So penalizing the content creators - THE PRODUCERS that make dpos blockchain even possible -- while at the same time, enriching the blurt bureaucrat class and financial wheeler dealers. (no tax for me, but tax for thee).
RE: How to Calculate Blurt Burning in Content?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
How to Calculate Blurt Burning in Content?
This is not mandatory, you don't have to set @null as post beneficiary so don't call it a tax
You forgot that this blockchain can exist without any interface, author or curator, all you need to do is to keep price of coin at level which will cover costs of running nodes.
Yeah...and vaccines were not mandatory either - but you just happened to lose your income, and possibly your banking and your social media presence, if you didn't take it, or spoke up against it..
So I will continue to call that a 'mandatory edict ' action by the government (psychological coercion to the weak willed).
'Tax' - A punitive extraction - of wealth, from the producers, to the non-producers.
In terms of blurt/your support via upvotes, the options you are giving producers, is this:
Do as I say, and lose X% of your upvoted rewards...(while I keep 100% of the curation segment)...
OR
Don't set your rewards to a % of null, and don't receive my up votes ( because you choose not to abide with your rewards being reduced for producing content, while curation rewards stay the same).
No, it isn't mandatory - you are correct.
Neither was the vax.
Either of them will result in less wealth to the producers, and more to the bureaucrats.
I thought that interaction/posts etc - laying blocks - was an essential part of DPoS to actually function..? (not like POS or POW).
I'm sure you know far more about this than myself.
( I was quoting a bitcoin.com article concerning how the three different blockchain operate)
Either way, it's kinda not the point in terms of this discussion - that of setting rewards to null, so as to receive upvote rewards from yourself.
(and very bad optics for on boarding new accounts, imo)
Well, let me put it straight. Don't take it personally. I am one of the few who continually buys BLURT. I already have 16M and don't need more. However, I have a feeling that when I stop buying it all will fall apart and my 16M won't be worth anything. By burning part of what I am entitled to from the reward pool, I hope that I will have to buy less BLURT because less BLURT will go to exchanges
In other words: I don't want your BLURT anymore
Honestly ?....I have a feeling that you might be very, very correct ...
This is what happens in a fundamentally financially corrupt system/model. (without any basis in working ethics).
It seems to me - (and this perspective goes all the way back to the beginning, from steem , to hive, then to blurt)... that dpos is a concept dreamt up by socially inept individuals who understand lots about algorithms, but absolutely jack shit about real people, morals, and how that expresses in ethics.
(hard to be a very good coder stuck and in a basement in your 'growing up years', and then try to adapt socially later on. Sad but true - imo).
And thus, ponzi scheme - intentionally or otherwise - is the construct.
I don't take it personally, my friend - I'm thankful for all the support that you've given me over the years.
If that support stops because I disagree with your perspectives, I understand your position. I understand you.
So no, I don't take it personally.
(Algorithms are not ethical - they are simply computer code mechanisms minus any human considerations such as effort, quality, originality, etc..).
I think you know me well enough by now to know that I don't bend the knee for rewards - and for very little in general, to be honest ! lol.
*There are many ways to alter the entire model to make it function as a truly free market, free speech, meritocratic orientated platform - but this would require a level of cognition, IQ, and, more than anything - a basic comprehension of social skills, alongside a healthy crushing of a hubris that seems to have emerged by said coders and NPC sycophants, who seem to have assumed they hold a social authenticity that they do not posses in reality....).
In over five years on blockchain - it is not observably apparent that on any of the aforementioned platforms, that these skills are manifest in the 'larger accounts'...(in general, not specifically).
...Oh well....
it's super simple, just like any other business. You come up with something and find investors who pour money into your factory. You produce it, but it turns out that the product doesn't come out. First of all, investors say enough is enough and set a limit by saying that they will not buy any more of your shares because there is no progress and they finally want some profit from their money. You are faced with a simple situation, either you finally find a way to sell your product, or you lose funding and the disaster begins to unfold until everything falls apart.
There's just something wrong with your business plan: either too little marketing or inappropriate marketing, or a product that's too expensive or a crap product. Either we improve something or investors lose their money and that's it.
My opinion is that it's the marketing and experience of the team, because the twin systems Steem and Hive sold even though they were a crappy product compared to Blurt.
When you're selling your product as a social media platform, and then go out of your way to ostracize your most interesting 'product' (not me, all the people that have fucked off - even back from steem days).
stefam molyneux - should have been uber promoted - but 'they' backed crypto spammers instead. (fuck the quality content and over a million followers on their accounts - 'the feel good crypto collective' mattered more..
styxhexenhammer- the same.
(just a couple of examples)
Of course, if the pretense of the product is content creation, but the real product is the financial tool that requires any type of interaction and content to keep DpoS running - it all makes perfect sense. Sycophancy and lack of cognition then becomes a premium asset!
See 'talented basement dweller computer geeks', mixed with 'hubris' , and a dire misunderstanding of people.