Lately and happily, Delegation has been coming more and more into the spotlight, especially that of the Steemit-backed delegation to projects and how they are being used.
I have written about it before that I too have delegation, the difference is that I pay for mine and I am no whale. This means that in order for me to actually pay it off, I must somewhat self-vote. However, with SBD being what it is, I don't have to do this as much as others seem to. My self-voting percentage is 31% currently and that is only on articles, never on my own comments. I write a lot.
So, where does the other 70% go? Well, to a few people actually. In regards to posts, some are family, some are people I have onboarded I am trying to build, some are friends with decent content and many are on random posts I have found or have been sourced for me through 
But, what is the true cost of my delegation? Well, if I look at it from an opportunity cost perspective, I am missing out on 70% of what I pay for to get SBD, power up and be much larger than I currently am. Am I an idiot for not doing so. Yes. I am naive and idealistic and actually think that investing into the community will help the community grow and at the moment, I am really, really under-utilising my paid delegation for my own growth.
And, herein lies the problem with many that receive Steemit delegations or free delegations from interested parties who want the community to grow. How much should be spent on the ones with delegation to grow and how much should be pushed out to the community it intended for?
Many of the projects with massive delegations seem to spend an inordinate amount on a small group of people who work for the project itself or the owners of the project. Considering they are also taking percentage cuts from curation and beneficiaries of every post through their interface, doesn't this seem a touch, not community spirited? To me, this is akin to a charity claiming from the community and government and then using the majority of support for 'administration costs' whilst living in lavish homes and driving expensive cars.
The other thing that seems to happen is a narrow band (again nearly always including the close circle of the project) getting rewarded very heavily. This has two affects as it pushes posts into trending for views and, it is like the lottery. It offers very high rewards that attract people, but the chances of getting the 'win' are small which means more users, and more beneficiary rewards. This is also lazy curating and not great for community spread and if the idea of the delegation is to build the community, this process fails at it. In my small opinion, no reposted meme grabbed from the internet is worth $100s and a place in trending.
So, I understand that everyone can do with their stake as they choose but, delegation from Steemit is NOT their stake, it is Steemit's and if they want it used for community building, it should be largely used in a way that maximises the gains for the community and distributes Steem to more users for future stability and growth.
I understand and accept that those running the projects and even maybe their friends can benefit from the delegation to grow their own accounts a little too but, what should the split be? And, should people who are consistently powering down, or taking all liquids off-platform to never come back be getting Steemit backed support to do so?
There was the infamously curious case of the highly rated Sweetsssj who is still gaining massive support even though she was found to be selling delegation meant for community development and, highly upvoting 10 or so of her claimed 'friends' (I suggest scrolling through the wallets of the friends) who were all strangely extracting everything to the same Bittrex account. Why would they add that headache to the friendship? She is not alone in this type of behaviour but is obviously the most visible considering her 75 rep and 25,000 followers.
What is the limit between community growth/self-growth and greed? And why does the community accept unacceptable splits from accounts that are already the largest on the platform abusing delegations and at times, very blatantly doing so? Is it because people are still hoping for the big reward votes from those projects and people?
Again, I am an idealist who would like to see this community become a force but it seems that at every turn, there are challenges that no one wants to actually acknowledge as they fear the repercussions of doing so. I too have this fear as to bring things into the light of conversation means to risk losing the support I currently get, the support which gives me the chance to support others and grow myself.
I am not sure what the solution is to the Steemit delegations meant for community growth but, I think there should be at least some checks and balances to make sure that a significant amount of the delegation is being used in ways that support the intended purpose. Too often it seems that it is only when the community itself brings these things to light that something gets done. Perhaps the system of delegation should be rethought.
I spend a lot of my writing trying to build community in different ways whether it be the information to encourage power ups, various ways to engage or the resilience needed to keep going even though current support is low. I keep saying, 'in the future' and really believe that the future is bright but how does it help when the most visible accounts on Steemit, backed by Steemit itself are abusing the trust of the community under the guise of helping?
Well, I can't change that, I can just keep doing what I do and hope that in time, the system will regulate and limit those who are doing more harm than good. I am far from perfect but if this is some people's concept of community, I am curious as to their background experiences as their behaviours rarely seem in the interest of anyone other than themselves.
Anyway, that is my rant for the day or week...
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
