I didnt mean it the way I said it, I apologize. My point is just that the only thing that distinguishes steem from any other platform like it is the fact that you can earn money with it (there is a side benefit of not being censored, but that is tangential and certainly not the motivation of almost anyone to join).
Thus, to call people greedy for using the system legally and in the way that it is currently set up is not accurate in my opinion.
I'm sorry if I upset you.
I'm not upset. You just won't be here long if you came for a flood of riches. That doesn't anger me at you, as I understand the motivation.
And, I literally came here to escape the censorship and propaganda I could no longer tolerate on Fakebook and Youtool. The only reason I care much about rewards, is that it's a powerful motivator for people to interact civilly.
The potential and prospect of gaining - or having flagged away - some cash transforms trolls into polite interlocutors.
However, just because code exists doesn't mean it works how it was supposed to. The white paper reveals the devs expected ~30% of rewards going to ~90% of the community. While this is alarmingly skewed, it's not even close to what is actually the case.
Less than 1% of rewards goes to 99+% of the community - orders of magnitude worse. Call it greed if you want. I don't. I see no point in a pejorative term.
I look at it as financial prudence, where foregoing potential income is contrary to the skillset that gained the stake to begin with.
It's short-sighted, and killing Steemit, however. We need 'Helicopter Ben' up in here to create a market that can make Steem a nominal currency. Not flowing rewards adequately to those without Steem fails to create more users of the currency. Median payouts of $.01 is not adequate flow.
Votebots help a given post gain rewards. But profit concentrates Steem even more via votebots, and actually makes the GINI (a measure of financial disparity) of Steemit worse, even though the bots may be intended by their authors to disperse Steem more broadly.
These kinds of unintended consequences have convinced me that ever more complicated mitigations to the unforeseen problems of stake weighting VP are flogging a dead horse.
The problem is stake-weighting itself, and the cure is rep-weighting.
Rewards work. Greed is not good, and profiteers eventually demonetize those that play fair, destroying the market itself. This is what is happening to Steemit, as the GINI continues to get worse.
Be well, and my your fondest dreams pale beside the amazing actuality of your future joy!
I dunno how I upvoted this comment. I didn't mean to, and only now have discovered this, too late to 'unvote' it.
For anyone that cares, or finds this to be probative I am unprincipled in my frequent rants against self voting and bots, I will welcome any flags that reference this example of self voting, I am not presently capable of fixing.
I am actually glad I found it, as I saw some days ago that self voting had somehow occurred, and I have been mystified as to how that happened. At least the mystery is solved.
Apparently, the tangled complexity of this post and it's replies has either confused me when I voted on another comment, or the UI/UX somehow.
I dunno.
Ok