"What do you think the price of steem would be if we continued to have $200+ shit posts on trending." It’s tough to say; Trending is a problem, I think it’s solvable with creative coding. If

I take your point on the BTC plunge, that is likely the reason Steem dropped as much as it did. The notion of abusers is the questionable one. The blockchain affords people special privileges based on

So when someone like Marky says a massive downvote on a whale is like a mini upvote for everyone else (what I think he doesn’t consider is when he drives this money away from the platform, or when people

True that, and the big obstacle there might be, will the user base embrace said brand.

Oh, that's a fair point about the content curation! The other is abstract indeed, I know some are really getting jollies from it. May they live in interesting times. Steem really needs to define itself

Sorry if that came off wrong; I'm not trying to have a gotcha moment with you. It's just perplexing for me to comprehend the difference between the two. This especially when the blockchain considers both

"Who cares if they self vote? Stake weighting enables substantial stakeholders to manipulate the rewards pool and take from it for themselves. This does not increase the distribution of Steem and

If both gain capital, you might need a different word than capital gain to distinguish the diff between profiteering and "ethical gains?" You know what the funny thing is, outside of the whales

I sure can't wait to see how the #newsteem folks plan on marketing the platform to prospective investors. One of the big incentives in investing in Steem is having more control over the reward pool. However,

Yeah, disagreement is fine but the unclear rules of this system are strange. For example, the code encourages both stake weighting and downvoting by not disallowing these operations. It's all very subjective

Hmm.. does that mean that when a whale engages in stake weighting, the net result it is not a capital gain?

I’d like to know if the reward pool increases or decreases based on the total of powered-up Steem? If this is the case, then chasing off stakeholders no matter how good or bad their voting history will

Flashforward: 21 years later and the alarm has subsided. Now people will clamor to pay $1000 for the privilege to get wiretapped by a brain cancer inducing device that sells their information to the highest

Okay, so let us assume that it is correct. Let's assume that a massive downvote on a whale is a dusty upvote for everyone else. We don't know what the size of this dusty upvote is and the people who receive

Yeah, I suppose if everyone had that option, in theory it would clean up a lot of the spam. Disingenuous posts might become a thing of the past.

That’s pretty much my point, there are no, or very few altruistic capitalists. The combination of the two words is mostly an oxymoron. So, what reason does any capitalist have to buy into Steem? When you

Well, maybe someone can take this model and since it is open-source, fix it. It inspires a lot of creativity, but also plenty of discord too.

I see Steem as the foremost product to consider. A stakeholder secures the value of Steem in the marketplace. This is because, when stakeholders dump to market, it causes downward pressure on the prices.

I nominated marky in my reply to whatsup. This because he seems like the ringleader of the downvote posse. Steem is already too niche as it is. Having someone like him running around turning stakeholders

Bahh, my FUD is so much more classy than everyone elses. You know you love it! ;-)