Following a few articles on Steemit related to the upcoming Hardfork 0.17, specifically about how early this hardfork is scheduled after the last one, I decided to share my views related to the frequency of the platform changes.

If you're a veteran on the Steemit platform, then you remember the last hardfork, 0.16, was in December, last year. It changed the rules of the game at a deep level, modifying significantly the economical model. The next hardfork, 0.17 is set to take place anytime now, but I suspect it will be in March, second half.

That will probably make the timeframe between the two frameworks around 3 months. I consider this to be a reasonable interval for such a change.

Here's why:

we are still in beta. Let's not forget that we're all just paid beta testers and the product is supposed to change while is in beta, following users' feedback.
the "release early, release often" paradigm, which fostered the development of the Linux platform and, subsequently, of the entire Open Source system, is a real proof that this building model works.
the bigger the audience in the platform, the more difficult the adoption of any new feature will be. So, let's try to wreck some stuff while the damage is still relatively low.

Caveats

Steemit is a much more complicated system than just an Open Source app, though, and that's because of the underlying economical system. We're not just a social media platform, we're an economy, with a real cryptocurrency, which has some value attached, which is transferred in exchanges, which carries interest if it's blocked in certain assets, etc.

People are much more careful with their money than they are with their social media statuses. If they can't upload images to a blog post they may feel frustrated for a while, but if they feel their financial rewards are at risk (no matter how entitled they really are to those rewards, that's a different discussion) they will freak out.

The endless debate around the reward pool, curation rewards, algorithms and so on is a direct result of this natural reaction towards money. Not all users are closely tied to money, some of them - mostly whales - have a more relaxed way of acting, but the majority is heavily influenced by the price of Steem and by the changes in the economic model.

So, while I still maintain my position about "hardfork early, hardfork often" I do think there are some caveats that should be taken seriously. Some of them are already implemented, to various degrees, but some of them are not. I truly think the Steemit founders should have a look at these, and provided they agree, provided they have the time and the tools, to implement them.

It will make the entire experience more valuable to everybody.

1. Create a unified channel for feedback

Right now the feedback is scattered around Steemit articles, like this one. I think that each hardfork should have a specific place where the feedback should be provided and some sort of a voting process. These votes should not be active, but consultative, I don't think that decisions should be taken by a voting democracy (history proved that most of the time the majority in the democracy have no idea about what it's good for it) but the voting process should provide a clear image about the expectations of the users.

2. Provide clear simulations for the financials

Like I said, the financial component of Steemit is probably the most sensitive one. In HF 0.16 @dan provided a few visuals about how the new redistribution of tokens will work and that helped. A lot. I do think there should be a place, or a communication procedure that should state what are the monetary implications of a measure, to the extent the founders are aware of. It will help everybody calibrate their expectations.

3. Give fast feedback to the proposals

I think it's time for the Steemit team to hire a customer support person. If I would be them, which I'm obviously not, I will probably start with an announcement on Steemit. I'm sure there are many people here which could embrace this job opportunity. The main tasks of this person would be: confirm that a proposal has been received, seen or processed by the responsible persons in the Steemit team, pass on important information to and from the Steemit team, and keep an active eye on the community, identifying trends and communicating them to the relevant persons in the team. I think the @steemit account now holds enough SP to allow for a decent compensation to a good person taking care of this position.

4. Create, invent, manifest, or otherwise make possible the apparition of a community manager in Steemit

One of the most obvious and most ignored mistakes when it comes to the problems of Steemit is that code will fix anything. Or, since Steemit is also a financial ecosystem, that a new redistribution algorithm will fix anything. This never happens. Never. Only people can change things. And if you don't take care of people, people won't take care of you, as an ecosystem. Steemit needs a person capable to create some solid social glue around the scattered interests here, to understand and manage trolls, to separate legitimate unrest from attempt to game the platform for bigger incentives and so on and so forth. I don't know how Steemit will hire, or otherwise incentivize a person to take on this job, but, after a year of being out there, dozens of thousands of user accounts created and a lot of money paid out, I think it's just about time to do it.

When all this will be in place, I think that we will all be eager to see the next hardfork, and not keep balancing all day long between "meh" and "this is outrageous".

image source - Pixabay

I'm a serial entrepreneur, blogger and ultrarunner. You can find me mainly on my blog at Dragos Roua where I write about productivity, business, relationships and running. Here on Steemit you may stay updated by following me @dragosroua.

You can also vote for me as a Steemit witness here:
https://steemit.com/~witnesses

Hardfork Early, Hardfork Often | Ecency