Holy crap!  Another person who gets it!

I'm a noob so I could be wrong, correct me.

**Trending page** (most $$$): done by whales  = **plutocracy**
**Hot page** (most popular/upvoted): done by bots = **botnet**

I think these two games are not fun for the 99%. I can live without the money game, after all I don't put my money in Steem, so I'm kinda ok I cannot move a single cent of the reward pool.
But I like to play the popularity game, and I like it with real humans, not with bots. You can actually play this game on Facebook and Reddit, I would like to have it on Steemit also...

>Well, one could argue that everyone has the equal right to buy shares of steem in order to direct their invested vote wherever they want. The just, in this case, is that the shareholder gets a larger say than the non-shareholder - because the shareholder is invested.

Yes, but having more money to invest doesn't make you (generic you) better at voting or curating, or better at doing the best for the community.
Steem isn't decentralized in voting power, someone likes it, but if I need to [invest thousands of dollars to move 1 cent](https://steemit.com/steem/@snowflake/guardian-of-the-steem-universe-a-different-take-on-the-role-of-whales-within-steem-ecosystem), you're making this reward-game fun just for rich people. Or early miners. Not for the 99%.

On the other hand, if Steem price goes to 0, I could buy 1 million Steem and become a whale in a desert.

>Plus, in the context of the internet, and the argument that "When people don't have equal rights" .... we have to factor in that "people" can be bots. 1000 votes could be a single bot voting with 1000 facades.

I still don't get why Steem allows bots. I don't know if it's technically doable, but I would like no bots at all on Steemit. Maybe some bot is useful for automated comments, but not for voting or posting. We can't talk about quality, popularity or community, when this post (example) has 50 views and 270 votes. Bots maybe be good money for tech guys, not for the masses.

Everyone has equal rights to buy steem,but not equal opportunity,as some are rich,and some are poor,I don't know if this has escaped your attention?
The bot argument is a valid one,however,but there must be ways around that.The Viva platform is designed to be much more fair than Steemit.I'm not sure what solution they have come up with to prevent  bot voting,you can ask @williambanks .The fact that Viva will be more egalitarian is crucial,and it's one of many reasons why it's a more promising platform than Steemit,at least for the average person,and also for investors.But the whales on steemit might be motivated to stay,it's easy money after all.

Good point, I understand that. If there  was a global delegation of power, then active real users who post and comment would get access to the community delegated power once they prove themselves. The SP would have returns of curation by the community engaging in activity to influence who gets rewarded. The accounts that aren't interacting in the community through posts and comments, would not have that power. People could give SP to accounts as sock puppet or bots, but no power to affect system since they aren't active in the community. That's the idea I have, but not sure it works. Thanks for the feedback. Please add more ;)

You had me at "crybaby tag" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I agree with you on democracy, these marbles are yours, you get to decide who plays how, but I disagree with you about collectives.

Were we to declare that Tuesday we all just keep working, do what you did today, but we no longer pay for things, life will continue on just fine.
Beware the fud'ers they rarely look outside their own viewpoints in order to see truth objectively.
Unless you question your reality how do you know you are not in a matrix created by those born before you?

Preparation leading up to Tuesday will be needed, we would need to establish guidelines to keep the supply system from collapsing.
This number can be found by simply dividing the daily expenditures of the world by the number of people, and we got a number that shouldn't collapse the system.
In subsequent weeks work will go from appeasing sycophants in their vaunted positions of power to helping our neighbors get done what needs to be done.

Nobody will have an excuse to not put in their 20 hour weeks.
In fact, we could divide the number of manhours required to supply the world today by the number of folks 20 to 50 and it might not even be that high, what with robotics and all.

I don't see bums being an issue, provided they don't find receptive ground to reproduce.
However, the option must be a valid one, or we are just a more egalitarian version of what we currently have.

So, do you want to slave your life away making somebody else richer only to retire to a lifestyle that required denial today in return for food tomorrow, or do you want to retire to a leisurely jetset world travel kind of lifestyle?
All in return for about 20,000 hours of productive labor?

It really is this simple, if we all put our minds to it.

I should mention that everybody starts where they are today, if you live in the Hearst mansion this plan does not include dispossessing you of it.
The wealthy can keep their mansions in Dubai, in fact, if they are over 50, they can retire and live for free, too.
At least, once they train their replacements, if they are production necessary.

Thanks for your time,....FBA

Not equal in wealth. You have your wealth more than others, great. The stock goes up, your investment is worth more. But the influence in the system, who gets to choose who gets visible and rewarded is shared across everyone who is a human and active in the community. Not sure this works out, but that's the idea I am working on.

I agree with what you say.

But right now I can't post things without getting flagged if you upvote, while you can upvote other content and there is no issue. So I don't have much power player support, so nothing I can post can get rewarded beyond a certain point without the bad players deciding it's not allowed to get rewarded.

The white paper suggests there are good whales that counteract the bad whales, but that doesn't seem to happen. The concentration of power is an issue. How to resolve this? I see decentralization of power as the solution. And I'm trying to figure out how to achieve this.

Thank you for the feedback. Can we chat so you can dispel my false understanding, and why stake based concentration of power to reward content is how it must be? Please email me at admin@steemkure.com if you would like to. Thanks.

Ding! Ding! Ding!!!

Everyone keeps the STEEM they have. It's equal to vote and reward based on global delegation of power.

If all votes are equal, then how does one award more for having steempower?  The votes aren't equal then, right? That negates the point of having everyone have an equal influence to affect  the valuation of other content. 

Yeah, accumulate SP right now is only to control who gets what rewards. So those who have the power decide who gets what, not the community, not like social networking sites work in general. This isn't social networking site per se, but stake controlled site for social media to decide who gets more or less visibility and rewards. Like the Digg fiasco.

I see investing like a corp. You invest because you evaluated the company and see promise in the stock going up, so when the company succeed you make money.  

If SP isn't used to control rewards on the system, is there a point in it? Are we stuck with this because thats the reason to get people to power up so they can be part of that control? And the community will never decide for itself who gets rewarded, but it's always those who have the wealth power?

The SP as I saw it in global delegation where people have equal influence on each other, would be to allocate curation based on the SP you have.

Thanks!

I have wanted to get in better contact with you, can you contact me at admin@steemkure.com? Thanks.

+1 for devil's advocate, someone's got to do it! 😅

I suggested a reduction in relative power. Seems reasonable, would you agree?

Thanks for the feedback. I read your BUSY DECISION MAKING GUIDELINE, good stuff. But yeah, I thought Steemit was trying to create a decentralized online space to eventually bring into the real world. But the way it is now, I don't really want Steemit to carry over to the real world... I think I may have to go look for a better blockchain or content project with real community centeredness in mind, instead of money centered control over how things work. The new HF17 might resolve some things I hope :).  This is what I thought was the potential... but I was wrong it seems: [Steemit is an Anarchistic Model We Can Develop and Bring to the Real World](https://steemit.com/anarchy/@krnel/steemit-is-an-anarchistic-model-we-can-develop-and-bring-to-the-real-world). Thanks for the response. It confirms what I was suspecting that things are not going to change towards decentralization... will just stay like this. I received information that the concentration of power is growing into fewer hands from December to February.

Thank you very much elgeko. As you can see from some of the comments, it's a tough battle ;) hehe. There are some good ideas out there ([1](https://steemit.com/steem/@snowflake/a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards), [2](https://steemit.com/steemit/@dragosroua/yavap-yet-another-voting-algorithm-proposal-or-what-i-actually-understand-by-proof-o-stake)), better than what we have now. But I'll still try to figure out if there is a way to make Steemit community centered, rather than stake, stock, money, wealth centered. Thank you for the support, I appreciate it :)