Steem pyramid scheme revealed

[chryspano]

Hopefully this isn't happening just so Dan and founders can withdraw their $millions quickly

https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/proposed-changes-to-steem-economy#@ned/re-jrcornel-re-ats-david-re-steemitblog-proposed-changes-to-steem-economy-20161104t211733693z

[-]ned  ·  3 days ago
Dan & I will not be powering down during the three month period after this is implemented.

Yes I saw that too. What about the Steem, Inc. account which has something like 40% of the money supply?

I don't know or really care, but my assumption is that probably there is no need for funds for the next three months, so it would be "fair" imo if steemit didn't power down at this period too, so that everyone who wants to get out to do so without much "pressure".  

[1714762962]

1714762962

[1714762962]

1714762962

[1714762962]

1714762962

[1714762962]

1714762962

[chryspano]

Hopefully this isn't happening just so Dan and founders can withdraw their $millions quickly

https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/proposed-changes-to-steem-economy#@ned/re-jrcornel-re-ats-david-re-steemitblog-proposed-changes-to-steem-economy-20161104t211733693z

[-]ned  ·  3 days ago
Dan & I will not be powering down during the three month period after this is implemented.

So after 3 months it's fair game?


I wouldn't be surprised if a ton of other whales dump though. I'm just gonna hold until Steem is out of its bear market, if ever... who knows, they could learn from their mistakes and things could get better. I wouldnt wanna sell at the bottom, my 1500 SP is already worthless as it is

If you don't like it you have 3 months to get out first. You can't ask for the rules to apply only to a few.

[disconnectme]

I don't know why some people are surprised about the crash in Steem price, it was designed to fail with the distribution of their tokens, well conceived idea but the developers/ speculators greediness is biting back. Even the new set rules still have some weakness but could help if the market regain trust of the project but I doubt this because alot of people have been burnt already

[iamnotback]

I don't know or really care, but my assumption is that probably there is no need for funds for the next three months, so it would be "fair" imo if steemit didn't power down at this period too, so that everyone who wants to get out to do so without much "pressure".  

I am not against them doing what ever they can to improve Steem. It is an interesting experiment to see if it is possible extract a project from an unnatural level of whale concentration due to a stealthy "premine". That was Dan's idea for an experiment on how to launch a token project.

I do my work. They do their work. Others do their work. It is all part of the greater ecosystem here.

[iamnotback]

Are the whales going to rape the system via exorbitant witness fees if they lose their ability to rake it in by gaming the voting model?

Is (D)PoS already more realistically resistant to insidious effects of centralization of vested interests "stake" than Satoshi's design?

No.

(D)PoS isn't a free market on transaction fees. Somebody has to pay for the servers whether it is taken out of the collective as "witness fees" from dilution as is the case for Steem. The vested power-law distributed stake interests have a monopoly and can charge (more than the costs up to) the maximum the market can bear, which some allege is also underway in Bitcoin as proof-of-work mining is allegedly centralizing with economies-of-scale.

[alyssa85]

I wouldn't be surprised if a ton of other whales dump though.

I think the issue right now is that the whales are dumping 1/104 of their steempower every week, but making just as much from inflation rises to steempower plus curation. So it's a pepetual dumping machine.

Under the new system, if they dump, that's it, their stash is much lower. So they can only dump once. When the dumping is out of the way, the coin should rise because selling pressure has abated.

[disconnectme]

I wouldn't be surprised if a ton of other whales dump though.

I think the issue right now is that the whales are dumping 1/104 of their steempower every week, but making just as much from inflation rises to steempower plus curation. So it's a pepetual dumping machine.

Under the new system, if they dump, that's it, their stash is much lower. So they can only dump once. When the dumping is out of the way, the coin should rise because selling pressure has abated.

I think the issue now is more of trust than anything people have been burnt by the crash in price, I know alot of people are now using the platform now which is good and the number of users have increased significantly but will it worth the effort soon

[alyssa85]

I wouldn't be surprised if a ton of other whales dump though.

I think the issue right now is that the whales are dumping 1/104 of their steempower every week, but making just as much from inflation rises to steempower plus curation. So it's a pepetual dumping machine.

Under the new system, if they dump, that's it, their stash is much lower. So they can only dump once. When the dumping is out of the way, the coin should rise because selling pressure has abated.

I think the issue now is more of trust than anything people have been burnt by the crash in price, I know alot of people are now using the platform now which is good and the number of users have increased significantly but will it worth the effort soon

I think some people will undoubtedly use the opportunity to cash out and invest in other coins. So a bumpy three month ride till they have gone from the system.

[iamnotback]

Also another major flaw of DPoS is that exchanges can vote but they don't have the same vested interest (and they can be hacked), so that sort of destroys the notion that the whales don't want to attack their own coin because there isn't enough liquidity to short their huge stake. Well Steemit, Inc solved that problem by controlling majority of the stake, but for a real-world outcome DPoS can't suffice for that reason IMO.

[brekyrself]

Also another major flaw of DPoS is that exchanges can vote but they don't have the same vested interest (and they can be hacked), so that sort of destroys the notion that the whales don't want to attack their own coin because there isn't enough liquidity to short their huge stake. Well Steemit, Inc solved that problem by controlling majority of the stake, but for a real-world outcome DPoS can't suffice for that reason IMO.

Do you see any way to keep a DPOS asset off an exchange to restrict voting?  There was a very good thread on bitsharestalk.org on this however the site is down at the moment.

[iamnotback]

Also another major flaw of DPoS is that exchanges can vote but they don't have the same vested interest (and they can be hacked), so that sort of destroys the notion that the whales don't want to attack their own coin because there isn't enough liquidity to short their huge stake. Well Steemit, Inc solved that problem by controlling majority of the stake, but for a real-world outcome DPoS can't suffice for that reason IMO.

Do you see any way to keep a DPOS asset off an exchange to restrict voting?  There was a very good thread on bitsharestalk.org on this however the site is down at the moment.

I thought about it some and didn't come up with anything. Please refer us to that thread when it comes back up. We could probably access an archive of that site via archive.org.

I am working on a different angle for solving the problems I see both in Satoshi's design and DPoS. I am actually coming around to the point-of-view that DPoS is superior to proof-of-work, but it has some problems also.

There won't be a perfect design, but hopefully at least we can enumerate the design axes so that the market can choose.

[r0ach]

Coindesk has turned full auto retard shills for central banks now:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1680205.0

Maybe Steem can be the not as shilly news site until bankers monoplize it.

[g3rszpi]

Lol and whats the problem with that 80%? They have to fund the development, etc.
Why didn't you invented "Steem"? They had a good idea, they had skills to make it, they deserve the reward.
You are free to make something unique and not cry about dev premines,etc

[iamnotback]

You are free to make something unique and not cry about dev premines,etc

It is not crying. It is an objective analysis of the winner-take-all devolution and the deleterious effects on ecosystem uptake.

And yes we are free to make something unique and better.

I suppose you are an investor in Steem. Btw, I have ~5000 SP.

[g3rszpi]

You are free to make something unique and not cry about dev premines,etc

It is not crying. It is an objective analysis of the winner-take-all devolution and the deleterious effects on ecosystem uptake.

And yes we are free to make something unique and better.

I suppose you are an investor in Steem. Btw, I have ~5000 SP.

No, im not, i just respect people who are making something unique/constructive.

[iamnotback]

No, im not, i just respect people who are making something unique/constructive.

I mentioned Dan today in a respectful context:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1679187.msg16872568#msg16872568

[flipme]

Hopefully this isn't happening just so Dan and founders can withdraw their $millions quickly

https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/proposed-changes-to-steem-economy#@ned/re-jrcornel-re-ats-david-re-steemitblog-proposed-changes-to-steem-economy-20161104t211733693z

[-]ned  ·  3 days ago
Dan & I will not be powering down during the three month period after this is implemented.

Yes I saw that too. What about the Steem, Inc. account which has something like 40% of the money supply?

Thats the only reason I'm still holding STEEM. Because of that fact the company is still good for a buyout.

[iamnotback]

Also another major flaw of DPoS is that exchanges can vote but they don't have the same vested interest (and they can be hacked), so that sort of destroys the notion that the whales don't want to attack their own coin because there isn't enough liquidity to short their huge stake. Well Steemit, Inc solved that problem by controlling majority of the stake, but for a real-world outcome DPoS can't suffice for that reason IMO.

Do you see any way to keep a DPOS asset off an exchange to restrict voting?

I thought about it some and didn't come up with anything...

There is a solution at least when your coins are not used as margin. It may have been proposed before?

This also fixes the problem with exchanges stealing funds.

That is sign to a script which says you can only spend those designated coins (which you've chosen to deposit with the exchange) to the exchange's address, unless the exchange has signed a release and/or there could be an optional timeout.

So when you trade on the exchange, you send the exchange a signature to release that many coins to the exchange. The exchange doesn't have to wait for confirmation on the blockchain, because the signer can't undo the signature nor double-spend it.

Thus you, but not the exchange, can vote with your stake until you've signed it over to the exchange.

Exchanges may not adopt this, because they love floating on your money. But its adoption and non-adoption would be a way of distinguishing the honest from the corrupt exchanges.

@smooth now you know I do sometimes share my ideas before I can implement them.

[snowflake43]

Part of the new issued coins are allocated to SP holders. This means that the less Steem is powered up the more coins are being allocated to existing SP holders. So the new changes ( more liquid steem) basically creates a new incentive to stay powered up because there would be less steem powered up.  Please let me know if I am missing something but that's how I understand it.

[iamnotback]

Part of the new issued coins are allocated to SP holders. This means that the less Steem is powered up the more coins are being allocated to existing SP holders. So the new changes ( more liquid steem) basically creates a new incentive to stay powered up because there would be less steem powered up.  Please let me know if I am missing something but that's how I understand it.

Yes this is correct. When the percentage of SP is less than 90%, then there is an apprecation of share aggregating to the SP holders. This increases as the SP share decreases. I had covered this math in one of my blogs or comment posts on Steem. It is linked upthread some where in this thread.

The chart is here and the detailed math discussion is in the comments:

https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-2