Manual vote. 100% for the afromentioned issues. I hope they can seriously take your suggestion in to consideration.
On the side note, the curation window were set that way was due to the agreement within the witnesses. That however, we can see a lot of circle jerking and vote farming within the top paying witnesses. So, ask them to stop voting each other to get high payout seems like the hardest protest could ever imagine.
And don't vote comment anymore even if you can. The 20steem penalty makes everything shrink if the payout is less than 20 steem, so voting on a comment that pays out less than 20 steem, you'll be getting less curation reward despite voting the same amount of RC and VP.
Last but not least, I followed you. Please follow me back 😂😂😂 ok that didn't came up right. I was just coming over to tell you finally I get rid of a pair of my sports shoes, and I did not allow myself to buy more 😂
I've already got past that stage. Whether or not steem will survive is another story. I liked the people I'm dealing with, even the people I hate, I like. More like I liked to hate them or I hated that I like them 😂 there are assholes whom always being huge bullies, @steemcleaners is one of them. From what I see, you're probably not being in the crossfire, but bark up the wrong tree. It could be @akiraq and they shoot at the wrong person 😂 take a chill pill. Enjoy the people surrounding us, forget about the idiots. Let's see what the new government is going to do
Ah... Pardon my Engrish. I meant THEY barked at the wrong tree 😂
And, the chill pill think, got no intention of insult at all. Was just going to ask you to chill it out 😁
To me, any change is a change, good or bad. In the end, it's just powers fighting against power, and we the crypto civilian are taking the toll regardless. Who allows the curation windows dropped to 15mins, and then 5? The top 20. Who proposed to cut the power down to 4 weeks? Again the top 20. Now with the new top 20(or 20 in one) deciding to down to 24 hours 😂 My guess is, they are(or he is) going to fork first, talk later! Apologize on the wrong expression. Engrish too powderful😅
steemcleaners does a lot of good but they are humans, they're not always going to get things right and these are some solid suggestions. Maybe narrow their scope for abuse on the chain and double down on that instead of moving into areas that are more murky until there is a definitive strategy on how to handle it.
I downvote mostly on reward farming with bid bots and plagiarism. Circle jerks are a bit harder since they all agreed to vote up one another its still in a grey area
Particularly, why I was suddenly blacklisted after more than 2 months of inactivity!
You were probably blacklisted a long time ago and just never knew it. It's this new (software) version they just implemented that shows the red (1) next to your name that now makes it into a "scarlet letter".
Marky's pushing for a "grand-unified-master-blacklist" across all the major front-ends.
Of course it sounds like a good-idea, but these are just a bunch of self-appointed yahoos who can make exceptions for themselves and their friends at will and enforce their opinions on the rest of us with capricious and tyrannical abandon.
If the blacklists were controlled by the witnesses exclusively, then at least we'd sort of get a "vote", and we could advocate for a transparent appeals process that included some "innocent until proven guilty" procedures along with a standardized "road-to-redemption" for those found "guilty".
It's weird . Steemit encourages you to build networks and communities but when you upvote the same person alot then it's circle jerking. I have my closest people in here on auto in case I miss a post and it automatically upvotes them . I see nothing wrong with that as they are the reason I am in here. All this stuff turns me away from the platform and attracts me to the others . Voice for example are in beta . There is no auto voting. Great. No bots. Great . So noone can break the rules without knowing. Why can't Steemit do this
If your upvote is small (less than 0.02 steem) then it never pays out curation rewards.
If your upvote never pays out curation rewards, then you can't be accused of "vote farming", because you're not taking any "money" from the reward-pool-pie.
These vigilante groups, steemcleaners and steemflagrewards, ONLY care about "protecting" their precious-magical-reward-pool-pie.
I've spent an enormous amount of time trying to figure out why high-powered-accounts would spend so much time and effort encouraging downvoters and hunting down "low-effort-exploitative-content" and it turns out, the answer is right in their discord channel,
"Hey spam fighting neighbors! @ everyone One of our fellow spam fighting teammates came up with a great idea. # abuse-fighting-tools is your sneak peak at some of the favorite ways to discover and or smash these pesky reward pool abusers."
Strangely enough, the most consistent TOP-EARNER (total steem rewards awarded per previous 30 days) is steemcleaners. The more downvotes people make, the bigger slice of the reward-pool-pie gets shoveled into the mouths of the TOP-EARNERS (that's how the reward-curve is designed, 80% of the pool goes to the top 20% of TOP-EARNERS).
So, as long as you don't cut into their private reward pool, they'll most likely focus their attention on more profitable targets.
Yeah, I try to "follow the rules" to the best of my ability (I upvote a lot of low rep accounts, I'll have to see if I can get an "official" ruling on that). When you read the "appeals" you see people getting downvoted for stuff like saying "veganism made me sick" and for posting-public domain images without attribution-links and for making "low-effort-posts" like posting pictures of their dog.
I wonder (out loud) how long it will take for you to be banned and blacklisted. It has to be coming, right?
Well, up to this point, the downvoters still appear to believe they're "reasonable" so I try to reason with them.
I believe declining payouts also gives me some "cover" (but not immunity).
On my very first encounter with steemcleaners (https://steemit.com/dtube/@logiczombie/u29hqt3h5bv) when I asked them why the heck "the original author" (me) would care if anyone re-posted their stuff they told me "why don't you just decline-payouts?" which struck me as odd, I didn't even know what they were talking about! That post only earned 0.04 steem anyway and it was only my 4th post evar! I didn't know what a "discord" was, I didn't know what "rules" I'd "broken", I didn't know who "steemcleaners" was or how the rep system worked.
Would be less damaging than jeopardizing Steem as we know it to just not vote on any witnesses at all but okay. Sorry didn't have time to read the post.
Every vote counts vs stake that was promised to never be used for voting. I'm sorry you feel that way but I've had a lot of sleepless nights this week just trying to catch up with everything going on here. If you feel offended that I didn't have the time to read this post this time around then I could say I feel offended of all your previous posts I've read and manually curated for you to turn against what I believe is the communities well being.
It was based on quality but not based on there being something in it for me or stakeholders profiting off of it like you seem to imply. If anyone's profited off of it it's Steemit due to adrevenue. I'm just shocked you'd take the side of someone who's shown what he's ready to do and possibly always intended to break up this community and chain.
Also, we cannot blame him for something @ned did or didn't do. How does this make sense? Did we even know for sure that Justin knew about Ned's agreement?
First, they signed a Non-Disclosure-Agreement, so they'll both never tell.
Second,
Crypto Briefing reached out to Ned Scott about the move by Tron. Surprisingly, the former CEO seemed supportive of the action by Justin Sun, saying that “witnesses/portion of the community literally stole its [Steemit Inc’s] coins [which is demonstrably false, nobody "stole coins", they only hobbled Sun's "voting-power"]. Steemit owed them nothing.” He continued, “Steemit owes no one anything and anything else is grasping at straws / bullying to get your way/power… Fact: no pre mine, no investors.”
The Steem community was outraged by Scott’s comments, saying that over Steem’s four-year history that the founder had promised [apparently a non-binding verbal agreement] that these coins would be used to “decentralize” and wouldn’t be used in voting.
Yeah, I figured we will never truly know what was or wasn't said between Ned and Justin. Having said that how can we form any conclusions either way about what was said?
We can know what they said because CEO's are simple ego-powered machines that are only interested in two things.
(1) MAKE MORE MONEY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE
(2) HUMILIATE COMPETITORS
We can know what they said because NOBODY (especially a CEO) would buy a property unless they could (EITHER) MAKE MORE MONEY QUICKLY (OR) HUMILIATE COMPETITORS.
We can know what they said because NOBODY (especially a CEO) would buy a property in order to "help build a community of idealistic rapscallions who believe in decentralized governance".
CEO = EXECUTIVE POWER = CENTRALIZED CONTROL
"Decentralized Governance" is anathema to their very existence on all levels.
I do not like how this was handled. I believed witnesses could have worked with Justin and been able to make a precautionary fork with his agreement(I honestly do believe he would have agreed.)
Justin Sun basically did the same thing to TRON. Like most CEO's he doesn't "negotiate" when he's holding all the cards.
The Tron (TRX) community was beside itself on Wednesday, Feb. 19 after founder Justin Sun’s address was shown to have voted in two Tron Foundation apps as a Super Representative (SR). Both Tron-Ace and Tron-Bet were voted in as Super Representatives by the Zion address, the same account which received 99 billion TRX from the coin’s genesis block [ninjamine].
...what Justin might do in the future based on something that he did in the past which I don't fully understand.
He used the genesis-block, the original block of crypto that was reserved for "supporting the community", (which is exactly what the steem-ninjamine was), he used that reserved crypto to CONSOLIDATE AND CENTRALIZE CONTROL OF THE CHAIN (which was touted as "decentralized").
Did he do it to get things done that couldn't/wouldn't/weren't being done?
I'm sure that's what his excuse was. If you can't build a consensus among your peers (senators, governors, lords, aristocrats, board-members, regional-warlords) then it is tempting to short-circuit consensus building (abandon faith in reason) altogether and consolidate power in your own hands (so you don't have to explain yourself to anyone!)
I am assuming that by your assertions, that after this happened Tron was no more.
No, TRON was not dissolved, control of the chain was centralized. TRON now has a king.
There is much less incentive to dissolve a kingdom you currently have de facto dictatorial power over.
My question is: Is there such a thing a a decentralized blockchain. Does this really exist, or is this a pipe dream?
Bitcoin is a decentralized blockchain, it does not have a king.
Stellar-Lumens is a decentralized blockchain, it does not have a king.
Etherium is sort of a hybrid. Like TRON and Steem, it has an official "foundation" which could theoretically "seize control" at some point.
Ripple is a centralized (private) blockchain. Ripple has a king.
Three reasons for Decentralization
The next question is, why is decentralization useful in the first place? There are generally several arguments raised:
(1) Fault tolerance— decentralized systems are less likely to fail accidentally because they rely on many separate components that are not likely.
(2) Attack resistance— decentralized systems are more expensive to attack and destroy or manipulate because they lack sensitive central points that can be attacked at much lower cost than the economic size of the surrounding system.
(3) Collusion resistance — it is much harder for participants in decentralized systems to collude to act in ways that benefit them at the expense of other participants, whereas the leaderships of corporations and governments collude in ways that benefit themselves but harm less well-coordinated citizens, customers, employees and the general public all the time.
All three arguments are important and valid, but all three arguments lead to some interesting and different conclusions once you start thinking about protocol decisions with the three individual perspectives in mind. Let us try to expand out each of these arguments one by one.
Honestly. I haven't pulled any funds out yet. Should I pull them out, should I re-vest them?
I'm personally keeping my powered-up steem where it is. If the chain forks, you'll still have all your tokens and associated on-chain benefits, but the market price will likely drop significantly.
Justin also might just dump all his steem on the open market out of spite in order to crash the price.
So, if you can't afford to lose the cash-equivalent of what you've "invested" in steem, you might consider cashing out until this whole thing blows over.
And you, do you think things will ever change? How can we make that happen? Is there a way?
This will all blow-over in about a year we won't even remember it.
If The Sun fails their hostile-take-over attempt, they will probably get mad and dump their steem.
Sure, this might cause steem to drop down to 0.0017 USD, but there are lots of cryptos even lower that are still viable blockchains.
And if "the steem community" is real, and we actually survive this trial-by-fire, the value of steem will recover, my guess is a "natural" free-market-value should be about 0.01 USD. And it should stabilize around that mark and will increase in value slowly as the COMMUNITY grows.
I have already burned this account by speaking up.
Your tokens are safe.
Their value may crash, but your tokens are not going to be "stolen" or "frozen" by the top 17 witnesses (regardless of who they are or might be in the future).
Because if that happened, then steem would be worth zero and they have a lot more to lose than you do.
And, I don't even think it's technically possible (nobody has a copy of your steem-keys).
if they, as you claim, don't have all the facts to work with.
Exactly. I can't disclose some information but what we know doesn't seem like Justin is the buyer we wanted or one who had the best intentions for the chain in mind that we've worked years on. It's your choice and I'm not holding it against you nor will it affect my future curation. His actions after the temporary softfork should speak louder about his intentions to what to do with this cheap stake he got OTC. At least he won't also get the community on top of this deal.
As I said I'm not holding you against your opinions and from what I'm hearing your concerns are legit for many witnesses and many have played the political game and stayed in power for too long without providing much back to the community. About your other comment, I believe actions and history speak louder about certain witnesses than who they are. We're in this short squeeze of price now where there's a lot of leeway for allowing some witnesses certain positions because not enough big stakeholders care or are active in judging their performances outside of just verifying blocks. I do believe that once things turn around and Steem gets more traction and value many who aren't constantly evolving, adapting and bringing value back to the platform will find themselves in lower positions.
Right now we have this problem though and my personal opinion after everything I've read, watched and taken into account are that this buyer does not care about the community other than getting them onto his ghosttown of a blockchain. Some things have been told to me in confidence that I can't share, you may think that's convenient and I might be using it to bend the truth but there's nothing in it for me to do so. I wouldn't even mind not being in the top20 with my partner that I share the witness with if there's others doing way better things for Steem. I'm someone who thinks the bar of what is done by witnesses should be increased than just producing blocks and maintaining their position by votetrading or other political games. Steem is weird cause it's disincentivized to buy witness votes by sharing rewards with the voters which is something that occurs on EOS and other DPOS blockchains but at the same time some try defending that producing blocks is the only "job" they're supposed to be held accountable for.
Anyway, the crypto community in general is not easy to understand, the majority hate Steem due to past experiences and former people in charge which is sort of understandable. Many are not aware of the positive changes that have occurred here since but one thing you can't deny is the reputation of Justin Sun there. If the crypto community hate him more than Steem itself it should tell you something, even so, I've done a lot of research on the matter and I've concluded that Tron is what I suspected it to be. A bad copy of code in a bad coding language that could very well be a competitor to Steem but they haven't focused on introducing the social aspect to it because they know people would realize then how dead of real users that coin really is. His acquisitions make sense if you think he's trying to buy users and a community, with buying Steemit he could also have the team work on creating something very similar to Steem and have everyone swap over to that sidechain which is hard to argue were not his intentions to begin with.
So my honest opinion is. JS bought Steemit+stake dirt cheap from someone who wanted out and couldn't find enough buyers because of its reputation. He either wanted a quick profit to flip the coins and knew about the promises of the Steemit stake but plays dumb now because the former seller agreed to sign NDA's not mentioning he knew about it but seeing as how cheap he got it it must've been part of the deal. His best case scenario was probably having the Steemit team who now quit build his steem sidechain, have the community swap over and bring all the value from his Steem over there. Now he realized he lost the community and doesn't want to lose the extra stake that came with the deal and wants out as soon as possible. I don't think there was ever a plan for a true partnership to have both blockchains grow side by side even though that's something me and many others would have wanted. It's sad and I wish there would've been someone else interested in buying Steem or getting the deal through instead because there were (Ned mentioned he had talked to blocktrades as well) but we got JS instead and Ned sold us to someone he probably knew didn't give a shit but he got some more money out of it with tainted stake he insists was no promised for anything and only belongs to Steemit to do whatever it wants with after years of bringing in investors who bought Steem and stayed invested because of that stake being used for the future development, marketing (which we never saw any of) and other distribution.
Manual vote. 100% for the afromentioned issues. I hope they can seriously take your suggestion in to consideration.
On the side note, the curation window were set that way was due to the agreement within the witnesses. That however, we can see a lot of circle jerking and vote farming within the top paying witnesses. So, ask them to stop voting each other to get high payout seems like the hardest protest could ever imagine.
And don't vote comment anymore even if you can. The 20steem penalty makes everything shrink if the payout is less than 20 steem, so voting on a comment that pays out less than 20 steem, you'll be getting less curation reward despite voting the same amount of RC and VP.
Last but not least, I followed you. Please follow me back 😂😂😂 ok that didn't came up right. I was just coming over to tell you finally I get rid of a pair of my sports shoes, and I did not allow myself to buy more 😂
Posted using Partiko Android
.
And therefore, I rather GIVE steem as a gift than VOTE !tip
Trololol
.
I've already got past that stage. Whether or not steem will survive is another story. I liked the people I'm dealing with, even the people I hate, I like. More like I liked to hate them or I hated that I like them 😂 there are assholes whom always being huge bullies, @steemcleaners is one of them. From what I see, you're probably not being in the crossfire, but bark up the wrong tree. It could be @akiraq and they shoot at the wrong person 😂 take a chill pill. Enjoy the people surrounding us, forget about the idiots. Let's see what the new government is going to do
!popcorn !shop
.
Ah... Pardon my Engrish. I meant THEY barked at the wrong tree 😂
And, the chill pill think, got no intention of insult at all. Was just going to ask you to chill it out 😁
To me, any change is a change, good or bad. In the end, it's just powers fighting against power, and we the crypto civilian are taking the toll regardless. Who allows the curation windows dropped to 15mins, and then 5? The top 20. Who proposed to cut the power down to 4 weeks? Again the top 20. Now with the new top 20(or 20 in one) deciding to down to 24 hours 😂 My guess is, they are(or he is) going to fork first, talk later! Apologize on the wrong expression. Engrish too powderful😅
.
Hi~ akiroq!
@davidke20 has gifted you 1 SHOP!
Currently you have： 1 SHOP
View or Exchange
Are you bored? Play Rock,Paper,Scissors game with me!SHOPPlease go to steem-engine.com..
🎁 Hi @akiroq! You have received 0.1 STEEM tip from @davidke20!
@davidke20 wrote lately about: #Fitness2020 February 20 Reps A Day Contest Announcement! Feel free to follow @davidke20 if you like it :)
Sending tips with @tipU - how to guide.
steemcleaners does a lot of good but they are humans, they're not always going to get things right and these are some solid suggestions. Maybe narrow their scope for abuse on the chain and double down on that instead of moving into areas that are more murky until there is a definitive strategy on how to handle it.
I downvote mostly on reward farming with bid bots and plagiarism. Circle jerks are a bit harder since they all agreed to vote up one another its still in a grey area
.
You were probably blacklisted a long time ago and just never knew it. It's this new (software) version they just implemented that shows the red (1) next to your name that now makes it into a "scarlet letter".
Marky's pushing for a "grand-unified-master-blacklist" across all the major front-ends.
Details here,
https://steemit.com/sps/@themarkymark/global-blacklist-api-proposal#@themarkymark/q6fmzx
.
Of course it sounds like a good-idea, but these are just a bunch of self-appointed yahoos who can make exceptions for themselves and their friends at will and enforce their opinions on the rest of us with capricious and tyrannical abandon.
If the blacklists were controlled by the witnesses exclusively, then at least we'd sort of get a "vote", and we could advocate for a transparent appeals process that included some "innocent until proven guilty" procedures along with a standardized "road-to-redemption" for those found "guilty".
.
It's weird . Steemit encourages you to build networks and communities but when you upvote the same person alot then it's circle jerking. I have my closest people in here on auto in case I miss a post and it automatically upvotes them . I see nothing wrong with that as they are the reason I am in here. All this stuff turns me away from the platform and attracts me to the others . Voice for example are in beta . There is no auto voting. Great. No bots. Great . So noone can break the rules without knowing. Why can't Steemit do this
.
Or, just decline payouts (like me!) that's all they really care about anyway (protecting their precious-magical-reward-pool-pie).
.
Well, I would have quit a long time ago if it wasn't for your early encouragement (comments and curation).
.
Also, if your upvote is below the minimum-payout (1%), you can still say "thanks" without cutting into the reward-pool-pie.
.
If your upvote is small (less than 0.02 steem) then it never pays out curation rewards.
If your upvote never pays out curation rewards, then you can't be accused of "vote farming", because you're not taking any "money" from the reward-pool-pie.
These vigilante groups, steemcleaners and steemflagrewards, ONLY care about "protecting" their precious-magical-reward-pool-pie.
I've spent an enormous amount of time trying to figure out why high-powered-accounts would spend so much time and effort encouraging downvoters and hunting down "low-effort-exploitative-content" and it turns out, the answer is right in their discord channel,
Strangely enough, the most consistent TOP-EARNER (total steem rewards awarded per previous 30 days) is steemcleaners. The more downvotes people make, the bigger slice of the reward-pool-pie gets shoveled into the mouths of the TOP-EARNERS (that's how the reward-curve is designed, 80% of the pool goes to the top 20% of TOP-EARNERS).
So, as long as you don't cut into their private reward pool, they'll most likely focus their attention on more profitable targets.
.
Yeah, I try to "follow the rules" to the best of my ability (I upvote a lot of low rep accounts, I'll have to see if I can get an "official" ruling on that). When you read the "appeals" you see people getting downvoted for stuff like saying "veganism made me sick" and for posting-public domain images without attribution-links and for making "low-effort-posts" like posting pictures of their dog.
Well, up to this point, the downvoters still appear to believe they're "reasonable" so I try to reason with them.
I believe declining payouts also gives me some "cover" (but not immunity).
On my very first encounter with steemcleaners (https://steemit.com/dtube/@logiczombie/u29hqt3h5bv) when I asked them why the heck "the original author" (me) would care if anyone re-posted their stuff they told me "why don't you just decline-payouts?" which struck me as odd, I didn't even know what they were talking about! That post only earned 0.04 steem anyway and it was only my 4th post evar! I didn't know what a "discord" was, I didn't know what "rules" I'd "broken", I didn't know who "steemcleaners" was or how the rep system worked.
Excellent
.
May I ask why you're voting for the Tron witnesses?
.
Would be less damaging than jeopardizing Steem as we know it to just not vote on any witnesses at all but okay. Sorry didn't have time to read the post.
.
Every vote counts vs stake that was promised to never be used for voting. I'm sorry you feel that way but I've had a lot of sleepless nights this week just trying to catch up with everything going on here. If you feel offended that I didn't have the time to read this post this time around then I could say I feel offended of all your previous posts I've read and manually curated for you to turn against what I believe is the communities well being.
.
Wow, just wow. :)
.
It was based on quality but not based on there being something in it for me or stakeholders profiting off of it like you seem to imply. If anyone's profited off of it it's Steemit due to adrevenue. I'm just shocked you'd take the side of someone who's shown what he's ready to do and possibly always intended to break up this community and chain.
.
First, they signed a Non-Disclosure-Agreement, so they'll both never tell.
Second,
The Steem community was outraged by Scott’s comments, saying that over Steem’s four-year history that the founder had promised [apparently a non-binding verbal agreement] that these coins would be used to “decentralize” and wouldn’t be used in voting.
https://cryptobriefing.com/tron-executes-hostile-takeover-steem-exchanges-collude/
.
We can know what they said because CEO's are simple ego-powered machines that are only interested in two things.
(1) MAKE MORE MONEY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE
(2) HUMILIATE COMPETITORS
We can know what they said because NOBODY (especially a CEO) would buy a property unless they could (EITHER) MAKE MORE MONEY QUICKLY (OR) HUMILIATE COMPETITORS.
We can know what they said because NOBODY (especially a CEO) would buy a property in order to "help build a community of idealistic rapscallions who believe in decentralized governance".
CEO = EXECUTIVE POWER = CENTRALIZED CONTROL
"Decentralized Governance" is anathema to their very existence on all levels.
CEO will crush anyone who questions them.
.
Justin Sun basically did the same thing to TRON. Like most CEO's he doesn't "negotiate" when he's holding all the cards.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/tron-community-in-uproar-as-genesis-coins-used-in-super-reps-vote
.
He used the genesis-block, the original block of crypto that was reserved for "supporting the community", (which is exactly what the steem-ninjamine was), he used that reserved crypto to CONSOLIDATE AND CENTRALIZE CONTROL OF THE CHAIN (which was touted as "decentralized").
.
I'm sure that's what his excuse was. If you can't build a consensus among your peers (senators, governors, lords, aristocrats, board-members, regional-warlords) then it is tempting to short-circuit consensus building (abandon faith in reason) altogether and consolidate power in your own hands (so you don't have to explain yourself to anyone!)
No, TRON was not dissolved, control of the chain was centralized. TRON now has a king.
There is much less incentive to dissolve a kingdom you currently have de facto dictatorial power over.
Bitcoin is a decentralized blockchain, it does not have a king.
Stellar-Lumens is a decentralized blockchain, it does not have a king.
Etherium is sort of a hybrid. Like TRON and Steem, it has an official "foundation" which could theoretically "seize control" at some point.
Ripple is a centralized (private) blockchain. Ripple has a king.
https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentralization-a0c92b76a274
Basically the question is, do you want one self-serving-moron in charge, or do you want seventeen self-serving-morons in charge?
Personally, I'll take the seventeen morons over one moron any day of the week.
.
I'm personally keeping my powered-up steem where it is. If the chain forks, you'll still have all your tokens and associated on-chain benefits, but the market price will likely drop significantly.
Justin also might just dump all his steem on the open market out of spite in order to crash the price.
So, if you can't afford to lose the cash-equivalent of what you've "invested" in steem, you might consider cashing out until this whole thing blows over.
.
This will all blow-over in about a year we won't even remember it.
If The Sun fails their hostile-take-over attempt, they will probably get mad and dump their steem.
Sure, this might cause steem to drop down to 0.0017 USD, but there are lots of cryptos even lower that are still viable blockchains.
And if "the steem community" is real, and we actually survive this trial-by-fire, the value of steem will recover, my guess is a "natural" free-market-value should be about 0.01 USD. And it should stabilize around that mark and will increase in value slowly as the COMMUNITY grows.
Your tokens are safe.
Their value may crash, but your tokens are not going to be "stolen" or "frozen" by the top 17 witnesses (regardless of who they are or might be in the future).
Because if that happened, then steem would be worth zero and they have a lot more to lose than you do.
And, I don't even think it's technically possible (nobody has a copy of your steem-keys).
We've already had one for four years, I'll gladly take 17 that can be voted in or out.
.
.
Exactly. I can't disclose some information but what we know doesn't seem like Justin is the buyer we wanted or one who had the best intentions for the chain in mind that we've worked years on. It's your choice and I'm not holding it against you nor will it affect my future curation. His actions after the temporary softfork should speak louder about his intentions to what to do with this cheap stake he got OTC. At least he won't also get the community on top of this deal.
.
As I said I'm not holding you against your opinions and from what I'm hearing your concerns are legit for many witnesses and many have played the political game and stayed in power for too long without providing much back to the community. About your other comment, I believe actions and history speak louder about certain witnesses than who they are. We're in this short squeeze of price now where there's a lot of leeway for allowing some witnesses certain positions because not enough big stakeholders care or are active in judging their performances outside of just verifying blocks. I do believe that once things turn around and Steem gets more traction and value many who aren't constantly evolving, adapting and bringing value back to the platform will find themselves in lower positions.
Right now we have this problem though and my personal opinion after everything I've read, watched and taken into account are that this buyer does not care about the community other than getting them onto his ghosttown of a blockchain. Some things have been told to me in confidence that I can't share, you may think that's convenient and I might be using it to bend the truth but there's nothing in it for me to do so. I wouldn't even mind not being in the top20 with my partner that I share the witness with if there's others doing way better things for Steem. I'm someone who thinks the bar of what is done by witnesses should be increased than just producing blocks and maintaining their position by votetrading or other political games. Steem is weird cause it's disincentivized to buy witness votes by sharing rewards with the voters which is something that occurs on EOS and other DPOS blockchains but at the same time some try defending that producing blocks is the only "job" they're supposed to be held accountable for.
Anyway, the crypto community in general is not easy to understand, the majority hate Steem due to past experiences and former people in charge which is sort of understandable. Many are not aware of the positive changes that have occurred here since but one thing you can't deny is the reputation of Justin Sun there. If the crypto community hate him more than Steem itself it should tell you something, even so, I've done a lot of research on the matter and I've concluded that Tron is what I suspected it to be. A bad copy of code in a bad coding language that could very well be a competitor to Steem but they haven't focused on introducing the social aspect to it because they know people would realize then how dead of real users that coin really is. His acquisitions make sense if you think he's trying to buy users and a community, with buying Steemit he could also have the team work on creating something very similar to Steem and have everyone swap over to that sidechain which is hard to argue were not his intentions to begin with.
So my honest opinion is. JS bought Steemit+stake dirt cheap from someone who wanted out and couldn't find enough buyers because of its reputation. He either wanted a quick profit to flip the coins and knew about the promises of the Steemit stake but plays dumb now because the former seller agreed to sign NDA's not mentioning he knew about it but seeing as how cheap he got it it must've been part of the deal. His best case scenario was probably having the Steemit team who now quit build his steem sidechain, have the community swap over and bring all the value from his Steem over there. Now he realized he lost the community and doesn't want to lose the extra stake that came with the deal and wants out as soon as possible. I don't think there was ever a plan for a true partnership to have both blockchains grow side by side even though that's something me and many others would have wanted. It's sad and I wish there would've been someone else interested in buying Steem or getting the deal through instead because there were (Ned mentioned he had talked to blocktrades as well) but we got JS instead and Ned sold us to someone he probably knew didn't give a shit but he got some more money out of it with tainted stake he insists was no promised for anything and only belongs to Steemit to do whatever it wants with after years of bringing in investors who bought Steem and stayed invested because of that stake being used for the future development, marketing (which we never saw any of) and other distribution.
.
Fantastic post. You got a new follower for this one. Keep it up, we need more people like you here.
.
Congratulations @akiroq! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard: