Thank you for this post and thorough review of all proposals, it's very useful.
I would like to note that students getting a free membership works as a trial period in reality (student status eventually expires and normal membership fees must be paid).
It also serves a way of attracting members of academia and their PhD research teams who could base their work on Steem rather than ______ blockchain. However this is not set in stone and can be removed / amended.
Seems completely reasonable when you explain it like this. I'll edit my thoughts a little to reflect this. As long as it is by approval for research it seems like a good idea actually. If it is some way to gain power, it would be risky.
Yeah, of all of them, the merger looks the most likely to swim.
Aggie has done alot for us.
It still irks me that y'all excluded an option to reject having one or the other.
It delegitimizes this forcing of structure on steem even more.
If folks want to fund things they should.
Why ask for permission if refusing to give permission is not offered?
Why seek community input if you only give the option to agree to the preselected solutions?
To clear things up, I am not involved with steem alliance and I didn't submit a proposal. Although I did comment and provide feedback on all of those left. I also registered to vote and plan on doing so.
It was already decided that we would have a foundation. If someone wanted the foundation to serve no purpose, it would have made an interesting and simple proposal to make and evaluate.
I am sorry my previous post (linked up top) mentioning the deadline was missed by some.
Several proposals have measures in place that will make funding optional.
People recognized that a lack of funds was a serious threat to sustainability. Lowering rewards is never popular, but in my opinion it isnt the worse idea either and seems to be sufficient to ensure sustainability.
My post pay outs are so dismally low compared to my effort, losing more rewards wont really affect me. In fact I think it will mostly affect people who are trying to squeeze the block chain dry. I hope that is next on the chopping block but it won't actually add value because those people will stop when it becomes unprofitable.
Other ideas involve just collecting donations, well nothing is stopping people from doing that now and it's not working. Perhaps a proposal to get it working would be nice, but I am skeptical. There are a few proposals that try to focus on incubating or membership fees. Again I am skeptical.
Merger relies on several different methods and that is its strength. It has the lowest risk of failing and is by far the most developed and cconventional.it is also looking at current needs and not future ones. Since it can be assume if new needs arise it was adapt.
I'm not saying I will vote for merger, but I do think it will accelerate this entire mess and a lot of people are apathetic to the entire thing, so why drag it on?
Steemit Inc. had to fire over half its workers. I dont know if the foundation will stop the ship from sinking or raise it beyond its former glory, but I do know wasting more time won't improve things.
I'm against financing things through delegations.
Too many have dumped their steem and left.
Honestly, i would vote nota.
But i am against hierarchies on principle.
It privileges the few at the expense of the many.
Most people are followers, they go where they are led by those they accept as authorities.
Not all bad, unless you are getting led to a slaughter.
The track record of the stakeholders makes that a nonzero probability.
Eliminating nota is a mistake, imo.
If folks want to build a foundation they should, but don't ask for community support unless you are prepared for the community not to give it.
Now the community doesn't get that choice because those invested in the project have denied it to them.
One of those proposals will be foisted on us whether we like it, or not.
The time to submit proposal has past. We cannot keep delaying it because some people were ignorant of deadlines, or didn't like the proposals that were submitted in a timely manner.
There has to be an official channel besides Steemit.
We both know Nota will fail in any case. Also, because it wasn't submitted in time, it won't add any legitimacy to the poll it may damage legitimacy since we will be making exceptions.
If it was a completely thorough and smashing good idea with a lot of support, I would sympathize with your motives, but a lot of people worked extremely hard on this and please forgive them if they think you are just trying to derail it.
Edit: Voting is entirely optional and vast majority of people didnt care to register. Now that it is closed maybe we can get an idea,
Saying things confidently doesnt necessarily make them true.
Nota can be included up until the post is made.
Not including it is an arbitrary decision.
This decision has been made by folks invested in both the process and the outcome.
Rejection of which is intolerable to them.
People that have made clearly known their resistence to the idea of freedom of choice on the part of others.
Yall's choice is made and it has eliminated the choice for every other voter.
If you can live with yourself after making that decision for others, it reflects on you.
Whether, or not, nota prevails can only be speculated upon.
As long as it is excluded by fiat, or any other reason, we cannot know how many would have chosen it.
You can speculate, but without the availability of the option, it cannot be known.
It delegitimizes this forcing of structure on steem even more.
This election is not about steem governance. It's about having one more addon organization which can help the ecosystem. Nothing is exclusive, if you can't find a favorite amongst the proposals there are other projects out there where you can participate.
Coming in here after all deadlines have passed, demanding changes to voting process and calling it illegitimate stinks.
Illegitimate is denying choice to others.
You can't claim to want community support if you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you won't get it.
By eliminating nota as a choice you force a choice on others.
You cannot claim to have free fair elections when you eliminate the possibility of rejecting the proposals.
Rejection has been removed as a choice.
I guess i should've known the type of people i was dealing with and headed them off at the pass, excuse me for figuring it out too late.
I thought i was dealing with credible people who would like to know the truth about how the community feels.
Clearly the investment made by said folks outweighs their willingness to accept rejection.
Better to eliminate the option totally.
Smdh.
The blockchain will record this stain on what could've been a legitimate measure of community support.
Thebdeadline tonsubmit proposals was April 5th. NOTA was suggested as a proposal April 7th. There was even an offer to extend it if a reason was stated before April 7th. I am sorry you missed the deadline to submit your proposal. Unfortunately, NOTA was not proposed in time. You cannot have an election if the dates are not fixed.
Please admit your proposal was too late to qualify and you would like an exception to be made. I am done discussing this issue otherwise.
I guess we are done then.
I didn't submit a proposal, I asked for a fair, open, and unbiased election.
Leaving half of the choices off the ballot is hardly unbiased.
We left an inifinite number of undeclared choices off the ballot. I am sorry your choice was not included. Registration period has a deadline to avoid accusations of intereference. NOTA is very similar to not voting. In anycase it would just mean a new election. Since there is no minimum tirn out requirement unless there is another reason for extension, I don't wee the point. Are you hoping people will give up? or Hoping a better proposal will be submitted? It is kind of selfish to extend the deadline for these reasons and the period to ask for deadline extensions has passed.
It's fine and there is enough information in your posts to understand what your concept is. My purpose was to try to make sense of all proposals. It's a long read but hopefully people can get an idea in one place.
Most authors are responsive to comments which is important.
I hope to sort it out further in a couple of days after I recover and hopefully hear back from one final author.
Thanks for the resteem.
There is around 23 hours left to register for the vote. I hope this convinces more people to register.
I'll try to register but wowzerz this is some body of work. This version is overwhelming! Maybe I just need to have some coffee and focus lol.. Seemed very loooooong from my initial scan. It's a testament to steem that anyone would volunteer this much of their life..
Thanks for this summary and analysis . I have to confess, I have been a bit put off by all the reading involved so thanks for doing this. I did read it over breakfast but it's still a bit heavy read for first thing in the morning , so I shall definitely revisit again when my little brian is functioning better
Yeah it's a lot of info.
Another point is translation into other languages. I hope to get a much shorter version, encourage more graphics and even see smaller key questions / differences.
Oh maybe thats why upheaver didn't reply to me? Their proposals are similar but different. Upheaver wants to charge membership fees to help fund things with different rates depending on corporate or individual. Students are free.
Merger is quite clear that members will be volunteers and makes no mention of fees.
Edit:
It seems he just helped with merger, but still has his own.
I will remove it if there is official word. It was by far the best organized proposal and the easiest to review, but that is maybe GitHub vs Steemit.
Yes collaboration has no fees. But I don't know if upheaver dropped his or not. Fees are a good idea maybe later or an enhanced foundation or something but at first getting assistance for a free one will be challenging enough.
I just helped with the merger proposal, mine still stands as it's vastly different in how it's funded and structured (paid professional vs volunteer staff).
Thanks @abitcoinskeptic, great to get your independent view and run down - not sure I'll bother to vote though, even nerfing at 250K makes my lousy 6K vote hardly able to influence
Ibdefinitely think youbshould still vote. We can probably discount inactive accounts with minimal sp, but 6k is no joke.
The nerf means overall whales will lose 50% of their combined power which is actually a lot.
They still dominate, but if a lo5 of popular community members and people with comparatively small but meaningful stakes vote, it will send an important message.
Many thanks for this great summary. Seeing our ideas in such short sentences is a real pleasure.
You doubt, whales could be interested in this kind of decentralised setting. I can only speculate, but the richness of ideas being enabled through DeCentraSteem should definitely be good for Steem as a whole, letting communities flourish and the demand for STEEM rise.
Concerning voting: yes, you're right. Probably working circles engaged in a dispute shouldn't take part in a vote.
For this and other cases we have introduced rule no 9 on developing new rules. DeCentraSteem is an ever-learning system with high flexibility, starting optimistic with high trust in people, but being able to adopt to new situations very fast.
You are very right that whales could be interested. In my opinion, most of them have a couple smaller accounts where they actually speak their mind and are more conservative in their larger accounts. They have more invested than anyone and really want to see the chain do well.
Rules No. 9 is a really good idea because it allows for so much change and growth when desired. I expect any system adopted will need this.
Thank you for this post and thorough review of all proposals, it's very useful.
I would like to note that students getting a free membership works as a trial period in reality (student status eventually expires and normal membership fees must be paid).
It also serves a way of attracting members of academia and their PhD research teams who could base their work on Steem rather than ______ blockchain. However this is not set in stone and can be removed / amended.
Seems completely reasonable when you explain it like this. I'll edit my thoughts a little to reflect this. As long as it is by approval for research it seems like a good idea actually. If it is some way to gain power, it would be risky.
Yeah, of all of them, the merger looks the most likely to swim.
Aggie has done alot for us.
It still irks me that y'all excluded an option to reject having one or the other.
It delegitimizes this forcing of structure on steem even more.
If folks want to fund things they should.
Why ask for permission if refusing to give permission is not offered?
Why seek community input if you only give the option to agree to the preselected solutions?
Seems illegitimate to me.
To clear things up, I am not involved with steem alliance and I didn't submit a proposal. Although I did comment and provide feedback on all of those left. I also registered to vote and plan on doing so.
It was already decided that we would have a foundation. If someone wanted the foundation to serve no purpose, it would have made an interesting and simple proposal to make and evaluate.
I am sorry my previous post (linked up top) mentioning the deadline was missed by some.
Several proposals have measures in place that will make funding optional.
People recognized that a lack of funds was a serious threat to sustainability. Lowering rewards is never popular, but in my opinion it isnt the worse idea either and seems to be sufficient to ensure sustainability.
My post pay outs are so dismally low compared to my effort, losing more rewards wont really affect me. In fact I think it will mostly affect people who are trying to squeeze the block chain dry. I hope that is next on the chopping block but it won't actually add value because those people will stop when it becomes unprofitable.
Other ideas involve just collecting donations, well nothing is stopping people from doing that now and it's not working. Perhaps a proposal to get it working would be nice, but I am skeptical. There are a few proposals that try to focus on incubating or membership fees. Again I am skeptical.
Merger relies on several different methods and that is its strength. It has the lowest risk of failing and is by far the most developed and cconventional.it is also looking at current needs and not future ones. Since it can be assume if new needs arise it was adapt.
I'm not saying I will vote for merger, but I do think it will accelerate this entire mess and a lot of people are apathetic to the entire thing, so why drag it on?
Steemit Inc. had to fire over half its workers. I dont know if the foundation will stop the ship from sinking or raise it beyond its former glory, but I do know wasting more time won't improve things.
Posted using Partiko Android
I'm against financing things through delegations.
Too many have dumped their steem and left.
Honestly, i would vote nota.
But i am against hierarchies on principle.
It privileges the few at the expense of the many.
Most people are followers, they go where they are led by those they accept as authorities.
Not all bad, unless you are getting led to a slaughter.
The track record of the stakeholders makes that a nonzero probability.
Eliminating nota is a mistake, imo.
If folks want to build a foundation they should, but don't ask for community support unless you are prepared for the community not to give it.
Now the community doesn't get that choice because those invested in the project have denied it to them.
One of those proposals will be foisted on us whether we like it, or not.
The time to submit proposal has past. We cannot keep delaying it because some people were ignorant of deadlines, or didn't like the proposals that were submitted in a timely manner.
There has to be an official channel besides Steemit.
We both know Nota will fail in any case. Also, because it wasn't submitted in time, it won't add any legitimacy to the poll it may damage legitimacy since we will be making exceptions.
If it was a completely thorough and smashing good idea with a lot of support, I would sympathize with your motives, but a lot of people worked extremely hard on this and please forgive them if they think you are just trying to derail it.
Edit: Voting is entirely optional and vast majority of people didnt care to register. Now that it is closed maybe we can get an idea,
Saying things confidently doesnt necessarily make them true.
Nota can be included up until the post is made.
Not including it is an arbitrary decision.
This decision has been made by folks invested in both the process and the outcome.
Rejection of which is intolerable to them.
People that have made clearly known their resistence to the idea of freedom of choice on the part of others.
Yall's choice is made and it has eliminated the choice for every other voter.
If you can live with yourself after making that decision for others, it reflects on you.
Whether, or not, nota prevails can only be speculated upon.
As long as it is excluded by fiat, or any other reason, we cannot know how many would have chosen it.
You can speculate, but without the availability of the option, it cannot be known.
This election is not about steem governance. It's about having one more addon organization which can help the ecosystem. Nothing is exclusive, if you can't find a favorite amongst the proposals there are other projects out there where you can participate.
Coming in here after all deadlines have passed, demanding changes to voting process and calling it illegitimate stinks.
Illegitimate is denying choice to others.
You can't claim to want community support if you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you won't get it.
By eliminating nota as a choice you force a choice on others.
You cannot claim to have free fair elections when you eliminate the possibility of rejecting the proposals.
Rejection has been removed as a choice.
I guess i should've known the type of people i was dealing with and headed them off at the pass, excuse me for figuring it out too late.
I thought i was dealing with credible people who would like to know the truth about how the community feels.
Clearly the investment made by said folks outweighs their willingness to accept rejection.
Better to eliminate the option totally.
Smdh.
The blockchain will record this stain on what could've been a legitimate measure of community support.
Thebdeadline tonsubmit proposals was April 5th. NOTA was suggested as a proposal April 7th. There was even an offer to extend it if a reason was stated before April 7th. I am sorry you missed the deadline to submit your proposal. Unfortunately, NOTA was not proposed in time. You cannot have an election if the dates are not fixed.
Please admit your proposal was too late to qualify and you would like an exception to be made. I am done discussing this issue otherwise.
Posted using Partiko Android
I guess we are done then.
I didn't submit a proposal, I asked for a fair, open, and unbiased election.
Leaving half of the choices off the ballot is hardly unbiased.
But, it is your deal, you deal with it.
We left an inifinite number of undeclared choices off the ballot. I am sorry your choice was not included. Registration period has a deadline to avoid accusations of intereference. NOTA is very similar to not voting. In anycase it would just mean a new election. Since there is no minimum tirn out requirement unless there is another reason for extension, I don't wee the point. Are you hoping people will give up? or Hoping a better proposal will be submitted? It is kind of selfish to extend the deadline for these reasons and the period to ask for deadline extensions has passed.
Posted using Partiko Android
I'm hoping to measure the level of dissent on the matter?
I am content neutral on the proposals.
I am also undecided on which to vote for, not vote for, or choose nota.
But nota has not been offered as an option.
My choice is yes, yes, or yes, no is not on the ballot.
can u come back or make a hive stellar anchor?
You spoke well about my proposal. Thank you.
Apologies for the concept being a bit all over the place. I really need someone else to format thoughts.
It's fine and there is enough information in your posts to understand what your concept is. My purpose was to try to make sense of all proposals. It's a long read but hopefully people can get an idea in one place.
Most authors are responsive to comments which is important.
Posted using Partiko Android
Great job, thank you for for breaking this down for those who can't or don't want to read all the proposals.
I hope to sort it out further in a couple of days after I recover and hopefully hear back from one final author.
Thanks for the resteem.
There is around 23 hours left to register for the vote. I hope this convinces more people to register.
Posted using Partiko Android
I'll try to register but wowzerz this is some body of work. This version is overwhelming! Maybe I just need to have some coffee and focus lol.. Seemed very loooooong from my initial scan. It's a testament to steem that anyone would volunteer this much of their life..
Plot twist, its my own proposal called the Megazord, I just cited my sources and cleaned it up a little.
Ah OK I'm impressed, thx for replying, I registered but where do I vote?
Posted using Partiko Android
Follow @steemalliance and check out their post I linked waaay up top for more details. Voting isn't until a few days later.
Posted using Partiko Android
Noted thx boss
Posted using Partiko Android
Thanks for this summary and analysis . I have to confess, I have been a bit put off by all the reading involved so thanks for doing this. I did read it over breakfast but it's still a bit heavy read for first thing in the morning , so I shall definitely revisit again when my little brian is functioning better
Yeah it's a lot of info.
Another point is translation into other languages. I hope to get a much shorter version, encourage more graphics and even see smaller key questions / differences.
Posted using Partiko Android
A very useful summary. I thought upheaver and the merger had merged?
Posted using Partiko Android
Oh maybe thats why upheaver didn't reply to me? Their proposals are similar but different. Upheaver wants to charge membership fees to help fund things with different rates depending on corporate or individual. Students are free.
Merger is quite clear that members will be volunteers and makes no mention of fees.
Edit:
It seems he just helped with merger, but still has his own.
I will remove it if there is official word. It was by far the best organized proposal and the easiest to review, but that is maybe GitHub vs Steemit.
Thanks for your review. My proposal still stands on it's own - I helped with some ideas on the Merger, but they are still significantly different.
I think the collaboration has dropped the fees.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yes collaboration has no fees. But I don't know if upheaver dropped his or not. Fees are a good idea maybe later or an enhanced foundation or something but at first getting assistance for a free one will be challenging enough.
Posted using Partiko Android
I didn't think @upheaver's is on the final list of 5? He's now working with @agroedd - it says so in yr summary above.
I just helped with the merger proposal, mine still stands as it's vastly different in how it's funded and structured (paid professional vs volunteer staff).
Ah great, thanks for the clarification!
Posted using Partiko Android
Actually ignore my last comment I just checked he's back on..they've obviously edited the post since Saturday.
Good job summarising!
Posted using Partiko Android
Thanks @abitcoinskeptic, great to get your independent view and run down - not sure I'll bother to vote though, even nerfing at 250K makes my lousy 6K vote hardly able to influence
Ibdefinitely think youbshould still vote. We can probably discount inactive accounts with minimal sp, but 6k is no joke.
The nerf means overall whales will lose 50% of their combined power which is actually a lot.
They still dominate, but if a lo5 of popular community members and people with comparatively small but meaningful stakes vote, it will send an important message.
Posted using Partiko Android
Many thanks for this great summary. Seeing our ideas in such short sentences is a real pleasure.
You doubt, whales could be interested in this kind of decentralised setting. I can only speculate, but the richness of ideas being enabled through DeCentraSteem should definitely be good for Steem as a whole, letting communities flourish and the demand for STEEM rise.
Concerning voting: yes, you're right. Probably working circles engaged in a dispute shouldn't take part in a vote.
For this and other cases we have introduced rule no 9 on developing new rules. DeCentraSteem is an ever-learning system with high flexibility, starting optimistic with high trust in people, but being able to adopt to new situations very fast.
You are very right that whales could be interested. In my opinion, most of them have a couple smaller accounts where they actually speak their mind and are more conservative in their larger accounts. They have more invested than anyone and really want to see the chain do well.
Rules No. 9 is a really good idea because it allows for so much change and growth when desired. I expect any system adopted will need this.
Thank you @abitcoinskeptic for your summary. I am sure our members will find it useful. Resteemed too
This post has been included in the latest edition of The Steem News in 10 posts - a compilation of the key news stories on the Steem blockchain.