You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Downvote Pool Deep Dive

in #steem • 6 years ago (edited)

Doesn't matter. Profit is profit.

There is no profit, if the STEEM price always decreases, which it does since a long time. There is especially no profit for big stakeholders.
It doesn't matter to get a bigger piece of a cake, if the cake is getting smaller and smaller.

And I see no reason why smaller accounts shouldn't be here to earn something, even if of course there is no 'right' to earn.

6 years ago in #steem by
$1.07
  • Past Payouts $1.07
  • - Author $0.81
  • - Curators $0.27
13 votes
Reply 4
Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     6 years ago (edited) 

    There is no profit, if the STEEM price always decreases, which it does since a long time. There is especially no profit for big stakeholders.

    You do realize that a number of big accounts didn't buy their stakes, right? Also, BTC going up always affect the prices. If you can't sell higher than you acquired (in this case, click of a button), then you are doing something seriously wrong.

    Why are you so focused on small accounts not being able to earn? They will be fine. The proposal here is more geared towards bigger stakeholders. If there are no stakeholders, nobody earns.

    Let's just wait and see.

    $0.04
    • Past Payouts $0.04
    • - Author $0.03
    • - Curators $0.01
    2 votes
    Reply
    [-]
     6 years ago  

    You do realize that a number of big accounts didn't buy their stakes, right?

    Sure, but nevertheless they would be eager to see its value raise again.

    I think BTC and trading is not really the topic here (even if it's interesting). Of course every trader tries to sell more expensive than he has bought ...

    Why are you so focused on small accounts ...

    As I wrote in "My STEEM Vision.", the value of a (social) network is measured among others by the number of its users.
    A rich pool of satisfied users would also make STEEM much more interesting for larger investors in the long run than it still is today, interesting to place advertisements read by many, to market products, to disseminate information.
    The value of Facebook is also due to its large amount of users not because of - for example - superior technology.

    $0.07
    • Past Payouts $0.07
    • - Author $0.06
    • - Curators $0.02
    2 votes
    Reply
    [-]
     6 years ago  

    A rich pool of satisfied users

    <p dir="auto">And what do you think drive people away more? Seeing crap earning lots on trending or the occasional <code>dang I pissed off a whale scenario? Or maybe it's because this platform has less functions than any other mainstream options? <p dir="auto">Sure, I can only offer my opinion based on the people I have talked to. I know some content creators become discouraged because they feel they are better than those who earn much more for less. For me, it's frustrating seeing people would spam and use either large stake or bid bots to create more inflation. <p dir="auto">50/50 may be able to curb the shitposting from big accounts somewhat, but I kind of doubt it. <p dir="auto">We are going off topic. <p dir="auto">If whales actually start flagging stuff on trending, etc. I think it could embolden other users to drop their votes of disapproval as well. No matter the account size, what is the downvoted person going to do? Flag everyone back? Or perhaps, they would just bully the smaller downvoters a bit, but that does not make the big flags go away.
    [-]
     6 years ago  

    I partly agree with you.

    Used in an appropriate way flags are essential for the success of the community.
    'Cheap' posts with huge rewards on tranding are a problem.

    However, I also know that many users have suffered under unjustified whale flaggs, left (or will leave) the platform and spread that information.
    In my opinion flag abuse is a real problem, as well.