Hi,

SPN = SteemPunkNet. Its a Browser Game as I have written above.
Most important links are:

- Chrome plugin: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/steempunk-net/jifcnginffjgcdcklciiodhaffgfbaph
- Firefox addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/steempunk-net/
- FAQ: https://www.steempunk.net/FAQ
- FAQ for BETA: https://www.steempunk.net/FAQ/Beta-FAQ
- Stats: https://www.steempunk.net/SPN/Stats 
- Fighters: https://www.steempunk.net/SPN/Fighters
- Stay up to date: - https://steemit.com/@steempunknet
- Get the newest battle stats: - https://steemit.com/@steempunksnet

@paulag i hope its ok tha i drop the links.
@jjb777 i hope it clears the most questions from you

:-)

not quite half a year we are working on it in our spare time :-)
You are welcome in our discord chat. There's a lot of nice people there.

>  Utopian posts do not appear in search or hot/trending on steemit 

Are you sure about that? How? I am really curious.

I tried to get someone to bring his attention to my post basically saying "hey ned, don't make us think mark zuckerberg is better than you". No idea if it worked. It's this post: https://steemit.com/facebook/@techslut/facebook-invests-millions-in-community-leaders-what-steemit-inc-should-learn-from-this

Oh, crap.
Ok, from the top.
I only got to the first sentence before your use of a strawman distracted me.
Anyway, here we go.

>the less activity on the steem blockchain, the better for individual users.

Not what I said.
What I said was that less sp voting is good for the small sp holders.
When an account with 5000mv votes those with .001mv are disadvantaged in the math.
If our goal is increased adoption that harms retention.

So, not less activity by the whole, just less activity by the .01%.

>That's what you want. If we take you at your word.

As that is not what I said, but what you wanted to hear me as saying for the sake of your argument, I'm just gonna leave that there,...

>See, this is the problem. And by "the problem" what I mean is "your problem."

Thanks for making this personal, it will destroy your credibility with anybody that values logic and reason over hype and cheap emotionalism.

>You make the assumption that the whales are not part of the ecosystem.

No, they profit most by chumming the waters and getting the little fish excited enough to sign their grandmother up and give her some steem to get going.
They are the ones that profit most when folks start parking their paychecks in steem prior to paying their bills through @blocktrades.

> You make the assumption that what they want is not something that you should support.

The only assumptions I see are in your argument.
Self-serving as they are.

>You know what happens when we make assumptions, right?

Well, clearly one of us doesn't.

>The crux of your argument is that you want to invalidate the stake of those who have the most stake, and somehow you expect them to then maintain that stake and not liquidate it, converting it into something which is actually useful to them.

No, that is the argument you wish I was making.
I am offering the whales an opportunity to have their stake grow exponentially by making more people excited to be here, rather than turned off by the circle jerks and treadmills.

Were they to liquidate their stake it could only be sold to a willing buyer, provided that buyer is not another whale, their selling would benefit the distribution, and thereby, the platform as a whole.

>. You know that's stupid, right?

Again, you are making yourself look bad to anybody that prefers logic to cheap emotionalism.

>Not only does it fly in the face of human nature as observed empirically over the last 250,000 years,

Man, I hope I don't have to start with the [yourlogicalfallacyis.com](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white) quotes.

It has been known for more than 100 years that public opinion, 'human nature' as you call it, [is quite malleable](http://www.mcnuttphysics.com/uploads/2/3/6/9/23694535/engineering_of_consent-edward_l_bernays.pdf).

>why shouldn't they act directly in opposition to yours?

I fully expect that they will.
We will have to sell our solutions to a buying market.
Maybe the best one will prevail, maybe not.

>So when I call you out as an authoritarian, jackbooted thug, I want you to know it comes from a place of love. Or at least not spite.

Oh, that one made me chuckle outloud,...

Being able to discuss ideas without bashing each other's brains out is a sure sign of enlightenment.

Let's just see how authoritarian you ain't.
[This short essay](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia) demonstrates clearly how authoritarianism in charge of education has worked to dumb down the population.
Can I get an opinion on it?

Before we go farther let me state that had they had the answers ~80 years ago we would have been adopted by now.
I'm pretty sure I have those facets not available to them at that time, but that is for another day.

> I would love to get more big, fat up-votes from big, juicy whales.

Clearly, this is one of your misconceptions.
You don't understand the math.
Whale votes take from the minnows and give to those favored by the whales.
Were the whale not to vote our votes would be larger and distribution wider.
Instead of the folks I vote getting a few cents from me they might get a dollar.
It seems that you think giving hundreds/thousands of dollars to a few users is better for the ecosystem than giving $5 to thousands of users.
I think you are wrong.

>I would love to have more money. I think we all would.

I agree with that, I would love to see steem go to 100usd, but I don't think that the current climate at the top is conducive to that happening.

I'm not certain that this attitude isn't because we are not ready for the masses, yet, but I do know that plenty of newbs have left due to the distribution being skewed towards the sycophants/dupes/true beliebers of the top.

>But you simply won't get it by keeping people out of the blockchain.

Ah, laughing, again.
With 480k dead accounts you want to tell me that it is my ideas turning folks away?

>You won't get it by telling serious investors that they shouldn't actually use the product they paid for, in the way that they see fit, completely within the rules-as-law.

I agree with that, mostly, too.
It would be akin to telling the rothschilds that they have to give up their power.
Not gonna happen without a struggle.
At least not before a better platform exists making this one obsolete.

However, by adopting that attitude the whales lose the moral high ground.
They can't both sell the platform as a new paradigm and act in the same manner as the old paradigm.
To think that is [classic doublethink](http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/1984/1984.htm).

I have testimonies attributing the newbs' leaving to the fact that only whale favorites make any money.
I don't think that this comes as a surprise, to you or anybody else.

>Let's take your analysis one step further. I've already pointed out that taken to the ultimate extreme, the reasonable response is to suggest that there only be one vote and it be yours. 

Since that is not what I have said my position is, I will leave it there.

>Honestly, it's you that's making it harder for newbs to make a buck on their content.

Victim blame much?

>In my ever likely to get a big, fat up-vote from @dlive? No, Hades no. I don't create that kind of content. If I did, it probably wouldn't be the kind of content to that they want to seriously promote. I'm a pretty niche creature.

I'm in the same boat with you there.
@curie told me not to bother if I was gonna be 'controversial'.

I took that to mean that dissent would be shunned, and to this point, it has been.
Sure, some of the 'favored status' folks got votes on dissent, and me a couple too, but you won't see the problems of the platform on the trending page.
I think they took the active feed away because too much dissent was making to the top.

>Your problem is that "the whole ecosystem" doesn't agree with you,

Yep, it is.
This is why I keep making these 'squeaky wheel' posts/comments when I would rather be making them about crapitalism in the broader world instead of about the power structure of this platform where large numbers of the high powered accounts self identify as anarchist.

Dan had to leave because of the crapitalust crap that occurred in the background, I was here as it happened.

We got some of the best crapitalusts on the planet steering this ship, but more of the same is not going to change the broader world.

In fact, the masses will reject it as more of the same, as we can already see demonstrated in the dearth of user retention.
Most of those red fish, that weren't noganoo, et al, left because the reward to effort ratio was too high when compared to the favored accounts.

Not all bad, not everybody is cut out to make money here, but crippling if mass adoption is your goal.

>the people who have a stake in the system in a very literal sense don't agree with who you think should be getting the up-votes.

It's their throats that get cut the most if they end up holding the bag.
Makes this platform look more like a money grab than a viable alternative to the status quo.

> And if the system were pursued in a way that satisfied what you are demanding,

Perhaps we should take this opportunity to redress the misconceptions you put forth of my proposal?
Can you keep your posts a little shorter, I keep getting lost in the scrolling.
Perhaps stinc could get a us an expanding comment box coded up?
At least one bigger than 4 lines, eh?

> it would lead to less posters, less activity, fewer people, fewer voters – less of everything and fewer of everyone.

If I recall correctly user sign ups exploded when the smaller accounts stopped being crushed by the whales using the n2 to suck up all the rewards.

To be clear I preferred the whales acting responsibly, but the hardfork did improve the lot of the little guys, at least some.
Instead of our votes rounding down to 0, we, at least, move the needle on the ui.
Not near as much as we would've if the whales had been to made to stop sucking it all up, but at least some.

>Not only are you an authoritarian, jackbooted thug

See, this is not an effective debating technique if it is the truth you are seeking.
This is why those that value logic are losing respect for you.

You have mischaracterized me, sir, and I expect the morons/bootlickers/dupes of the power structure to cheer your attack, but those interested in finding the truth between our two positions are being turned off to the conversation by these ad hominem tactics.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Lol, now my side is cheering,...

> Then the value of steem and SBD would crash even harder than January, 

You should have been here in Jan '17 when only the whales, and their sycophants, could get rewards, I'll let you find the price then just in case my memory has the recollection of .1usd wrong.

> the basics of economics elude you. Which I suppose I shouldn't be overly surprised by.

Perhaps you shouldn't get your economic theories from the people enslaving you?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-04-17

>If you want to improve the lot of the minnow, figure out a way to get more investors to buy into the blockchain

I don't think that large investors is where our success lies.
I think that our success lies in folks adopting steem as a currency, and that isn't going to happen if all the inflation goes to the top.
Not that it actually is, things are improving at an increasing pace.

But, it appears that way when you sign up for an account, starting with .5 steem, and see folks make hundreds of sbd day after day after day on low effort posts when they put their hearts into their posts and get no votes at all.

I used to follow /cashout and vote 0 payout posts, and shame folks for not doing the same, to the point that they eliminated the feed.

Don't kid yourself, @lextenebris, they know the truth of my words, even if you don't.

In a sense, it's a race.

Right now by using the platform we are betting that the rate at which steem increases in value will outpace the rate at which the number of votes that we are likely to get on any individual post will decrease in number or value. (Assuming that one's use of this platform is dependent on concern about how much physical reward they receive.)

If the number of users increases such that the dilution of the voting pool by more participants decreases the value of an individual vote faster than the value of a smaller amount of steem increases in worth, we've made a bad bet.

It's certainly possible that Steemit is a bad bet. I'm willing to entertain the idea. Certainly, the overall trend in the value of steem has been largely upward over the last year but like the rest of the cryptocurrency market, it's ludicrously unstable and prone to sudden changes based on actions and behaviors which are not in any way related to those of the investors and stakeholders.

That would be a rational concern to have. But, as you note, it's unrelated to the actions of a few whales in any real sense, because the activity of having significant growth by actual small users is equally dispersive.

And it comes with all the philosophical problems that I pointed out earlier regarding the assumption of authority to tell someone else what they can do with their stake.

Yes, delegation is motivation – one way or another. In some ways we are currently very lucky that there is so much stagnant SP on the blockchain. (That is, accounts which literally do nothing but sit on a pile of vests.) That is all SP which could express the will of the holder to direct the reward pool – which they have a right to do. Should even more of the top 200 become highly active, because of the rate of falloff in the owned vest pool, the actual ability of anyone outside that group to direct any significant portion of the rewards pool would be effectively nil.

I find that kind of interesting. More for the question of "why haven't they done it already?" than anything else.

> I didnt challenge purely down to the rep difference at the time.

That hurts, PG, but I realize it is the high percentage shot on Steemit.
You will find that I am outside of most norms, not all, but certainly not prone to petty vindictiveness.

>If you wish i can share this spreadsheet with you

Thanks for the offer, if you turned it into a steemtool that would be great.
It would help the newbs to understand the math better.

>So lets go back to the call out for delegation. Delegation = motivation.

I think you miss my point.  
My point is when a large delegation is given to a favored account it disadvantages everybody else in the math.
This disfavors all not directly favored by the delegation.

Sure it excites everybody so favored, but so too would larger votes excite everybody else.
I don't know to what point this favor isn't diluted by the sheer numbers of users, does a whale vote impact the minnow vote enough to register as noticeable?
With 1k users it certainly does, but with 100k?, I don't know.

If the sum of voted sp equals 10k and a delegation then votes with 100k the votes of the others are shrunk in proportion, and the goal of distribution to more accounts is shrunk, as well.
This isn't near as bad as when the n2 multiplied it exponentially, but the basis is still the same.

Favoring X over Y in the math makes Y not want to play.

Stinc has been pretty egalitarian in their approach in that they don't want to favor folks in the code, but then they go out of their way to favor people with their personal stakes.
That is contradictory, ie, doublethink.

That said, I get wanting to prime the dapps' pumps.
What I don't like is the artificial and unsustainable nature of doing it.

I don't doubt that growth will be slowed by the folks not being given a false impression of what to expect, but I think retention will be higher if the reality is presented from the beginning.
While also not giving us a reputation for being bs.

If you could tell me what the impact of the whale experiment set at 80mv, 100mv, and 1000mv that would help me a lot.
The data I'm looking for is how the not voting in excess of those limits impacts the distribution of the pool.
Does restricting whale impact increase the breadth of accounts impacted?

I suspect, thought I don't have exact data, that allowing dolphins to deal with who gets what will spread the reward pool to more newbs.
It appears to me that concentrating rewards on those favored by the high powered accounts leads to a very, very low retention rate.
Whereas chumming the waters with $5 votes on thousands of minnows would get more folks excited than $1000 votes on dozens, imo.

If mass adoption is our goal we have to make the game appealing to more than just those whom the whales favor with gifts.

A year from now I think the impact of this will be less due to the inflation spreading the wealth.
5 years from now it should be non-issue, if I have the math right.

ha ha love it