Steem Governance and Changing the Rules

I would like to take a moment to reflect on the feedback we have received on various proposed changes to the rules and how I envision this working going forward.

Background

Changing the rules was one of the major mistakes I made with BitShares. It was a mistake that I set out to remedy with Steem. It is fundamental to a solid community that the rules cannot be arbitrarily changed. Every major change to the rules causes some fraction of the community to leave and never come back.

I originally set a goal with Steem to have a simple set of rules that would never change. So it is fair to say that I strongly support the concept that stability of rules is important.

This position is at odds with my constant desire to fix things that are broken and make things better. If I see rules that will cause the system to crash and burn then I believe we are better off fixing them. If I see the ability to add new features without taking from old I see that as good too.

Development Considerations

Every time we "change the rules" we increase the complexity of the software that powers Steem. The code must support both the old and the new rules forever. After July 4th it will be impossible for us to go-back and change anything that would impact how payouts are calculated. Before July 4th changes to the payout calculation algorithm will not break the validity of existing transactions.

From an engineering standpoint, there is a heavy cost to maintaining legacy rules.

Compromise

We have been actively looking for solutions that enable us to keep legacy payouts with minimal long-term engineering costs. We think we can parameterise the amount of money that goes to different algorithms and this should help us support changes.

Pending Payouts and Precedents

July 4th was the day we had intended for the rules regarding pending payouts "finalized". Until July 4th, all pending payouts are subject to voters changing their opinion. There are two ways voters can change their opinion: changing their votes on posts and changing their votes on witnesses. In other words, the reward fund's distribution is ultimately up to the voters behaviors and would not violate anyone's "property rights" in the pending rewards.

Long Term Governance

The long term governance model for Steem is for all changes to be approved by the elected witnesses. If the witnesses do not update their software then nothing can change. Many of you who post here may not know that you can vote on who operates the network and which rule changes are ultimately adopted.

If you would like to start voting you can visit: https://steemit.com/~witnesses to change your vote. For a more detailed page with information about all witnesses you can visit https://steemd.com/witnesses.

As you can see many of the top witnesses are among the most vocal opponents to the proposed change.

It takes 2/3 majority to change the software rules behind Steem. So everyone can rest assured that any change to the protocol will be thoroughly vetted and supported.

Grandfathered Rewards

Assuming a reasonable technological approach can be found, I support grandfathering those who have been voting under the current rules. I agree that having a formal process with a strong commitment to not retroactively changing things is important to the long term trust people have in the platform.

We will do our best to serve the community and keep things transparent and open. User feedback is listened to and appreciated.

H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
12 Comments