Do you think that upvoting ourselves is worse than buying votes and delegating to someone to upvote you ?
RE: A BIG SHOUT OUT TO @MEGADRIVE!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
A BIG SHOUT OUT TO @MEGADRIVE!
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
I believe both actions are equally self stunting ones growth here. By nature, most people will tend to shun those who are stingy with their votes, regardless of how they are being stingy (VTS or self vote). So the folks who primarily self vote heavily or use VTS will lose out on more rewards usually because the main votes they will get are either from themselves directly or through a VTS indirectly.
I think however that those using the VTS are shorting themselves some of their self vote profit however by relegating the self vote to a service who will be wanting a cut from it.
While I don't advocate for heavy self voting or VTS, for the reason I stated above, I will defend anyones right to use their property as they see fit. One of the reasons I came to Blurt and wasn't just done with this whole social blockchain experience was because unlike there (mother and sister chains) where property rights can be nullified with downvote, here property rights are honored, as well as free speech.
Sometimes that freedom means others will act with their property and words in ways we don't embrace, a price worth paying to have those rights myself.
We should rly re name @practicalthought ‘the sage’ tho lol every community needs someone like this.
Thank you for your kind words. :)
My friend @practicalthought, if you don't mind me still calling you that, you are not taking one major thing into consideration, when you state this.
They can to this in less than five minutes a day, then go to the beach. Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me. How many hours do real active members spend on here a day, a week?...then yes they earn more.
Now to think about it, I could be watching a movie with @junglegirl right now instead of putting time and thought into this response. Maybe it's time for Travel Pro to UPVU and check in from time to time. It's a far better time/earnings ratio.....like no comparison.
A demonstration
on
how
little
time
it
There is a difference between property and something created out of nothing, or code based. I don't think developers bought that blurt power they have. They kind of created the code, that you call here property. But, the code was meant to support decentralization, or to put all the power in their hands ?
If that was to support decentralization in the world and make a new blockchain more decentralized, where people really decide what should be trending, who to vote for as a witness, what development to support ... etc. That would be nice to see of course.
But if those who created the code feels that they own it all here, and they have more rights to decide things, but not the community, or big investors. So, we may have an issue there. Because depending on this post This is how upvu works, I don't see that investor with 12 millions blurt that happy about what's going on.
So, the question I have in mind, who really decide things here ? The stake ? The community ? Or too simply the team on the top ?
Is it proof of work, of stake, of development, or what ? What's the most important concept in blurt ? What's the use case for investors to understand ?
Great questions
First, there is no such thing as decentralization. I'm not sure why so many are under the illusion there is. I think Rycharde sums it up best when he says its a matter of dependencies.
I haven't bothered to check the funds of the co-founders. I personally chose to come give this one more try because of m y research into Jacob. Since my time here, my respect for megadrive has grown immensely.
I find that they have more skin in this than most anyone. They came up with the idea, they funded to make it so. Then through all the tough times they continued funding this to keep it going, ensuring out of their own pocket that the price stayed at least at a level of .003.
They also have skin in this game by the amount of time they have to spend dealing with seeking to improve Blurt. As well as dealing with personality conflicts which at times has went into the realm of verbal abuse.
As for trending, I've yet to ever see a trending section that appealed to me anywhere. So I say we make our own, it's called a follow feed.
The foundation is still calling a lot of the shots, but they could be outvoted as we saw attempted by the whales once before. And I think it might have gotten the votes if he hadn't tried expanding the vote to include all delegations regardless of to whom or what reason. Which would have been a crime against property rights in my eyes.
The case for investors. There is total free speech here. You can even say the most despicable things about the founders here and your words will not be censored, any stake pulls from votes agreeing will be honored. And you can say the most controversial positions, and not only does it stand but all who agree cane reward you and join in, creating a community of like minded folks who are chased out of most corners of the world now.
In a world where places to speak and have ones property honored is shrinking by the day, I'd say this is a pretty good selling point.
All of this is my opinion, and I speak only for myself on this.
Yeah, I respect what they did. And I'm glad they created blurt and still supporting it. I just shared what I think about how things should be done now. I'm just a regular little investor and a content creator. I still can don't know a lot of things. And of course I'll be glad to hear @rycharde opinion about all this.
I just scrolled through his posts and found what I believe was my first encounter to his thoughts on this, to which I find myself in agreement (and have since my first exposure to crypto).
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@rycharde/dependencies-are-more-important-than-decentralisation
I sometimes forget just how brilliant he is. In looking at many of his posts as I scrolled through just now to find this one, it serves a a reminder to me that sometimes there are many posts in an authors blog worth revisiting despite the passage of time.
I'll be curious what your thoughts on the post are. If you comment to him on that post, could you tag me so I can give it a read? I'd greatly appreciate it.
It's always depending on what we mean by decentralization. Even those witnesses can do everything to not lose that power and always stay in charge. Or to not care about that and keep building it for people. But letting only stake to decide what's trending, who should be in charge, is not right to do. We should also consider other concepts. And the more of them will be considered the healthier the space will be. @ultravioletmag said it right, that we have to have the balance between proof of stake and proof of brain. Going fully proof of stake and making mostly corrupted upvotes in trending, for me is not right to do. If those upvotes can be corrupt, so other types of votes could be corrupt as well. Maybe that's the biggest reason why I hated them in steem first, and now in blurt. Imagine most whales turning to upvote bots when such service will be created like the one in steem.
My main concern is with property rights and free speech being protected. If this changes, as I mentioned to her just moments ago, from what there was when I joined I'll probably be leaving as I did with Hive. I powered down quietly there many months before I found out about Blurt and began researching. I had thought I was done with all of this until I understood what was being offered here in freedom of speech and property rights being honored.
I think our brains are also property, and we have to protect them.