Discussion is good, I get fussy's point about the market finding a price and more SP options might be the way to keep everyone happy. I actually think the proposed changes are ultimately better for all as it stands. Ned, you're doing great, keep pushing on. Any dan bashing is retarded and should just be ignored.

We're in beta....lets get it right then gear up for a massive push ;))

Dan has a point about honoring property rights. If we don't honor property rights then what exactly is the stance that Steemit developers have on participant rights protection? 

Does the Steemit team honor the property rights of participants? For example if someone has Steem Power but they don't want to convert to the new economics well it appears they have no choice in the matter. They are arbitrary switched to the new smart contract which has new economics. What if they want to be locked in for 2 years and don't want to be able to drain the account in 3 months?

I can think of many security benefits for why someone would want a slow drip over years when it's a significant amount and not the ability to wipe out an account in 3 months. Fuzzy mentions giving people the choice and I think that is a choice some of us would want to have but now it appears there is no way to have that choice.

Here is the deal, Steemit Inc needs to outline a bill of rights, a manifesto, or something so that there is some predictability for these sorts of changes. If there is some set of rules for when the economics can be changed and only when it meets certain criteria then the community can accept it. It's hard to accept it when it looks completely arbitrary or when it's done merely because one group of people feel like it and voted to do it over the interest of the minority group.

As I've mentioned before, I, too think that the existing model, although experimental, had legs.  It just hadn't found them yet.  

BUT

@ned,  I usually work as CTO, and I'm usually the founder.  When I bring on  a CEO, I'm always clear about many things but one is the biggest:  You're here to ensure this thing makes  money.  If I get in the way of that, yo usay so, because if we don't make money this whole thing won't be here at all. So:

1) Yeah, I bet that @dan did fight ya tooth and nail on this one.  
2) (speaking personally) I hire CEOs because I don't like to think about money.  Being CEO sucks real bad when it's bad and it's real fun when it's fun.  I've been a CEO.  It's incredibly challenging (and in fact the fun of being CEO comes from the challenge entirely) anyway here's my point:  At the end of the day, as CTO, I'd defer to the CEO, because well, everyone in the company eats  from their strategy.  

My advice:  Take one last look around, have a beer/whisky/joint with @dan  and the rest of the crew, too, get everyone's opinion, feel out their ideas, and then take an instinctive jump in what you think is the right direction for the site.  Tell the internal and external stakeholders exactly why you think it's the right direction, and don't look back.  

In the end, either way, everything might go to shit, and it might be your fault.  The saving grace?

You'll have fulfilled your role to the best of your abilities.  

The other saving grace?

You just might have jumped in the right direction. So, my bottom  line here is like this:

* I actually agree with @officialfuzzy
* What I think about this only matters inasmuch as I am a member of the community, and surely not the biggest one with respect to content or to stake.  
  * Corollary of the above:  Companies (thank god) are not democracies.  They're little tiny fiefdoms and everyone (board, other founders, team....) has given you the express authority to make decisions that will support the business.  
  * As a community member, I'm telling you to act on your gut feeling.  I'll even back you up on it, even if I agree with fuzzy right now, because well, one of the things that makes companies effective is delegation.  So, there you have it.  Maybe not @officialfuzzy's mandate, but certainly mine.  

And with this call, win, lose or draw,one thing that I hope will enable you to sleep (Sleep?  WTF is that? I bet you're thinking) is that this site has positively impacted a great many people.  I don't think it's a scam, I think it's a technosocial roller-coaster.  Get everyone buckled up, and let's go!

The proposed changes do precisely that--alienate certain people...with your most valuable ones...the ones who actually power up, being the ones hurt by this.  I go back to this point because if there is going to be a hardfork that so foundationally shakes steem community to the core, it should be done with the knowledge of this fact.  

But what concerns me most is that these gold nuggets we call long term thinkers within community not only will be upset by these changes, but will potentially have theor energy turned against steem.  

To me the worst idea is to anger people who could have been our biggest advertisers and participants through the hard times, and turn their energy against us...

I am wondering though what you mean by dan naysaying. It has little to do with naysaying as i put in the very beginning of my post.  If you are talking about other people talking down to dan, it is because they have seen this type of stuff before.  Big changes like these bring out old memories of big changes that didnt go so well in the past.

And like i said before and cant say enough--give people like tone vays fuel for their firepit.

Thanks for responding and i look forward to more discussion. 

P.S. it is less about marketinf and much more about the blockchain changing rules so abruptly and starkly in contrast to the original model that brought is to a 400 mil marketcap.  I personally think we will get back there without changes...but big changes will potentially lose more users than it will gain. And as stated before...these are not normal users...but the among the most loyal and resilient to boot. If im gonna makr enemies...id prefer them to be the type of perso who is weak and gives up quickly. sp holders are not that demographic.

I agree with the changes.  The fact is that no matter what you do you will get criticised.  This is a "beta" platform and nothing is written in stone.  I don't remember any silly promises being made like "code is law".  Iteration makes sense while the platform is small and the general community response has been positive.

> At the end of the day, blockchains are tools for supporting community interests. As part of the community, these proposed changes are Steemit's desires being expressed to the community.

It's not just that. It's also the goals of the investors that matter to a blockchain. With Steem (and previously BitShares) we **do** have a blockchain that distinguishes between how **users** use the platform (e.g. with Steemdollars, or simply by posting) and how **investors** use the platform (e.g. SteemPower). In Bitcoin, we can't distinguish those groups, but in Steem, we fortunately can. However, we learned that the pricing aspect also affects the users (euphoria and despair) further, we make regular **users** become **investors** by paying them SteemPower. Thus we don't necessarily have two **distinct** user/investor groups but rather a strange mix. Let's make sure we understand that something like this has not happened before (at least not to this extend).

That said, I like that the Steemit team is now actively approaching the difficulties we experienced. Looking for some fruitful discussion on Steemfest!