Incorrect. Whales can vote to award most of the rewards to themselves. And as
I explained last year, it is impossible to design a voting rewards from the collective money supply system that wouldn't aggregate the rewards to the whales.
I havent read your entire post but you started criticizing linear rewards, and I really don't get it.
You said there that money will be funneled from altruists to selfish posters. I think that is blatantly wrong.
First of all there is no "self voting" I dont even know what that means. When you write a post you upvote your post with your power.So whether you send your SP to a sockpuppet account or vote on yourself with the same account is technically the same isn't it?
One thing I could imagine is that a person empties his entire VP on himself, but remember voting is a social thing. If nobody votes after him then he barely makes money. So yeah a person can vote on himself but the way I experienced it's more profitable to vote on others instead.
Secondly there is erosion, whales powering down, more investors buying in, and eventually you will have tens of thousands or millions of minnows joining together in some sort of delegation pool (like you see with miners now) who will have enough power to equalize themselves.
Sort of like how in a democracy poor workers form trade unions to put up a fight against the "evil capitalists". Of course whether this setup gets corrupted or not in the future, that is a different topic.
That is as ridiculously disingenuous as arguing any economic activity could be considered unlicensed business. If we reach that level of totalitarianism, then we will be in a different even more insane world than we are in now.
It is already like that, it's just that the government doesnt have enough power to enforce it, but when they will, they will unleash it unfortunately.
There was a pretty good inverview on some libertarian channel about this, where a guy asked a TSA officer why are they screening people only when leaving and why not also when coming, and the guy replied that basically he didn't had enough manpower, otherwise he would have done it.
So that is how government works, the default is tyranny. It's just that they don't have enough manpower or opportunity to implement it entirely.
FinCEN for example has clearly stated that mining is not in violation of their regulatory jurisdiction.
They can just change their minds in a week, and that's about it.
I can't believe people still hope that these bureaucrats will do anything good for the average person.
If that ever is the case, cryptocurrency is dead and we are in a totalitarian world where running a router on the Internet could be considered aiding moneylaunders.
I don't personally think it will ever go that far , and I really hope that it won't, but there will be some crackdowns in the future in favor of banks probably crushing small competing businesses.
You're trying to justify Steem breaking securities law by arguing the civilization is always totalitarianism, thus implying we must always break all laws and destroy civilization.
No, I didn't imply that people should break laws, I said that people should change the laws, but before that, they need to realize what is going on. People have to realize how the political game works.
You can't possibly build anything without civilization. If you indeed get the lawless world you claim you want, Steem will be destroyed along with everything else.
Who said anything about "primitivism", I never advocated nor spoke in favor of any kind of barbaric/primivisim kind of society that some anarcho-primitivists are advocating for.
I don't think you understand well libertarian principles and you certainly conflate multiple, competing, libertarian ideologies.
If I'd define myself simply I'd say that I am a voluntary capitalist or voluntary libertarian or whatever other synonymous labels you can find. I do like the free market. And that implies civilization of course.
I also want to change the world towards greater cooperation with new technology, but revolution is not a solution. Every revolution ends up as power vacuum where a dictator or worse steps in. The youth are always in favor of destroying everything but they do not realize the true cost of this:
I know, I even wrote a couple of posts about this. I would also like to have a voluntary world, which is only achieve through voluntary means, be that cooperation or friendly competition.
So if you want to help the world reach greater cooperation, don't expect to accomplish it by launching a token system in a scammy way with a sneaky instamine so that the whales control the thing and then think this is any better than the system you think you are fighting.
That is a very narrowminded way of looking at it, and even if you are right, it doesnt prove anythin, for now it works and that is all that matters.