You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why stay?
No, not for users of a social media site. It is very uncommon to expect users themselves to solve the problems they broach.
No, not for users of a social media site. It is very uncommon to expect users themselves to solve the problems they broach.
Might be a bit different in a decentralised community that allows users to directly reward each other to anonymous accounts though. Not many of those out there so uncommon is likely.
Why would it be different? Many users here who perceive problems with the various goings-on and complain do not necessarily know how to solve those problems, nor should that in any way be upon them on a social media platform that wants to attract more mainstream users from outside.
Also, the problem-solving when it comes to reward algorithms and anything on, or close to, the blockchain is far less decentralised than you seem to think, and operates increasingly without listening to even those users who can and do make improvement suggestions.
I guess people have to complain to the right people who can do something then.
Still none of this answers the initial question of why if someone doesn't like to be here (or anywhere) they don't have to be, why stay.
Because they like the general idea and don't want to vote with their feet but want to make things better? Or because they liked things better the way they were and want to put some effort into returning to a better version?
Some stay for lack of alternatives, but that reason won't last for much more than a year. Too many alternatives will pop up, and are already appearing.
A choice.
Impossible because the system and user base has fundamentally changed and many who earned early and had a chance to influence matters no longer have much of what they earned to do so.
Lots of alternatives coming so if they don't see the future here, why stick around, why not just go and be a first adopter and join/build the new versions?
Meh. System changes like reward curves and delegations can be undone or changed in a HF. Nothing impossible about it.
But in a changed environment, there will be a changed result. Expecting the same return on action while the environment has shifted isn't likely to end with the expected results. When I first joined, there was very low engagement and tight circles of high earners. Some of those circles remain, some sold out and got caught with no SP. I don't see going back as actually fixing what people think it will and will have unintended consequences in other areas.
Certainly. But that does not mean we can't shape the environment back towards a perhaps better Steemit, maybe by reinstating previous measures, maybe with different measures.
And, in general, things that didn't work out well should be rolled back.
Unintended consequences are, well, not as intended, but if we let that stop us completely from trying to shape the environment into a state more people actually enjoy and want to participate in for a longer period, Steemit is doomed anyway.