the result of that?

In truth, nobody really knows what is going to happen. If everyone used 100% on the slider now, and voted exactly the same way after the fork but reduced the slider to 12.5%, nothing would change (or at most it would be minimal).

However, there may be very significant changes in voting behavior, not everyone uses 100% (I use the minimum 1% quite often for example, and I will be forced into a weight 8x higher), so it all becomes a question of guesswork.

I agree the way this has been pushed out has been very problematic, including the fact that it was falsely labeled as a "bug fix".

I had this as a reply that was never submitted ... as you can see, our math (thankfully) agrees! I figured I may as well chime in as I had it written ... now if only I could click that button more appropriately ...

Essentially, this new rule allows you to contribute more rshares to a post / comment than is currently allowed. So, if you want to try to limit your contributions to people who are commenting on your posts, you can choose a lower limit and you'll have the same effect as when you had 100% prior. My guess is probably something around 12.5%.

@stellabelle: The way I see the change is like this:
Today you vote at 100% and an upvote i (s worth 1.39$ and consumes a certain amount of VP (Voting Power) in a manner that 40 upvotes (the recommended upvotes/day) at 100% brings the VP to 80%. VP recovers back to 100% in 24h.
After the fork, if you vote with 100% the reward will be 8x what it was before, so it will be 11.12$ per upvote. At the same time it will consume 8x more VP, so 5 upvotes (compared to 40 before) will bring you to 80% VP which will recover over the next 24h.
If you would want to keep your upvotes to the current reward rate, at 1.39$, you will only need to adjust the slider to maybe around 13%. If you do that, the VP burning rate will also remain as it is now.

I know there have been many discussions around this, but I also see it as an advantage. You can keep your current voting habit without burning the VP too fast if you use the slider. If you really liked a comment/post, you can supersize your vote up to 8x compared to what you can allocate at the moment by voting it at 100%.
All in all, if this indeed gets implemented in the next fork, be careful. I understand you have habit to vote often, if you don't use the voting slider to decrease the VP used, you will burn through your VP very quickly.


Edit: following sigmajin's comment below and re-reading his last post there are some things that change what I have said above. After the fork, @stellabelle's vote value does not remain the same if she votes 40times a day and using the slider, it decreases as other whales vote also and their vote has now more power. @sigmajin's post is a bit hard to grasp at first read but the bottomline I see is this:
If @stellabelle and @someotherwhale would vote every day, @stellabelle 40 times/day and @someotherwhale 5 times /day, they would each have an upvote value of 1.39$/upvote if their's SP is the same (and vote at exact times to make VP efficient).
In total, their reward would be: 62.55$ (1.39$ x 45 votes).

After the fork, the vote value at 100% would increase the upvote reward for both @stellabelle and @someotherwhale at 6.255$/upvote but that means that @someotherwhale eats up half of the total reward with his 5 votes and overall @stellabelle offers less reward every time she uses the slider to vote 40 times and as a total, overall.
So after the fork, if @stellabelle is using the voting slider to still vote 40 times within those 20% top Voting Power, her upvote value would be 0.78$ (62.55$ /2 whales /40 votes) as opposed to 1 upvote at 100% would be 6.255 (62.55$ /2 whales /5 votes) .
I hope @sigmajin agrees with this?

this is absolutely false. You can read about the real effects of these changes in my most recent blog post. Ive already linked in this thread, so im not going to link it again. But if youre an active curator, this change will definitely decrease your total voting power in money terms.

Kind of.

Basically, lets say stella's 45 votes right now are worth 62.55 like you say. If she is voting at 100%, that 62.55 is probably the max possible value her votes could have before the fork..

After the fork, he the max daily value of her votes will be somewhere between $7.81 and $62.55. Both of these extremes are very unlikely. In reality, it will probably be somewhere close to in the middle of these two values.

WHich is to say, stella, and every very active curator, will most certainly lose some influence. How much influence depends on how many @someotherwhales there are who have been casting 5 votes a day and will now be "optimized" by the change in vote target

I'm not the techy guy, so can only give you my understanding. It might be a bit flawed, but it made sense to me when explained the other day.
All you'd need to do is reduce your percentage to compensate for the new voting power. So if you might want to reduce it to 20% or something like that to basically do the same thing as 100% today.
A post making it absolutely clear would be helpful. Maybe someone made one, but if so I missed it.
I actually like this particular change. As long as folks know how to use it, if someone with some real upvote power only wants to give a few folks strong votes on a given day, they can give five people several times more power than today. Kinda cool, IMO.

I do NOT want to reduce my voting strength. That is what I am asking, what will be the consequence if I do not reduce my vote strength and I continue to do exactly as I do?

If you keep voting the same, at 100%, then your voting will not recover as quickly. I suppose it'll average out eventually so that it's similar anyway.
Obviously I'm not tech support. I think I understand the gist of it though. I hope that helps. :)

so, basically, I will no longer be able to give 14 different people $1.36 ?

Please keep going Leah, Im having a party over this :)

Actually, you will. You might be able to give that many people more. It's just that if you go over a certain amount, it'll take longer to recover. If you're only doing about 14 or so a day though, you'll probably find that they'll all get a little more than they would today. You'll just never get back to 100% (which will be much stronger than it is today).

By the way, your ex husband agreed to the interview, no wonder

There is nothing impossible or even difficult to adjust your voting power. Just do it.

I do NOT want to reduce my voting strength.

You really should adjust your voting strength according to the value of the post or comment you are voting for. That is something that humans should do, it's what separates us from bots. We should value great posts and nice comments differently. They are not equally worthy.

When you upvote nice comments with full power, you are basically allocating as much rewards as you can for people because they said something nice to you. It's great to thank for comments with an upvote, but it's not fair to distribute big sums of money for them. Powerful votes should go to great authors.

I just wrote about this: https://steemit.com/steem/@samupaha/humans-are-better-than-bots-at-valueing-posts

well why would you vote a just a commentat 100 percent, unless of course you really love them and what to make them a gift....why not indeed. But i think the voting slider is a great thing and helps me dose my voting like never before. So once this is truly realized !! Where indeed is the reason for complaining about this clear improvement brought by this new App ?? I think though that it could have been implemented differently as it did just happen over night without much notification to users and the general community. Would have been nicer to have discussed it perhaps more ! this i think is more the troubling part no?

Prospect theory!

What I've been thinking that there is a serious lack of UX chops in the Steemit's team. It is exactly the same problem that used to plague Linux community, as well as all other software in the early days. Oh, and a lack of communication is another hurdle. So I'd like to second the bit about learning the gripes of minnows, because it is one of the steps in good UX. But it goes a bit farther than just listening, and uses other tools as well, because people don't always know how to address the problems that they are having. That is the peoblems are often caused by something other than what user thinks, but listening to complaints is a good start to isolate the issues.

What I've been thinking that there is a serious lack of UX chops in the Steemit's team.

You're just now coming to realize this? You're absolutely right, UI / UX is definitely not a strong core competency with Dan's team(s).

The sad truth is @stellabelle that Steemit.com is not a democracy or even an anarchist paradise as we would like to believe. It is a Dictatorship run by two kings who have lost touch with reality and the will of the people. It is the "thirst for power" that destroys all great civilizations, governments and leaders.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

As long as @ned and @dan (aka @dantheman) continue to act in "their own interest" the community will suffer and eventually wither up and die. It is already happening and they are too blind to see that they are just "adding fuel to the fire".

In the 3 plus months I have been on steemit the only true "glimmer of hope" I have seen was when they "Open-Sourced" steemit.com allowing for others to have the chance to create "Alternative Versions of Steemit". But now I even question that decision as they locked Steemit-Alternatives to the Steem Blockchain in the Open-Source Licensing. It seems as if they merely took that action in a futile attempt to expand their power and reign to an even greater pool of minnows and servants.

From what I have read of @dan's posts he is an absolutely brilliant person (or has a brilliant person writing his content). Either way it is blatantly obvious that he and the rest of the Steemit, Inc. team have become complacent, arrogant and completely oblivious to the effect their decisions and actions are having on the people who are fighting to survive and ensure the survival of this amazing platform.

Come on, Leah. This job was made for you. I can see you in an office helping to manage this community! New York or Virginia?

I agree, I would love to see @stellabelle as Communications Liaison for Steemit, Inc. but only if @dan and @ned actually allowed her to do her job. It doesn't appear to me that they have any interest, desire or intention on actually empowering the people who have made them and put them into their current positions of power. They appear to have become "power hungry" and only taking actions they feel will extend their power or the domain in which they reign.

@stellabelle
Can you please stop calling people anything other than people?
It feels dehumanizing. I know you mean it as term of endearment, but it's not endearing.
Speaking as someone who probably qualifies as vulcan in your eyes, your attempts to dehumanize us are quite illogical because they are detrimental to your efforts to build what people would call an emotional bond.

I'm sorry.. I had to laugh out loud at this. We regularly refer to people on this site as Whales, dophins, minnows and even plankton but calling a techy sort of person a Vulcan is dehumanizing? Umm... there is something missing in this equation

One is a reference to their financial station and is more like a title, such as Dr.

The other is a reference to their perceived inability to connect with others at an emotional level, or worse to care about the emotions of others. So yes it's a huge difference.

umm.. right you roll with that if it works for you LOL

Someone build a safe spot. ;) (only said in fun)

No SAFE SPACES this site will never become REDDIT.....PLEASE!

Hell I hope everyone else actually got the joke too!
That's something I'm still trying to sort out about this place. Humor appears to be severely lacking.

Agreed! lol - You have to type: I AM KIDDING

What are you smoking dude, there was nothing about her reference to Vulcan's that was dehumanizing.....as if that is even possible since Vulcan's are not HUMAN. I read her comment and I saw nothing but admiration and respect for the Vulcan people, the same admiration and respect she shows to everyone. Even those who speak out against her, bad mouth her or try and discredit her!

Looks to me like a volunteer has stepped forward with a plan. A Steemit leader with a plan and a vision. The next step is up to @ned and @dantheman. Gentlemen?

Just go to sleep dear

No wonder you are famous around here! Nicely said. I hope it will be received.

I guess maybe I didn't understand as well as I thought I did. Of course, as @smooth said, nobody really knows. That was the way it was explained in an earlier thread on this topic.

Dear Richard, Im desperate.....

Let me comment on my comment mentioned in this post.

  • This was my personal opinion. You may see the devs team as some solid unit from the outside (I see the reason @nextgencrypto called me @dan's sockpuppet after I upvoted a couple of @dan's posts) but in reality we are very diverse in terms of opinions and ideas, btw we have a very tense debates almost every day on the same topics discussed here.
  • I didn't know about @currie project upon making my comment. I may change my opinion after assessing its results, but probably I should apologize ahead - it's pretty obvious that community formed here is in favor of this project so I conclude it works well for the community.
  • I will refrain to voice up my opinion here any further - I'm not very savvy in legal issues and I don't want to be sued.
  • Please note english is not my native language, this is why I try to be careful with my wording but probably sometimes this is not enough, it's easier for me to refrain from commenting all together especially considering legal issues I mentioned above.

I will refrain to voice up my opinion here any further - I'm not very savvy in legal issues and I don't want to be sued.

I mentioned this earlier Itt, but feel compelled to mention it here too. The notion that any of your statements even comes close to libel is flat out absurd, for many reasons. Steemship implying that it did was irresponsible. Even though i don't necessarily agree with your opinion about bernie, no one should have to self-censor based on the (patently ridiculous) threat of a lawsuit.

Agreed. What he said doesn't remotely come close to being libel. I can't believe that a lawyer would make an assertion like that.

On second thought - yes, I can. :)

I addressed your earlier comment separately, but will not do so here again.

Thank you. It is good of you to post this response. I hope that you continue to voice your opinion. The main issue I identified in that post was the team's lack of communication and I felt that its inability to address your comments were an illustration of that.

Why would I want to continue to voice up my opinion if you (as well as a lot of other community members upvoted your post and comments) still project my personal opinion onto dev's team and say the team needs to comment on it?

And also could you please comment on this:

@ats-david: What he said doesn't remotely come close to being libel. I can't believe that a lawyer would make an assertion like that.

Or just don't bother and move on. I think I made my decision - it's not a fun to participate in this community anymore.
Good luck writing posts that make you most of the money. Hope whales would move focus back to steemit topics so commenting on our github commits would be profitable again.

I assume this is a second account you are using to post another response?

The money from this post was donated to Project Curie. I do not write for money. I wrote this to put the truth out there. Your original comment was not correct and it was quite harmful to a lot of people, I called you on it as part of the larger point I was making about team communication, you replied with dignity, and I accepted your response and thanked you for it. Now you come back and insult me after I thought we had put this behind us?

You're always free to your opinion. And I will always support that right. If your comments are correct, I will agree with you. If they are objectively false and damaging to the platform and people who are working to make it better, I'll freely exercise my own freedom to set the record straight.

it's not a fun to participate in this community anymore.

This sounds sad to me.

Now we are hurtling towards Hardfork 14 on Tuesday with its deeply unpopular vote balancing change and NO ONE, outside of perhaps 10 people on Github, has any clue how to prepare.

Spot on. It is ridiculous that this is still happening and I have talked to few people who actually agree with the change to the vote balancing.

The idea for having someone to liaise with the community is a very good one. I also think your idea to have a team or panel of authors of various genres or disciplines to help communicate community sentiment is also a great idea.

Whether it is accurate or not there is a feeling that the top of the Steemit management tree are aloof to the concerns of vast majority of the community.

The outrageous attitude towards @berniesanders / @nextgencrypto is an example of this. In addition to various curation projects he is involved in he does also talk to people in the chat too. To make him out as some kind of mercenary traitor is outrageously disrespectful and just shows a lack of knowledge about what is going on around here.

That is not the only thing that has been ignored though and I'm sad to see notable contributors like @tuck-fheman making posts about quitting because their warnings and concerns have been ignored. Just check out his latest post to see why.

When the voting changes come I suspect it we will see a big fall in voting and the people who will suffer most will be the small minnows. Further those who were actually doing a lot curation will end up getting fewer rewards and will have less reason to curate as much.

I think this will prove to be even more of a failure than the shift to 12 hour payouts.

Anyway I've said enough. Very important post and thanks for having the balls to come out and say what needed to be said.

You've been right in the mix too man, I hope voices like yours start getting heard, cause it's kinda getting freaky when I hear stuff about folks like tuck quitting :(

Thanks that is kind of you. I have been trying to help others by using my own money to tip people and promote other people's posts but it does get disheartening when you see people still quitting all over the place. I do hope tuck stays.

I would love to see the public apology from @val to @nextgencrypto as well. He invested his time for steemit like a real employer. Btw, many thanks for shouting that out loud, @steemship.

Yes. There is never any harm in apologising. I do it all the time. Everyone screws up it not something to be afraid of admitting to.

Adding my name to the list of people who would mostly be working for pennies without @berniesanders @nextgencrypto @curie @donkeypong. Much love to all of them.

Now we are hurtling towards Hardfork 14 on Tuesday with its deeply unpopular vote balancing change and NO ONE, outside of perhaps 10 people on Github, has any clue how to prepare.

Come on, there is nothing difficult to understand. You just get a few more powerful votes, that's all.

This vote rebalancing was unnecessary, it is deeply unpopular in the community, and it makes the site worse.

This is what the announcement said:

The purpose of this change is to rebalance power toward normal users and away from bots. You can still vote as often as you like, this change merely impacts the speed at which voting power is consumed.

How it makes the site worse when it gives more power to the users? I haven't seen any other kind of proposals to decrease the voting power of bots.

Instead, Dan took precious time to post an article which addressed some wacky proposal for letting people cash out Steem Power right away. To me, that speaks to a serious lack of confidence or misdirection. Most people who saw that post laughed at the idea; even the author may have been laughing.

There are still lots of newbies who don't understand the basics. I think it's great that @dan writes about them every now and then. It's exactly that kind of communication what is needed more. Many of the newbies, and even many of the older users, don't have much clue how things work and why they were designed that way.

The Most Uninformed, Dismissive, and Disrespectful Comment I Have Ever Seen on Steemit Came From One of Your Own Employees Last Week. And Nobody From Steemit, Inc. Addressed It.

@nextgencrypto has been acting like a douchebag for a while now, I don't see any reason why we should respect him anymore as a community. He can't give any constructive criticism and instead goes directly to personal insults. He is clearly a toxic person who should be kicked out from any community that wants to function well. Your attempt to whitewash him is quite disgusting in my opinion.

The evidence speaks for itself, so either you didn't read the article or are in denial. I care not which one. Whether you choose to listen to the community that has massively upvoted and commented on this post, or just the people who write the code or are silent witnesses, that is your decision. Clearly, there is some disconnect between the two and that was the point of my article.

I am sorry that you are not open-minded enough to respect the actions of someone who chose to put the past behind him to use his voting power for the greater good of Steemit, douchebag or not. By the way, how exactly do we "kick out" douchebags from this community when they have massive SP that takes at least two years to liquidate? Vote them off the island?

And yes, there is still plenty of freaking confusion about the vote rebalancing. Just look at the comments on this post or on any of the chat channels this week. If you think you are smart enough to understand it, then why not add something constructive to the community by writing an informative piece to help simpletons like me (and most Steemit community members) understand it?

I am sorry that you are not open-minded enough to respect the actions of someone who chose to put the past behind him to use his voting power for the greater good of Steemit, douchebag or not.

I've seen several communities to suffer when people just can't say GTFO to assholes. @nextgencrypto has proved that he is really bad at cooperating in a civilized manner so in my eyes he is a lost case. Nothing good follows when people like him are not ostracized. Things will get bad especially when the community is somehow dependent of them. That's why Project Curie is a bad thing.

By the way, how exactly do we "kick out" douchebags from this community when they have massive SP that takes at least two years to liquidate? Vote them off the island?

Just don't cooperate with them in any way. Don't vote or comment their posts, don't talk to them in any other channels.

If you think you are smart enough to understand it, then why not add something constructive to the community by writing an informative piece to help simpletons like me (and most Steemit community members) understand it?

Ok, here is my take: https://steemit.com/steem/@samupaha/humans-are-better-than-bots-at-valueing-posts

Downvoting again because you're a clueless cry baby.

I've seen several communities to suffer when people just can't say GTFO to assholes. @nextgencrypto has proved that he is really bad at cooperating in a civilized manner so in my eyes he is a lost case.

Maybe its because I'm​ a disagreeable asshole myself, but the fact that there's a "loyal opposition" among the biggest stakeholders helps me sleep a little better at night where steem is concerned.

Personally, i don't want anyone to GTFO. But i think the many, many, many, many, many, many people (whales, minnows and dolphins alike) who act like complete sycophants and think Dan and the inner circle can do no wrong are far more harmful than someone who's fault is that he might be just a little bit too vigorous in his criticism.

Are you okay man, please tell me you aren't turning into me and acting like I did for awhile.....I would hate to thank of what someone with your "power" could do if you turned into a raving lunatic like I did when my mother died.

That communications person, just might be a good idea. I am sure I am clueless to, but I wrote and article for you... https://steemit.com/steemit/@whatsup/fighting-over-that-big-steemy-piece-of-pie-while-the-new-users-and-steem-prices-die

You are just proving my point. Instead of saying, for example, that you regret you have been behaving in quite uncivilized manners, you just call me "a clueless cry baby".

I don't see how you could disagree with me on this: you really have been acting like a douchebag with all the namecalling. I'm just stating the fact.

@steamship, I am glad to see that there are people who stand up for what they believe. I am just learning how some things work in here. People should be allowed to voice ideas for improving the site, fixing the communication problems, and how people want to spend their votes, as is the case with @stellabelle and I'm sure she is not the only one. To hear that things are going to be changed, just when I am starting to get the hang of it is a little discouraging. I am also saddened to hear that @tuck-fheman is getting chased off. There are a few that gave me the courage to stay here, but I have yet to start my own blogging. If it's nothing but stress in here, this little minnow may seek a different pool to swim in. I hope that some good ideas are looked over, and that things are handled like adults. Steem could be a great thing, and not a potential of being a "has been".

To hear that things are going to be changed, just when I am starting to get the hang of it is a little discouraging.

On the contrary, you should be happy that developers are active and continuously working to make the platform better. Without any changes Steem will not be successful. There is still a lot to do until Steem can take over the world.

I agree with this, but the manor in which changes are rolled out is worthy of reflecting on, and many comments offered in this thread speak to that. Unless the community feels it is involved in such decisions, they will be quick to judge them as centralized and autocratic.

I guess I should have rephrased that. Any developing, which is done to make sites better is great. But from the perspective of someone just starting out on steem, reading all the comments about changes being made without warning and from sounds of it, not well liked, is where my discouragement is coming from.

I agree with your comment, but the last paragraph is a bit silly. The real problem is how this change was rushed out with too little information and community involvement, along with too little time in planning, analysis and discussion. It is not the lack of last-minute informative pieces. Writing yet another post about it at this point (there have already been several), even if that post were accurate (and no guarantee; most are not), would only pile on to the confusion.

I did it anyway! I am the chaos bringer! Muahahaha!

I am now following you, haven't noticed you on steemit before now but I like the way you think and bringing attention to issues that others are too afraid to discuss. I feel like we are "brothers" in that regard.....but I am just a poor trucker and no one listens to me.

How it makes the site worse when it gives more power to the users? I haven't seen any other kind of proposals to decrease the voting power of bots.

I really don't like to pimp my posts in other peoples threads, but I think this is an important topic. The new target definitely takes away power from the most active curators... you can read some analysis by me here:

https://steemit.com/steem-help/@sigmajin/the-tale-of-the-5-brothers-a-voting-power-parable

Yes, it does hurt bots, but it also hurts all very active curators, human and bot alike.

You really should pimp your posts when they are relevant. How else people could find them?

Here is my take: https://steemit.com/steem/@samupaha/humans-are-better-than-bots-at-valueing-posts

You really should pimp your posts when they are relevant. How else people could find them?

yeah, but who wants to be "that guy".. anyway read and commented on yr post

I don't see any problem if the post will bring value to the discussion. Of course all irrelevant links should be discouraged.

Thanks for the link.
Earlier you stated that my comment was absolutely false. Careful reading will reveal that I basically said the same thing you did, but without the math (because, as I noted, I wasn't positive).

No, you did not. You said precisely the opposite of what I did. You claimed that the 5 vote target will not change curators overall voting power. My post shows how it will.
I can't really explain any better than I did in that post. If you read that post and thought i was saying the same thing as you did above, I can only conculde that youre being intentionally obtuse.

like i said in the other post, i have no idea how any rational person could read the post i linked and think i was supporting this statement:

I have $40 worth of voting power for 24 hours today and I vote 40 times at 100%, each gets a buck.
I have $40 worth of voting power after update and i vote 40 times at 12.5% and each gets a buck? Or I can vote 5 times at 100%? Either way I get the same $40 worth.

There is literally a chart that shows precisely how much users daily power will change, with a before, after and % change column. I really don't see how that is ambiguous at all.

Even if you don't agree with the analysis, thats fine, but there's no way to interpret what i said as anything but a repudiation of the above. I really don't know how to explain to you otherwise if thats what you toook from reading that post.

I encourage everyone reading this to take a look.

Be nice. I'm neither being "obtuse" nor am I an idiot.
If I miscommunicated, that's another matter. Even after reading yours, plus the comments, and then looking back at my comment, I can't see your point at all. It's entirely possible that you've misread my comment.

Downvoting because you're a toxic person who goes directly to personal insults.

Now that's rich coming from you!

Hmm, wonder if they need help with communication. Nah. Carry on.

Honestly, as much as I've read, I still don't understand what changes are happening with the "hardfork" on Tuesday. I understand that it's changing the voting system some how. Also people saying many long time/new users disagree with it and wanting more say in the changes that are made in the future; I also hear wanting to a elect some sort of council to vote on changes proposed.

My main question is this, how is the changes on Tuesday going to obstruct or hurt causes like project curie? does it make the voting powers of whales less effective?

Join the club. We on Project Curie don't understand it either.

Im not going to repost it, but check my reply to @samupaha (or the most recent post in my blog)... the changes are definitely going to hurt active curators like project curie and RHW.

I don't understand either. I will continue to vote as I have done, since that is how I FEEL THAT I WANT TO DO IT. Voting is done with the heart.

Lol none of us understand. Also we don't know which features will actually be implemented and which ones won't (like the VP slider) because not all of them are on the "official announcement" post. Yeah, forget semantics, vote with your heart cause that's all that matters.

Mmm, that's discouraging. Well on a side note, thank you @donkeypong and everyone at Project Curie for what you've created. It's the only reason my post has gotten the attention they have and the only reason I'm inspired to continue to write. You guys make me feel like my posts have value.

Now , I am even more confused as I already was before. My head is heavy and dizzy reading ....Leah called it stress ! I better get off steemit for a while and hang out at the beach for some lemon squash or in her suggested virtual bar. I am loosing interest in this platform....

I think i will join you if i may...

I totally agree with this post! People are leaving from Steemit cause there aren't enough curators whose votes could actually mean something, if your post doesn't happen to catch a whale, well it won't genarate a cent! I also want to say thanks to the Project Curie ( @berniesanders , @nextgencrypto, @donkeypong) , and to the whales that have seen and decided my posts were worth rewarding, without them, even more people would be leaving Steemit right now, with a lot of dissapointment, me being one of them. Thanks!

I will say again. It's like changing the rules of poker. Two pair now beats three of a kind! All explanations of/about Steemit are out there - on the blockchain and unchangeable - every potential new member, will now be misinformed. They will read outdated information about Steemit, and then contradictory info (as of the fork) and they won't know why it's all different. Utter confusion

wildcat beats everything, IMO.

that may need clarification. Its from an old poker canard meant to teach people that different cardrooms have different rules.

A stranger walks into a saloon and gets a drink. He sees a poker game and asks if he can play. He's told to take a seat. It's a no limit 5-card draw game and he's a pretty good player. After about an hour of so-so hands, he draws Aces full and makes a sizable bet. The old guy across from him raises all-in and the stranger calls. The old guy lays down 23457o and reaches for the chips. "Whoa, there. I've got Aces-full." "Yeah, but I've got a wild cat.", says the old guy. "A wild cat? What the hell is a wild cat?" "A wild cat is 23457 off-suit." Like this, "Says the old man." The stranger starts to burn and says, "I've played a lot of poker, but I've never heard of a wild cat." "Well, if you've played a lot of poker, you oughta know that you should learn the house rules before you play. And this here's a house rule." At that,the old guy points to a sign just over the stranger's right shoulder. The sign says, "House Rule - Wild Cat is a 23457 off-suit and it beats everything" Being a gentleman and an honorable gambler, the stranger takes his lumps and settles back for more poker. Several hours later, the stranger is dealt 23457o. He bets and the same old guy raises him the pot. Without the slightest hint of a tell, the stranger raises all-in. The old guy calls and lays down an ace high flush, and reaches for the chips. "Whoa there! I've got a wild cat.", says the stranger as he lays down his cards. "Nice hand.", says the old guy as he scoops up the pot. "What did I tell you about house rules?", as he points to a sign over the stranger's left shoulder. "House Rule -Wild Cat - Only Good Once a Night"

One of the big issues of this platform is how things are being changed every single week. It's hard to keep up with.

Also, until the platform is allowed to settle, there isn't enough statistical data to justify any of the changes. The changes seem to be made on gut feeling, rather than with taking a month's data, analysing it and then making changes. There have been so many higgledly piggledly changes that it's now impossible to do any analysis on what works and what doesn't.

Indeed, the slower approach you describe here is where real engineering could be very useful, albeit slower, and investors don't like slower. We're living in an ever increasing atmosphere of short attention-span, microwave oven addicts. This is where the balance I spoke of earlier comes into play.

It is also important to realize how important a factor time is. If you wait for a product to reach perfection in its' evolution before you release it to production, it may never be adopted b/c someone else gets to the market sooner.

Very insightful point and adds another reason why these sorts of changes, and especially rolling them out in this manner, are harmful and lead to confusion and frustration. I have already encountered this myself in discussing Steem with people who read the whitepaper and came away extremely confused because the system rules have changed so much that the white paper is highly misleading.

We need to greatly reduce the number and slow down the pace of these tweaks, and include a lot more communications and updating of documentation in process.

Allofit2b3a0.jpg

I'll take this point about CURIE to say that it is essentially a Delegated Curation Guild.

The reason there are only one or two of these so far (Smooth and NGC) is this:

Whales that are not voting a lot may be doing so as a means of abstaining from rewards and giving minnows a chance to grow influence.

Whales that are voting a lot may be doing so as a means of projects like CURIE to give minnows a chance to grow influence.

Both parties are seeking the same goals of gamifying / growing the platform.

It just happens that the difference in means creates a strong cognitive dissonance between the two groups.

Delegated Curation Guilds (DCGs) are potentially a solution to the cognitive dissonance by allowing both types of whales to continue doing (abstaining from voting, voting actively, or “hiring” curators) what they were doing while bringing the available voting power into the market in either a profit seeking or altruistic manner.

Edited to add the this:*

Richard, no one meant any offense anywhere, including CURIE - If Val's response was emotional as trying to protect me then that's on me.

By describing the Curation Guild I was trying to make the case that curation can get better. Any whale of the same size can do the same thing nextgencrypto is doing, but instead most are not voting and using that as a community benefitting strategy. I hope you see that.

We can do better on community engagement for proposed changes. Let's do better. (We are hiring: https://steemit.com/steemit/@steemitjobs/new-steemit-job-posting-community-and-social-media-manager)

I appreciate Richard and the community for bringing all the time and work that you are

There's only 1 proper solution to this; a hard fork to reduce all accounts above 100k SP to ... 100k SP

That way the whales will no longer be able to skew the results as they do now, and the votes of the dolphin will actually mean something ... as it should

(as in; I agree; inactive whales are in fact better than active whales ... let's turn them all into dolphins; problem solved!)

so, and by now, I wrote a post about it;
https://steemit.com/tag/@luminousvisions/safe-steemit-1-day-voting-moratorium-for-the-whales

@dantheman ... you just downvoted my comment?

what is that all about? what's wrong with it?

I'm just suggestion a solution and in return for offering my help ... you downvote me?!?

look at what I've been up to;
little baby dolphin
I'm already working on a solution!

I'm going to have to say that I too do not understand why your post was downvoted. You have no vulgar language, you have not said anything offensive, only offered forth your idea. You should not have been downvoted. That is absurd, actually.

I know exactly why my comment was downvotes; dandy dan is scared!

this article calls for somebody to step up and take over ... I'm that person!

This while there's no need to actually reduce any of the whales steem power, they just need to stop voting ... but catchy slogans pull more attention than rational explanations ;-)

think about it ... imagine that for the next 100 days anybody with more than 100k steem power would vote at max 1% vote power, so they still get to play, but without skewing the results ... what would happen? the votes of the dolphins with 1k to 100k would go up ... significantly, enough so to fix the problem!

so, although I might have said it somewhat crue at first ... the principle behind it, would in fact solve the problem

yet ... dandy dan downvoted it ... no wonder we have a problem ...

How can you be so stupid?????
Strong independent woman?

I'll play devils advocate here.

First off... your post was written big and bold, simply stating that "there's only one proper solution". That's not true, and there's no way you could possibly prove it's true. I believe there absolutely has to be a better "proper" solution than that.

The argument could be made that what you said could be damaging to the brand. Do you think an investor who's considering buying steem would want to see a comment stating that the community is gathering pitchforks demanding hardforks to remove peoples balances? They would just walk away.

Again, I'm not saying I agree w/ the downvote, but I don't think it's completely unwarranted.

I'm an investor, I already bought Steem!

and I'm actively working on a solutions, I did this;
https://steemit.com/bounty/@luminousvisions/there-s-no-flow-in-steemit-bounty-opportunity
and just last night I did this;
https://steemit.com/steemit/@luminousvisions/little-baby-dolphin-goes-to-steemit-school

so, if dandy dan would have taken the effort to see who I am first, he would have known I did this for steemit's best self interest!

the biggest problem with steemit is perception, and comments like mine being downvoted by dandy dan himself is the exact opposite of what we need

take a look here;
https://steemle.com/charts.php?charts=posts

it's going down ... why is that? is it because I used bold in my comment or because there's something fundamentally going wrong with steemit itself? I'm willing to bet it's not me using bold in the comments that's causing steemit's crash ...

don't worry, I'm not mad, I understand you're playing devil's advocate ... I'm just making my case, nothing personal ... I'm not like dandy dan ... I will not downvote your comment, but simply answer it ... you know, like grown up's do ...

so ... now I'm going to work on the post I'm writing about all this ...

I'm an investor; I'm defending my investment, while dandy dan is squandering it!

Totally understood :)

We're all looking out for the best interest of steem in our different ways. Hopefully all of our votes and conversations will culminate in a proper solution.

As a potential investor, which I have talked about many times, I find the fact he/she was downvoted, on this "Freedom Loving" platform, much more upsetting than her comment.

I don't know that I buy into this argument against downvotes. Are you saying that Dan shouldn't be free to downvote what he disagree's with?

Your comment loudly asserts a bad idea. Maybe he thought that would be obvious.

I agree it was a bad idea, and I'd say the same even if I were a minnow. I disagree it should have been downvoted.

think about it ... if we didn't eliminate those accounts, but the whales were to agree with each other to stop voting at 100%, but vote at max 1% for the next 100 days ... which would have the same effect ...

what would happen?
the dolphin will get a lot more voting power!

which would actually solve the problem and there would be no more need for projects like the robinhoodwhale, because 20-30 dolphins voting for the same post would result in that post making enough money rather than just pennies, as it is now, because ... the whales are consuming way too much voting power; it's skewing the results!

I know, I said it very crue ... to get attention, (and it worked!)
but the idea behind it; no more whale votes ... that would actually solve the problem!

be it, not by actually eliminating them, but by convincing them that they have to stop skewing the result by consuming way too much voting power ...

so, what I'm actually suggestion and writing a post about right now; 100 days moratorium on the whales votes; they can still vote at 1%, just so they get to play like everybody else, but no more than 1%, because now ... the whales are skewing the results!

and thanks for upvoting my comment, I really appreciate that!

or ... it's in fact a good idea, be it poorly presented, but no matter what it is ... it's not a reason to downvote me!

It was horrible comment. You basically proposed that the blockchain should steal from the users. As you probably know, @dantheman is libertarian who hates theft, so it's not a surprise that he downvoted you.

@samupaha

You said:

As you probably know, @dantheman is libertarian who hates theft, so it's not a surprise that he downvoted you.

But why do we have to put words into his (Dan's) mouth to justify his actions? This lack of communication is likely a factor in the failing confidence within, and falling price of, Steemit/ Steem, as the original poster (@steemship) has so clearly demonstrated.

We need an open discussion about this most important topic of how to more evenly distribute voting power, and/or if such an action is necessary, if for no other reason than to quiet some of the fears regarding apparent weaknesses of the Steemit system, which have only become more pronounced over time and amplified by the lack of clear communication, from the top, about possible solutions.

Silence isn't the answer here, nor is stubbornness. Trust is built through transparency and by consistently demonstrating that care is taken to the considerations of all involved/ invested. The block-chain that runs Steem is one layer of transparency, but the more more important layer - the people who control the hard-forks - are not forth-coming with any kind of clear plan, nor demonstrating to me in any way that they have any care beyond their own wallets.

If you ask me, Dan's recent actions - the proposed hard-fork, with seemingly little concern for the generally bad review that it received from the community and his childish/ cowardly/ unprofessional way of dealing with constructive criticism/ alternate approaches - reeks of your typical penny-stock CEOs. It appears to me that every decision coming from the top is aimed at protecting themselves, even at the cost of strangling the smaller investors. But maybe it only appears that way because they've failed to accurately communicate their intentions. Ideally, we wouldn't have to speculate about such things, especially when considering that these "policy makers" are running a social media network. Oh, the irony.

hahaha ... really?

you totally missed the point I was making; it would be better of those whales were to stop voting, but ... because nobody upvotes interesting comments, I turned it into a sensational slogan and ... it worked!

This is how I see Dan's down vote as well. Look at it from his perspective: he is just curating to mold the platform into something that represents his principles. That's what we should ALL be doing.

Arbitrarily restricting the voting power of whales IS theft, it's not like theft. They earned that SP either through investing, for being here early or curating. Why take away their incentives? Aren't they the same incentives for everybody? Your comment (if implemented) guts the principles described in the whitepaper, or at the very least disrupts and imbalances them.

I like this article, it is open, direct and sounds similar to discussions I've heard in the BitShares community. I know transparency is important to Dan, but I agree he hasn't figured out how to balance the interests of all parties (investors, developers, user community) yet, and I do hope he figures it out soon; I don't want steem to fade away b/c he or Ned can't delegate to a PR team to inform the community or use it to monitor the pulse of the community.

An advisory board comprised of reputable, carefully chosen members of the community would be very useful for communications in both directions, from the community to Steemit leaders AND as a mechanism to explain the rational of decisions made by Steemit to the community.

I sure hope Dan & Ned seriously take some time to reflect on this open letter and the comments people are making about it. I think some type of advisory board is a good idea. I suspect Ned & Dan may think that somehow gives away too much control of the direction the platform is headed. But that is an overly fearful position to take IMO. The concept is an advisory board, meaning it provides advice, not dictate policy. Such a board is not a matter of control, it's a matter of a better management structure to supply quality information to decision makers, who are not obligated to follow it. If they choose not to follow it I would hope their rational would be explained. That's very important also.

In early 2015 a marketing advisory board was suggested to help Dan promote BitShares more effectively and help him review and edit Dan's disclosures so they wouldn't have such a sharp, dramatic affect on investor attitudes OR the trading value of BitShares. Stan + Dan's approach to that suggestion was to put the responsibility of selecting such a board of advisors onto someone else, rather than seriously look into who would be qualified to serve in that role themselves. Ultimately no action was taken.

Do note however that unbeknown to the vast majority of the BitShares community during that time, the totally new graphene architecture was under development, and they didn't want that information leaking out. An advisory board might have compromised that. Still, the transition from the 0.9.x version to 2.0 was not handled well at all IMO, tho ultimately 2.0 did become a reality, or steem wouldn't exist today.

I sincerely hope Dan will learn how to manage his team better and balance the often contrary interests between the parties involved.

sure, some commie council ... that will fix it ... sure!

/sarcasm

As a Libertarian, I think that is extremely lame, instead of downvoting the comment he could have taken 2 minutes and typed his POV. In this platform that is silencing. He can't take the time to tell her why?

Before your suggestion below that they stop voting let's try a day or week of whale abstinence. This will give us a preview of what the platform wild look like
see here a day of abstinence will answer the question

Upvoted only because it was downvoted. This is a bad idea that should be discarded for many reasons, but as input from a community member, it should be valued and considered respectfully, even if not ever implemented.

Good point, sadly it's now overvalued (in my own opinion). It really makes me want to downvote it but then it will (or might?) have an effect on his reputation. If only there were a solution for this conundrum.

Oh yeah, https://github.com/steemit/steemit.com/issues/215

I tried to reduce my power setting on that vote to get closer to zero (but still positive) but I ran into an issue I have intermittently where the site stops responding to my votes altogether, so I left it. What a pain.

Great you just made more $ in these two comment than in any of your posts. I call progressiveness.

and people wonder why I use bold text in my comments ...

What a ridiculous idea...I'm actually glad to see that Dan agrees...

you're not supposed to take it literally ... it's called click-bait, that should be obvious

I'm just trying to make a point; if the whales were to stop voting, or at least put their slider on 10% and leave it there ... that would solve a lot of problems!

https://steemit.com/tag/@luminousvisions/safe-steemit-1-day-voting-moratorium-for-the-whales
please, read it, I promise, you'll be pleasantly surprised with it; it's a very simply, yet effective solution

I don't think that's the one proper solution. Why not change the voting weight from n SQUARED to something less severe. E.g. n to the 1.1 power. It still discourages sybil attacks but makes every non-whale's votes more powerful while reducing the massively overweighted n^2 power of large whale votes.

I see a lot of cognitive dissonance mentioned in Richard's post. I hope he gets more than a textbook definition in response to his critique.

No one meant any offense anywhere - If Val's response was emotional as he was trying to protect me then that's on me.

I was trying to make the case that curation can get better. Any whale of the same size can do the same thing nextgencrypto is doing, but instead most are not voting and using that as a community benefitting strategy. I hope you see that.

We can do better on community engagement for proposed changes. Let's do better.

I appreciate you, richard and the community for bringing all the time and work that you are

Damn give it to him with out sugar :) Yes Ned need something with more weight in that response.

Are we still trying to keep steemit decentralized? Because its looking to be centralized like any other corporate business, with all these unknown changes and unfair wages....

You didn't really address any of the points that @steemship made though. This just makes the point about being out of touch. I wish you would actually listen to what people are saying.

I was so excited when I saw there was a reply, and then...

I'll take this point about CURIE to say that it is essentially a Delegated Curation Guild.

That being the case, the community (in the form of that project, RHW, and others) is getting the job done and the feature is not needed.

If and when problems arise that get in the way of these efforts, allow the community to bring that to the team's attention and then (and only then) request additional support from the platform. Otherwise, you very much risk undercutting not only these specific efforts, but the willingness of those in the community to do anything at all, because every time we do, the team drops some new rule changes or imposes its own top-down vision of how things should work. That is exactly why I had to reduce my own investment in curation efforts, because I saw team meddling as imminent, threatening to once again scramble the rules, and invalidate any investment I did make.

There are things only the team can do, most notably recruiting new users (because the team controls the 50% of the SP stake designated to fund new user accounts). Or improving the implementation and deployment of the platform as it exists (I still experience frequent stalls and connection problems, for example), or completing the implementation of additions to the platform that have been promised, such as a marketplace. Please focus your efforts there and let the community do what it not only can do, but does better than those operating from within the team "bubble".

Retention is pretty low right now so spending money on recruting users may be not optimal.
Btw what criteria do use saying community does certain things better?

Retention is pretty low right now so spending money on recruiting users may be not optimal

By recruiting new users I include retention. A huge factor in retention is who you recruit and how you recruit them. Even if we acknowledge that some aspects of retention are impaired by platform issues that need to be addressed (and done so in a manner that does not piss off the users who are already here), there are clearly users who have retained well. Understanding better who those users are and why they are not leaving would allow focusing on trying to recruit more such users. This would make recruitment more effective. You could start by figuring out better way so to reduce sign up fraud. It is still a huge issue, a large percentage of the signups, and it costs money with little likely effectiveness.

The other thing that is leading to poor retention is a small and shrinking user base. As users slowly leave (which is inevitable in any site, no matter how good, if only due to life changes and such) and are not being sufficiently replaced by new users, it becomes a smaller and smaller community. You now see the same progressively-smaller group of people posting and commenting. A small community has less value so new users sign up, see there are only six (exaggeration, or perhaps, extrapolation) people here and they all know each other, and leave. It is absolutely essential to spend money on bringing new users ASAP (including focusing on users who will retain) otherwise the users who are here will continue to slowly leave, not be replaced, and you will be left with a shell of a platform and no users.

Btw what criteria do use saying community does certain things better?

The criteria I'm using are two:

  1. Decentralization of effort. Community initiatives are many and have a relatively high churn rate. That which works is continued, expanded, and imitated. That which doesn't is quickly revised or abandoned. The team can not do this because it is only one team, is relatively isolated from the user base, and deploying solutions in code can't be done easily on any kind of pilot basis that doesn't affect the whole site, nor is it feasible to try different approaches in parallel, the way community initiatives occur.
  2. This post. Community initiatives do not create the kind of user frustration, hostility and push back from the user base that is evidenced by this post (in part due to their more fluid nature as described in #1 above).
    Yes, there are things only the team can do, and that includes platform consensus changes, but the approach to doing them needs to change, and change radically and quickly if you don't want to alienate 100% of the users (and I can tell you my perception of his disposition is that when @steemship starts calling you out, you passed the point of widespread user frustration quite a ways back). That means platform changes defined and developed in a more inclusive manner, with meaningful community input and feedback (such as an advisory board drawn from the user community), and sufficient time for the community to understand what is being proposed, how it affects them, and to give meaningful feedback (i.e. much slower). As such the ability of the team to effectively (without causing more harm than good) address needs on the platform in a timely manner without stirring up unintended but still inevitable frustration and hostility is already limited and becoming much more so.
    If the community can do it, than let the community do it and save your limited budget of acceptable and accepted top-down changes for when it is really needed. Pick your battles.

@steemship - this response, which lacks any substance towards the points you bring up, is confirming with each passing second that the Steemit team absolutely needs one or more Communicators working full time to address this stuff.

Based on the outflows from the power downs, I would hope there is enough capital to support that.

Big stage, gents. Time to lead.

I don't understand how whales that are not voting are helping minnows? As far as I see it -

  1. The author rewards they generate greatly exceed the curation rewards they receive. At least 3-4 times, even if a whale is first to upvote. So for every Steem Power a whale earns in curation rewards, the minnow earns 3x as much. Granted, some minnows may choose to cash out SBDs instead of Powering Up, but still the SP earned exceeds the curation rewards SP earned by whales.

  2. They could simply vote within the first few minutes if they wanted to bypass their curation rewards. Or as alluded to above, vote on posts late, that have already gotten some attention from other whales. If they vote on a post that has already gained some attention, author's rewards they generate could be 10x as much as their curation rewards.

  3. They could donate the curation rewards back to the author.

  4. The rate their Steem Power is growing well exceeds the rate at which minnows are growing influence if they effectively do nothing. The Top 15 whales own 25 Million Steem Power. Every week, their Steem Power grows at least 0.5 Million (and higher than 1 Million right now, given inflation rate is much higher). That's more than the total holdings of 94% accounts on Steem. Net effect - there's zero re-distribution of wealth.

Please let me know if I'm missing out on something here. As far as I see it, there are only two ways for whales to help minnows gain influence - voting on them, or selling (ideally, donating) them Steem to Power Up.

I'm eager to hear more about the Delegated Curation Guilds proposal. I hope Steemit, Inc. take Richard's advice and explain clearly, precisely, as well as in detail. We are still waiting for a clear explanation on HF14's Vote Balancing. Something that shows clear case studies of before and after, in charts. As, many have pointed out here, not more than a dozen people know the algorithms and metrics behind this unpopular move, and that's a big problem.

I understand Val's comments were made in the heat of the moment, but they hurt the company's reputation badly, particularly as we are still waiting for an apology.

You are missing one thing...the more whales that vote the more worthless every other lesser vote becomes... usually by a couple of orders of magnitude.

This is a very important critique of the planned changes. I hope the Steem Team will read it and consider the questions you are posing.

If @razvanelulmarin is right which I'm pretty sure he is, not voting is helping those who are voted by other whales. His post is interesting and people could gain from reading it.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@razvanelulmarin/i-will-become-a-whale-in-24hours-here-s-how

the hard fork changes in 14 are perfect, a great way to bust apart these curation guilds, they are like political parties and not good for steemit as they have too much human control and emotions involved, these types of guilds are better off being handled by technological solutions, and i look forwad to those changes in hard fork 15

That's an interesting perspective. However, to create a technological model of what curation should look like in order to make curation "fair" to all parties and remove the "human bias", is an unrealistic goal.

The Steemit community is a community of people first and foremost, and as such its' attitudes are dynamic and alive. Trying to define rigid, universally applicable rules for how curation should be done cannot be done without stepping on somebody's toes.

Curation, guilds, balance of power - these are inherently political considerations and trying to apply a set of rules to guide, manipulate or influence the community towards one specific model of curation stifles expression. It must be allowed to evolve based on the aggregate expressions voiced in the community.

If that aggregate fails to represent the principles of individuals, be they whales, dolphins or minnows, they can take action to change that aggregate attitude or go elsewhere and start over. Before anyone decides to take their toys and go to a new sandbox they would be wise to evaluate their principles and make sure such a move is necessary, or adjust their principles if not.

Curation guild (human) = Delegated voting pool (technological)

What do you think about this idea. A day of no whale votes ( you could still do 1 percent votes) then we can see why the platform would look like with the no whales?

a day of abstinence will answer the question

If u have so much trust on Steem, why r u converting your Steem & SBD into bitcoin? Is not bitcoin dead?