If they are going to continue with the fees, (taxes), then it needs to be equatable. As I posted what is fair about it costing me who has 2000 BP the same as someone that has 200.000 blurt power? Would that 200,000 Blurt power account have a different thought about fees if they had to pay 5.00 Liquid Blurt for everything they did. (the 5.00 is based on the 0.050 fee from a few days ago).
I think a different tune would be sung if the large accounts had to pay the same percentage fee as the smaller accounts. use 100 BP as the start point, then a 10% increase at 1,000 BP, then a 10% increase over the 1,000 fee for those at 10,000 BP and so on up the chain by tens. I doubt it was the fees that stopped the spamming, he probably felt as if he had made his point.
Anyone that thinks a 0.001 Liquid blurt is going to stop spam has not looked very hard at the amount of wallet spam and that cost a small fee which does nothing to curtail the wallet spam on Hive or Steem. Even coupled with the bandwidth tax it is really not going to prevent any disgruntled large account from spamming and self voting his spam to make a buck or a point.
You won't be surprised if I tell you I'm not comfortable with that solution 😉😂😛🤪
No I wouldn't. It is always and has always been easier to tax the middle class than the lower or upper class. No one likes the idea of a flat percentage fee. Yet look at the actions of spam accounts, they are the ones that have the power to spam, a tiny fee is not going to stop them from spamming if they want.
If the individuals behind Blurt really want it to become a social network, then they need to treat it as one. I honestly do not think at this point in time that Blurt will have much growth potential. I can see most of the images being used as being from on line sources, there is no method of control or prevent plagiarism.
Right now all Blurt is, is a crypto mining platform for the people that have enough blurt power to over come the transaction fees and to make some blurt.