they can all be taken over
thanks to the delegations.
The scheme is very simple, promise the delegates that they will earn 8 times more than the others and play politics with their own money.
Let's remove the delegations, because it is a scam, and now we see that it is a scam not only on a financial level
There are a few posts about this a few months back.
Delegating was not an original Steem function. Interesting post that announced it - the aim was to relieve whales of the boredom of having to vote! Let someone else earn money for them!
Looks like another one of those manipulations you mentioned earlier this week. The ones that do nothing but hurt the platform. Im for a clean and simple user experience here on Blurt. So that being said Im now in full support of either removing the deligation feature all together, or somehow blocking the formation and use of delegation APR services like UPVU. It s a relinquish of power by the individual for financial gain. Good for the individual on the short run, but like a parasite, it s destined to kill the host. Get rid of UPVU, let steemit and hive do stuff like that.
I would rather see the delegation feature removed, rather than getting rid of anyone. It's always better to learn how to co-exsist.
I mis-spoke. I did not mean get rid of the account, just the delegation system. But kind of the same thing, as the account only exists for one purpose.
I was looking closer at UPVU. It has 14 million blurt and quite a lot of users. What is down side of keeping this service?
What is the downside of removing it? I would hate to see users start selling 14,000,000 blurt onto the market if this is removed. Something that should be considered.
The down side is that a powerful proxy-circle can be created by combining the accounts that are part of this group in order to influence the ranking of the top Witnesses; just like what is happening now on Steem. I do not want to see any accounts eliminated, but that we just prepare and take measures to avoid this kind of intimidation and manipulation in the future.
If the market goes way down, it is not a bad thing because it encourages new users and investors! 😉 Look at what is happening now that the previous group who had about 8,000,000 BLURT dumped it into the market and are now gone? The price is now going back up because new investors are coming in to take advantage of the discount! 😎
I see what you mean. However I do like how UPVU is an incentive for people to buy and invest in Blurt and keeping it is an incentive for those to hold. I have no problem looking at it like a kind of investment club. I think it should it should be tagged something, or some kind of technical make over where upvu voted posts are not all over the trending page.
Unfortunately I clearly don't understand how upvu controls other's witness votes. Sorry for being thick headed here. If large accounts want to become buddy buddy and vote as one block, can't that spring up from anywhere? Or is upvu holding their service over all their member's head?
What happened to Steemit? Upvu delegators organized together to vote as a block? Were they getting told from upvu if you don't vote for this person or that person upvu will go away? I'd like to know more about how they actually control members votes cause to my understanding, this form of delegation does not pass over witness voting power to Upvu. Basically how does the threat go down? Users of upvu you must vote for these witnesses or else.....? If upvu disappeared on steemit tomorrow, would these large delegating accounts still remain on steemit? Would they vote the same way?
This seems like an important issue, one that can be costly to screw up if action is taken. Too bad I've been so busy fighting demons on the other platform! lol Thanks for taking the time to catch me up. It's much appreciated.
I'm going to dedicate a smartcast to this comment! 🙏😉💯
This would make sense if delegated rshares were not included in witness or proposal voting.
Btw, there's one thing about Hive that made me think that top witnesses / top stakeholders are not good folks: you can downvote a post, but you can't downvote witnesses or proposal. I think this is not just a bug...
Delegated Vests remain owned by the delegator, hence do not count on any witness votes by the delegatee.
The delegator would have to give proxy witness voting powers on top of the delegation.
Thank you, I did not know that , so in the case of upvu, there is no threat of a hostile takeover of Blurt (they have only 245 K BP and not asking for witness proxy votes)
But they could, which is what I believe happened on Steem, and could happen here. First you create a voting circle, build up those accounts and then form a proxy circle to influence Witness ranks. I would be in favor of removing both the delegation and the proxy features.
How would you feel about also removing the proxy feature?
Wow, always lots to learn around here! So this means it would not be difficult to remove this function?
Then surely we would be much better off without it.
Removing delegations could be a good solution. A lot already played with that system and people always fall in the same trap by delegating their own money to who knows who. Just because they promise them of better APR. I prefer to earn that APR I earn from my own curation rather than trusting my money to someone else to use. Also, when someone curated content by his own, it's better for the platform and more newcomers will be supported instead of selling those votes. That's more healthy for the future of the platform. Interesting to see people so much excited about blurt and not thinking about long term future of the blockchain and how their big delegations may destroy everything built.
Exactly. Take a look at trending. Korean posts upvoted by upvu. No comments. Can such a platform attract new users?
Of course no. I haven't seen that trending page for more than a year for sure. It's like a laundering machine of money.
Interesting thread - I'm not sure where to butt in!
IMO would be great to take the lessons of the past 6 years, from when Steem was launched, and start again! This whole finsoc (financial socmedia) setup has some great ideas - it also has some really sucky ideas. The dilemma remains that money and socmedia will always converge towards the MONEY - even other platforms not graphene-based have suffered financial parasitism.
It would take a longer and separate article to go through a wish list of features, then analyse how they can be subverted, then also list which features are not wanted, then also see how the structure of the chain affects behaviour, in the sense that scripts have always been allowed but they also depend on how the API calls are structured.
Might be worth that discussion - if for nothing else, to dismiss a lot of myths - coz there are lots of those too!!
I think this is far less the case on Blurt because of the low value of the token, and the ease with which it can be earned. It seems to be creating a culture in which the emphasis shifts more towards having fun with the social side of the technology, whereas on the other platforms, the token is the all-important objective because it is worth more but harder to accumulate.
I agree! 💯