You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why stay?
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.
Not rolled back, new attempts. They were changed for reasons, why go back?
Isn't that what is happening now? For many, this place is enjoyable and getting more so but for the few who came in early and remember the good times, it isn't going the way they want which is, where they are benefiting with not a great deal of work.
Because they didn't work. There should be a feedback loop, not just feed-forward. Reasons given beforehand for what should happen become irrelevant as soon as real consequences become apparent. Experiments with consequences always trump reasoning.
No. Churn is huge, and only a fraction of registered users are active. Distribution is atrocious, and getting worse. We're not on a sustainable path, I don't believe.
N^2 didn't work either except for a few who collected early.
Count the alts and people who created alts but barely used them once upon a time and it isn't so high. There are strings of usernames created but never posted. There are alts created for things like zappl that posted a couple times and then were forgotten etc. The churn isn't as high as people make out. There aren't many active users though, you are right there.