I just wrote a post [about potential](https://steemit.com/life/@tarazkp/drainthepool-xkyfm04c1d) and asked in it, *why would anyone invest in someone if they aren't willing to invest in themselves?* There may be some special cases like family and friends (especially children) but, when it comes to strangers, it is rare that any investment is ever made at all. To be granted opportunity in this life generally comes with some kind of give and take, nothing comes for free. 

https://i.imgur.com/A7BkdmM.jpg

This is no different on Steem in my experience and even though there is the random lottery effect to some degree (there used to be more of it before the bidbots), for the most part track record is required to get opportunity. And it is granted if it comes through the use of another's stake. There tends to be a great deal of entitlement here where people *expect* support, as if they are owed something just for joining up or, because they did something once upon a time. 

One thing that many people don't tend to recognize is that when it comes to people screwing up, people have long memories but when it comes to doing well, the memory fades fast. What this means is that if one relies on favor from others for earnings on Steem, one must consistently produce what is favorable, what people see as worthy of granting opportunity. A vote is an opportunity to earn Steem, Steem is an opportunity for any number of things. 

Steem is nothing special, it is a resource, a tool. What *is* special is the way it can be used in various ways to support a wide range of outcomes. Having some Steem means you can sell it for some value, having Steem powered up means it can be used to grant some value to others, or the self as the case may be. When it comes to granting to the self, most people feel that their effort is deserving of the value they hold but, would their own content hold up under their personal list of standards if i was delivered by a stranger? *Do I pass my own bar for a vote?*

Yes. 

https://i.imgur.com/aUOjLEb.jpg

I am biased of course though because I know how much work has gone into what I deliver, so it is an unfair comparison. Who can actually be objective in this way though? A brilliant article could take one person an hour to put together and another could spend 10 and not come close to the level of quality? Who is more deserving of a vote, who should get the opportunity? Effort counts for something but, so does quality of output. 

If you were having surgery, do you want the surgeon to be someone high quality or, someone who tries hard but doesn't deliver? It is an obvious choice isn't it? The high quality surgeon can have zero bedside manner and will *still* be chosen to perform the operation because of what is at risk, what is at *stake.*

Stake is important here because true or false, people use it as an indicator of investment into the platform and keeping it here as an indicator of their trust in the platform. It is a part of the reputation system and it is an obvious attractor, a status symbol of sorts as holding Steem Power carries certain assumptions with it, just like owning a luxury car does for some people. The assumption is, *they must have done something* for it and therefore I should listen to what they have to say. It could also be Daddy's car. Assumptions are dangerous. 

But, this is where the investment in the self comes in because, if one is actually paying attention, there will be a lot more than wallet size or Reputation as an indicator of whether someone is invested. There is the consistency, the comments and of course, the quality of information itself that should be considered. I have talked a fair bit about track record over the months when it comes to supporting people and I still feel that this is an important factor, if not more so. 

Many won't make it through the track record phase though because most don't have the ability to continue on without feedback or return for long periods of time. Some do of course and those who have or build the skills *and* continue to drive on despite a lack of return, will likely eventually, get some returns. 

Those who are willing to grant consistent support will generally grant it to those who consistently invest into themselves and produce what the voter thinks is valuable for the platform. What is valuable for each person can be greatly different but, for the those with stake in the platform, they will generally target what they think will increase their personal value as that is what they are incentivized to do. 

When it comes to being a content producer like myself, if I don't see platform value in what I create, why would anyone else who hopes to increase their investment worth? Again, this is for people who rely on staked people for their value because, those who already have stake or buy votes in their various ways, don't need to worry about their content quality at all since they can reward themselves regardless.

There has been a large drop in quality since prices have decreased and in my opinion, if someone can't maintain quality in lower value times, they aren't going to be here for long as, this is crypto. As said, the entitlement on this platform is high and when prices increased, many not only expected them to stay there but, that they deserve a piece of it because they are on the platform. 

This platform isn't a charity, it is an *opportunity* and there are many, many ways to gain advantage but most of them are passive, unless you already have stake. If it *was* possible to be objective though, if you saw someone behave just like you here, do you think they are bringing value, would you invest into them and, how much would you be willing to stake them for?

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]