You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Whale’s dilemma
It’s hard to decide what is good and bad without a set of written rules. There is always going to be 2 sides to every story.
What I tried to explain in the post is that whale’s power, good or bad, is the only thing giving Steem value at this point... taking it away completely could be far worse than the injustices some may think occur from time to time.... what we need is an efficient form to distribute Steem in order to have MORE whales.
a set of written rules about how people are allowed to use their votes? SHould we elect a central committee to enforce it. Maybe have political officers to make sure people are voting the right way?
I don't even know how to respond to that.
whales are giving up a lot of power by cashing out ( most currently do). By crashing the price of steem they will allow people to gain whale statut with very little money.
What I am more concerned about is people voting for themselves like bernie just did, this is a critical flaw imo.
Very true. And this reaffirms my suspicion that whales are frequently curating only based on potential reward payouts and not necessarily on the quality of the content, which is a major problem for long-term viability of the social platform.
Its not only him, but his sockpuppets, too, to swell the numbers.
Precisely. So at least he's being honest about voting for a comment here as opposed to voting for unknown sock puppets.
That's part of the protocol, to be able to vote for yourself.
Good / bad?
If it's removed, you'll just see random sock puppets and no way of verifying if they are his or not. At least with him voting his own comment, you know it's him.