In this video the creator reads an open letter addressed to Ned Scott, CEO of Steemit, outlining both admiration for the platform and concerns about its current governance mechanisms. The speaker critiques stake‑weighted voting, noting its susceptibility to abuse, concentration of power, and the proliferation of dummy or cloned accounts that undermine fairness and economic health. To address these issues, the author proposes a new system called “Steemitocracy,” which uses consensus‑based vote balancing: votes are averaged across the network, and high‑stake votes are calibrated to match the reward distribution of many low‑stake votes. When consensus is not met, the system issues bonus tokens, envisioned as a tradable SMT that can be bought, sold, or repurchased with site revenue. The proposal also calls for delegated Steem, participation from large stakeholders (“whales”), and a funding model that allocates 50% of site earnings to token buy‑backs. The letter argues that this hybrid approach mitigates the drawbacks of pure account‑based voting—such as fake accounts draining rewards—while preserving the benefits of stake‑weighted voting. The speaker concludes by inviting community feedback, encouraging viewers to join the Steemitocracy effort, and urging the Steemit leadership to consider the proposal as a competitive advantage against other blockchain platforms.
Chapters
Hey you, welcome back to the channel. And guys, today we want to talk about an open letter I wrote to Mr. Ned Scott, the CEO of the Steemit social media network. For those of you who watch the channel, you know I talk about Steemit a lot. If you've watched the channel and you haven't joined Steemit yet, I invite you to do so. Basically, I upload a lot of my content to Steemit, and they have a voting system, and it's real cool. It monetizes your content, your blog posts, your videos, and various things like that. And more or less, more likely, if you watch the channel, you already know what Steemit is, as I have done promotion of Steemit. But if you're watching for the first time, you don't know who I am, and you're familiar with the Steemit network, This is a letter I wrote to Mr. Scott, and I hope the letter is a solution to some of the problems that we had on Steemit. But now Steemit is the first of its kind. It is a great system. It's the best I've seen or known. So I want to be clear from the beginning. This isn't a complaint from us about Steemit. We love Steemit. We think it's going great. We really don't have anything else to compare it to, to really complain about it. But as I maneuver through the community and I hear various things and we talk about various things within the community itself as we're addressing the new issues, I've kind of come up with some solutions to them. As you know, I'm a student of economies, and as well as that, I love solving problems. Okay, so this is an attempt for me to solve a problem we've had on Steemit. You know, if you're on social media, the first thing I would say is that social media itself has a huge problem. So Steemit is light years away from that, as Steemit does pay you for your content. Most social media sites, as you all well know, that we engage in whatever we do, there's no type of compensation in that. So We should always go back, I think, to that and thank people like Mr. Dan Scott and Dan Larimer for even creating these systems where we even have the opportunity to earn anything for things we do online. So I want to give my thanks for that and again make it clear that this isn't any type of condemnation or anything like that, but just based on community thoughts and what I see and just trying to be a problem solver and writing this letter, come up with some ideas. Another thing, I don't really know how to get in touch with people on Steemit and know how to address anything that NASDAQ uttered in this way. It might be a way. If there are other ways, please be free to let me know in the comment section, various things like that. But I just want to read this letter, and I'd like you guys to tell me what you think about the letter, and if you think it's a solution, or if you think it just leads to more issues. But anyway, I'll go ahead and read the letter now. It reads, dear @Ned or Mr. Ned Scott, I write this letter addressed to you and all STEEMians, what I believe to be a solution to ideas like stake-weighted voting. As much as I like to bash stake-weighted voting, my data suggests that stake-weighted voting has not only worked the best but may be the best way to vote in this space at the present time, although it within itself is problematic, to say the least. Uh, I formed a group and a website called Steemitocracy, which I believe addresses the issue of stake-weighted voting. It is my understanding at this point that you are looking for better ways and ideas like account-based voting. However, I've been contacted by persons who claim to have hundreds, if not thousands, of cloned and dummy accounts on Steemit. This still in effect can pull away from ideas and concepts of fairness and a more democratic approach to solving the problem of respect and equality along the STEAM platform. Stake-weighted voting, as my personal data suggests, has been plagued by abuse of power, corruption, as well as collusion, lack of empathy and respect for others. In addition to that, it hurts the economy itself as it creates a pull towards a limit in distribution, generally ending up with most influence and control to a very small group as opposed to a more healthier middle group. As steam at some points imitate an economic system, one could even use terms similar to a non-existent middle class. We believe true value comes from content creators, so voting should only be a reflection of the value they have already introduced into the system. Voting, we believe, should not be the method of value within itself. All that said, stake-weighted voting or stake-weighted voting does not need to go away. We find that it works better if it stays with some tweaks. What we suggest is voting parameters that are specific and unchangeable and method to every account. As to say, in our Steemitocracy site, we use consensus of votes in a way to equal out to the reward. So we take into consideration higher stakeholders' votes to get closer to the reward amount in relation to the votes. We come up with the number from an average of votes across the Steemit network. So for example, if a person received 10 votes Let's say we averaged out every vote to be $1 in this example. A high-stake weighted vote could match the reward of the other voters with less stake within the votes. So you could have 9 voters amount to about $1 in rewards. However, you could have 1 high-stake voter with a $9 vote. In that respect, all votes collectively would equal out to the same reward. Despite the level of the stakeholder, the stakeholder could still reserve the right to vote or not vote, yet keep their influence. In the event stakeholders didn't participate in voting on worthwhile posts or meeting consensus of votes by the majority, that would allow our system, Steemitocracy, to issue bonus tokens. These tokens would be incorporated into your SMT idea. We now have an experimental token that we utilize on the Steemitocracy site which does the exact same thing. So for every post receiving the votes, we still issue them enough tokens until their post reward levels to votes on consensus are met, unless higher stake-weighted votes match the post to an amount that meets the consensus. So in short, this creates a way to allow stake-weighted voting yet balance out with account-based voting. However, this erases many of the dangers of account-based voting. We'll talk about some of the issues of account-based voting later in this letter. Obviously, the biggest issue would be where does the money come from? We find that in some cases it's not always about money. Psychologically, as human beings, everyone just wants to be treated fairly and respected. Not overlooked or looked down upon. So our data suggests that with Steemitocracy, offering bonus tokens to balance the consensus of votes solves the problem. The bonus tokens we use that we wish to incorporate as an SMT are traded on an exchange. The public can buy and sell them. Accounts which didn't receive rewards to match a consensus level of votes then would have the opportunity to trade those on the market for whichever price they wish. In other efforts, our site would be monetized in different ways. Uh, we're not against advertising. We would pledge to take 50% of site earnings to purchase back these tokens. Even if the volume is low, we still believe this will at the very least address the problem of noticing the hard work put into a post. It may not always be about reward recognition. Sometimes community recognition is enough. In the coming months, Steemit will meet with several competitors who wish to address these issues from other blockchains. Whenever successful enterprises collide, they all have products to answer the other. Mac versus PC, the Whopper versus the Big Mac, and so on and so forth. Stemmen at this point in time doesn't seem to have a product that accounts for account-based voting and methods like other enterprises or blockchains have on the horizon. We believe Stemmetocracy can be such a product, a superweapon against competitors. Mr. Scott, we ask that you give us the tools to further experiment with this system that may be instrumental in and combating competition, as we should. Steemitocracy requests delegated Steem to further our efforts. More than just money or delegated Steem, we'd like help from all Steemians just in the form of participation. Any whales are welcome as they'll be paramount to balancing the system. Give us the tools to fight all Steemit enemies foreign or domestic. Let us collect more data to make this a viable product that solves this tremendous problem. In closing, Mr. Scott, I'd like to say to people who are for account-based voting only to consider some of the problems. Unfortunately, whereas Steemit draws many international peoples and nations, we would account-based voting are still plagued by free accounts and free transactions that don't generate money into the network, or STEAM rather. Whereas it is noble to bring people together and offer utopia-like ideas, the reality and 800-pound gorilla in the room is lack of resources. We must have resources to generate rewards. So account-based voting could breed dummy and fake accounts which would drain those rewards to unprecedented levels. We have no idea as we don't have the data, but we do believe it would create the same issue we have now, and that is this lack of democracy on the blockchain. If you get this letter, Mr. Scott, or hear it, we hope that you consider our proposal to help Steemit and help ourselves. We hope this is esteemed and taken into consideration as well as meditated upon. We thank all of you who have taken the time to read or hear this letter. So that's the letter we've presented here to Mr. Ned Scott. We love Steemit, uh, we want to see it go forward, and we're just here to help in any way we can by hopefully coming up with solutions that work. Guys, be— feel free to leave your suggestions and comments or any questions you might have if you decide to join our efforts and join our site. If you like content like this, don't forget to like, subscribe, and until next time, take care.
