Kindly watch the short video above. Beyond my words, hear the context in my undertone.
In the video above, i discussed in general about why i think that steem accounts that where excluded from the HIVE airdrop, should have had their drops.
In the coming days, i will check the list of Hive proposals to see if a proposal has been written to this effect and if none of such exist yet, i will write one.
Whatever requires a consensus 'isn't a guarantee'. That these users are said to have the option of going through a proposal system, isn't a solid justification for having them excluded. What if each one of them wrote a proposal? How will these many proposals be tended too? etc.
While the soft-fork was said to have been soft (reversible), it still would have needed consensus to revert and consensus isn't guaranteed.
When we carry out prominent actions especially those on behalf of a large community, it isn't entirely about 'the act' however simple or hard, it is about the effect of the act and the perception of people about the act and in this case, we refer to an expanse of people from all walks of life. These things should be considered in our decision-making.
'Decentralization' takes time and '100% of it' is unattainable. A measure of it is attainable! "Man can't rule man, neither can code".
Altogether, decentralization even in relation to tech is still a new concept. People need to be given room to learn of this beautiful concept. An entire curriculum may need to play out to this effect. Blockchain becomes a more testimonial and indispensable tool when used to play out a mentality-adjusting curriculum.
Where blockchain has to be modeled or coded to predict how an expanse of evolving people will act solely to govern these actions, that is simply a replay of centralization on blockchain, according to me.
One of the use-case for STEEM in broad context is the by-token of its fork. For instance, people could by steem prior to a fork for the sole reason of obtaining the resulting drop .
Steem grew past times when it was only about content-creators/curators. One other value proposition of blockchain 'e.g steem' is 'privacy or anonymity'. Accounts aren't under an obligation to explain themselves. Where they have done so, it is mostly voluntary. Accounts can now be created for many other reasons than for publications. Accounts are wallets too.
According to me, each account constitutes a community member based on the sole fact that they possess steem, whether they participate in governance or not. Where they have stake, even more so.
Like others, these accounts are eligible to the resulting airdrops from the fork. Being the start of a new blockchain, it is the important, people's perception of how we start. Decision in relation to these matters at the very least should involve the community at large, even where only 17 witness (who have been voted in) is sufficient for consensus and this related comment below expatiates on that:
This post is simply evidence among other things that someone voting or not voting doesn’t entirely indicate their intention of support. And further evidence that decentralization is a grander issue than vote or no vote. People vote for a variety of reasons, not only to support something. Now because I vote for one reason only, doesn’t mean that I will conclude that a large expanse of people from all walks of life, must have voted for that same reason. While people may hurriedly say that most people are here for rewards for instance, well, people may be here to gain insight in to the true state of the world (steem as cctv) or to sandbox a dream.
People can vote or not vote or interchange vote over the course of time to weigh matters and perhaps give room for decentralization to ensue. It can’t be concluded that people only vote to support something. Same as for instance, you ‘would stay on steem to support the chain’ in this case, will not have enough context (just courtesy of you having ran 22.1) without your post explanation here. meaning that I can’t be conclusive as to your intentions for staying on steem solely because you have chosen to run 22.1. And well, even if you didn’t explain in a post your decision and just ran 22.1, who will I have been to say that your decision is poor or right.
If there was perhaps a voting system and a small poll posed to ‘gather intention’ (which is easier to automately measure than say a small box where people needed to state their intention), then perhaps that gives a more factual basis for a more decentralized decision-making than recount votes or who doesn’t as a measure of support or otherwise. Vote by itself may not entirely carry intention, reason why in some cases people come out with an entire post for context sake, be it a witness vote or even a post vote (in many cases, downvotes).
I for instance vote for many other reasons besides reward-distribution or content-visibility or to display support for something. I could vote to stir a stimuli to get unadulterated feedback or vote provisionally to weigh matters or not vote or interchange vote cos I am trying to fix the real life, one could vote to play with the button or see how blockchain reacts etc.
Amongst other things, people voting Sun directly or indirectly (in some cases through a proxy decision) doesn’t necessarily mean that they support centralization, they can have voted for a variety of other reasons; it could also mean that they want to exercise a right at the very least, which is where a grand meaning of decentralization comes in.
Altogether, votes alone isn’t parameter enough for conclusions when it comes giant decision-making involving a large community for it only carries a measure of facts.
Where it is only vote we have, that is where the community at large comes in for discussion sake. That we have a blockchain that offers vote should relegate the role of humans, else the blockchain would have been perfect from the outset. That witnesses have been voted in, shouldn’t relegate discussions. Altogether, discussions are needed for the evolution onto decentralization. A variety of reaction and interaction and a balance or eventually compromise is how decentralization comes about and it takes time. Even for hurried decision-making where the witnesses have to take a leadership, the unheld discussion can still be held even where it results in reverting decision, else it may come up later with more detrimental impact. Vote alone is a very simple action. It can’t by itself form the base for world impacting decisions e.g attaining centralization cos vote by itself can highlight context. Same as a yes can mean no underlying, where there is no way to relate context. Same as one can easily be cajoled into saying ‘a simple yes’ compared to an entire sentence.
Humans should be able to exercises these things at least even if to stir further discussion tangible for the evolution of decentralization and be allowed room to do so. Now their decision-making and mentality on a subject could change over the course of time, which is proven on steem (many arrived on steem and adjusted their decision or mentality on a subject courtesy of the beauty of steem).
A decision today may not be same tomorrow and that is where the beauty of blockchain comes in, not as a small god-code to curb humans, but as a tool to play out a curriculum that adjusts mentality. Many of these things should be discussable. People shouldn’t entertain fears of discussing these things, cos these discussions and measure of freedom to react or interact is what leads on to decentralization. Decentralization isn’t a very old concept, people need to grow into it and be given room to do so. Even where witnesses are elected, doesn’t relegate the role of the community at large in these discussions, cos votes isn’t an entire indication of support. Vote in itself can mean many things.
Altogether, humans who have steem are to a measure of extent or even to a large extent according to me, community members. I am not one to bash anyone for having a say.
Your Boy Terry
My witness on HIVE is 'steemgigs'.