Negotiating the contents of a shared wallet and freedom to speak, but maybe not earn

My father was an artist who mostly painted landscapes but every time he put his brush to canvas, he was free to paint as he chose. However, when it came to selling his work, not everything sold as while he could say what he wanted through his art, no one had to pay him for the work he did - and his paintings would take between 100 and 400 hours to complete each one. The hourly rate was abysmal. But, regardless of whether a piece sold or not, there it was.

With the coming potential hardfork21, I have been writing a bit about the downvotes because I think that they bring in a level of randomization of outcome that is needed for a market like Steem. Remembering that the Steem isn't "owned" until it is in an individual wallet, each vote cast has 7 days of market forces to decide upon the final price - what comes out of the pool.

The pool is a stake-based resource that gets distributed by those with stake (Steem Power) and this adds a level of complication into the market place that isn't normally present because, that pool is not centrally distributed.

Imagine that you and nine of your friends went into a gallery and saw one of my dad's paintings hanging there and you wanted to buy it as you fell in love with it. You make an offer of 1000 dollars. However, the complication is that the group of 10 people share a wallet and the rights to the money inside but, not all people are in love with the painting you chose and, some dislike it a lot. Let's say that they can all agree that the painting can be bought but, the price that will be paid has to be negotiated as they understand that if the 1000 is spent, they lose the opportunity to spend some of that on their own needs and wants. Easy negotiation?

Probably not.

However, that is something like what is happening on Steem in that 7-day window where people have the opportunity to negotiate the price up and down based on their stake of their shared wallet. Remember that stake gives the ability to direct the flow of the pool, not rights to what is actually in the pool and that allows for all other stake holders to direct to or away from the same target.

The EIP introduces 2.5 negative distribution votes which means there is no longer the cost of downvoting there once was and places the 7-day negotiation parties on a more even footing. This allows for a more accurate market price of a post to be discovered, but the allowance is only available when the negotiation is entered into by the parties who share the wallet. If those with stake choose not to participate, that is their choice to give up part of their distribution rights and therefore, they will silently pay the opportunity cost of what others choose to spend the contents of the shared wallet on.

Now, freedom of speech...

Steem is censorship resilient and people are free to say whatever they want, but earning on what is said is not a right. Downvoting doesn't inhibit freedom of speech in the slightest and even if it is greyed out on Steemit.com, it exists on all other interfaces as far as I know. The blockchain level is where the censorship resistance exists as it is an open space that anyone can access at anytime without boundaries on the information that is written to it.

Everyone can say what they want yet once people also desire to earn on that content, market forces come into play and the negotiation starts. Disagreement of what is said is a legitimate use of downvoting in my opinion however, those that downvote whenever they disagree should reflect on it a little.

I protect the right to disagree and downvote on content because for an extreme example, if someone comes on here and posts their opinion about something like the joys of pedophilia, that is written to the blockchain - but just because some people think that is suitable and upvote and direct rewards to it, the rest of the community can use their draw on the shared wallet to direct rewards away from it so it doesn't earn. Yet, it will still exist on the Steem blockchain and would require a fork to remove.

Free to speak on Steem, but there is a cost

The cost to speak on Steem is - Resource Credits. That is it. The cost is whatever small amounts of digital resources it requires to push a comment or post to the blockchain. The cost is not potential earnings as they are potential and therefore are not counted as a cost incurred as, they may never have eventuated.

If someone wants to earn on what they say, they are already not free to speak as they please.

Well, unless "as they please" is what gets supported and attracts upvotes. Remember that this is a supply and demand market place and if one wants to earn, one has to factor in market conditions, this includes the type of content that will attract support or not - as well as the possibility that downvotes may arrive. However, if one doesn't care about earnings at all, they can say what they want on the Steem blockchain.

Most of the internet has actually been quite free to speak upon because for the most part, no one cares what we have to say unless we are famous, rich, popular or popularly despised. However, the algorithms are setting in and pushing content of view or, deleting it altogether without a set of human eyes even viewing it. That doesn't happen on Steem as every 3 seconds a block is written that contains what is said, and for the most part, that is durable and immutable through time.

Some of the concepts on Steem are hard to accept because most of us haven't considered them in depth before. Most of us don't share a wallet but, you can imagine that if I chose to buy a car with our savings, my wife would have some say in what car and what price we will spend. There is little difference on steem but up until now, because of the opportunity cost that a downvote cost the opportunity to upvote, most took the opportunity to direct the distribution toward and earn curation on it also. This left the community complacent about negotiating the prices of content that the shared wallet was spent on.

Steem is an experiment in self-governance within a group with shared resources that need to be distributed and behaviors that need to have some kind of governance. Part of the negotiation on content reward moves us toward a better governance structure for the resources we all share. It is important for people to take the responsibility.

Like someone mentioned, they are pessimistic that people will actually take responsibility, as am I, because the world we have created is one where we have continually pushed the responsibility away from self-governance and onto authorities tat take care of our well-being for us.

How is that working out for you?

We have created a world of oppression of many kinds that is nestled in the soft arms of convenience because, we just don't want to take the responsibility and consequences for ourselves. We still pay the consequences - it just feels inevitable, like we never had an option for different.

On Steem, you have options.

Many, many options.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]

My father was a brilliant artist, however he didn't play the game or sell himself well. Luckily for him, he was also a brilliant teacher who could earn by empowering others and to this day, students occasionally message me asking about him, 40 years after they left his classes.