RE: Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction by lukestokes

View this thread on steempeak.com

Viewing a response to: @steemitblog/steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction

· @lukestokes ·
$0.12
Excellent update, thank you. There's a lot here and clearly the team has been working hard. We all really appreciate the updates and the discussion. I like that we're trying things out, testing what works and what doesn't, and we're willing to remove something we previously tried if it doesn't work out as expected or doesn't benefit us all as imagined. Being willing to be "wrong" is such an important aspect of gaining new knowledge on what ends up being "right."

Curious: any talk of changing the voting power? Initially Dan proposed a pretty serious change there and it was ultimately rejected by the community. Is that topic still active or is the future approach going to be voting guilds where many things get voted up automatically not by individuals but more so by bots?
👍  , , , , , , , , , ,
properties (23)
post_id1,729,616
authorlukestokes
permlinkre-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t173332451z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"tags": ["steem"]}"
created2017-01-10 17:33:33
last_update2017-01-10 17:33:33
depth1
children12
net_rshares2,756,586,197,741
last_payout2017-02-10 22:33:00
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.097 SBD
curator_payout_value0.021 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length781
author_reputation395,063,281,398,324
root_title"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (11)
@dan-atstarlite ·
I also would love to see changing the voting power revisited at some point.
properties (22)
post_id1,729,754
authordan-atstarlite
permlinkre-lukestokes-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t175308878z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"tags": ["steem"]}"
created2017-01-10 17:53:09
last_update2017-01-10 17:53:09
depth2
children11
net_rshares0
last_payout2017-02-10 22:33:00
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 SBD
curator_payout_value0.000 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length75
author_reputation45,243,433,466,167
root_title"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
@andu ·
I'm not sure this will please the main stake holders. It would be like taking their power away which was not in plan when they put their stake in.
properties (22)
post_id1,729,790
authorandu
permlinkre-dan-atstarlite-re-lukestokes-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t175806694z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"tags": ["steem"]}"
created2017-01-10 17:58:00
last_update2017-01-10 17:58:00
depth3
children10
net_rshares0
last_payout2017-02-10 22:33:00
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 SBD
curator_payout_value0.000 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length146
author_reputation5,356,595,953,365
root_title"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
@acidyo ·
Isn't the change @lukestokes is talking about the one where you could if you wanted to, vote 8x more with 1 vote and it would drain your voting power by 8x?
👍  ,
properties (23)
post_id1,730,031
authoracidyo
permlinkre-andu-re-dan-atstarlite-re-lukestokes-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t183232273z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"users": ["lukestokes"], "tags": ["steem"]}"
created2017-01-10 18:32:33
last_update2017-01-10 18:32:33
depth4
children6
net_rshares102,820,528,646
last_payout2017-02-10 22:33:00
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 SBD
curator_payout_value0.000 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length156
author_reputation1,572,775,251,470,663
root_title"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (2)
@beanz ·
$0.12
What they are referring to isn't to take power away from large stake holders , but rather bots.  Bots can vote all day every day and with a 40 vote soft limit it is impossible for any human with a job and/or life to compete with that.  If we were to lower that limit then every human could use their full voting power and have a better chance at reaches the same amount of votes as the bots.  I hope Dan and Ned will consider revisiting this idea as nobody is exchanging curation rewards for their authentic attention with the current system and that is a real fail for the attention economy.  Those who pay more attention should be making better curation rewards than those (with the same amount of SP) who are offline.
👍  ,
properties (23)
post_id1,731,467
authorbeanz
permlinkre-andu-re-dan-atstarlite-re-lukestokes-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t221446924z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"tags": ["steem"]}"
created2017-01-10 22:14:51
last_update2017-01-10 22:14:51
depth4
children2
net_rshares2,729,246,412,284
last_payout2017-02-10 22:33:00
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.088 SBD
curator_payout_value0.029 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length720
author_reputation68,303,733,730,210
root_title"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (2)