RE: deleted

First, let me say that I generally hate posts that just talk about POB (especially those that just talk about the token, and its valuation, and predicting its future valuation).

However, posts that are touching on important issues that the community should be discussing get my attention (as they should) and get my upvotes (because that is the best way to get the broadest audience and thus the richest discussion).

And, generally, I would refrain from upvoting a post that is essentially an expanded comment to a previous post on the same topic.

However, I too, have started writing a comment, then found it too important (in my eyes, anyway) to leave it as 'just a comment'; so, I made it a post and referenced the 'inspiration' from the original post (much the way you have done).

The fact that you clearly link back to the original post, and the fact that you are proposing additional solutions to be discussed, makes it potentially worthy of its own set of discussion comments. In light of this, I have decided to make an exception (to my normal approach) and upvote this post as well.

And, it is good that you are taking this action after some introspection and self-evaluation, and that you are calling yourself out for your 'hypocrisy':

The irony of me making this post after my roast is not lost on me. This post could have been a comment. But comments don't pay as well, as posts. So here I go, being a hypocrite for the coin. I regret nothing!

I agree with your sentiment that content creators deserve more:

I think creators deserve 75% of the rewards with my whole heart.

However, I also agree with your caution:

Don't touch what's working.

Right now we are struggling with the reality that it is really hard to create a truly 'proof of brain' rewards system. Steem tried -- and failed. Hive tried -- and is struggling. POB is trying -- and (arguably) is doing better than any of its predecessors.

Will we ever achieve perfection in that effort?   I doubt it.

Can we do better?   Probably.

Will we know up front what changes will be for the better and what changes will move us backwards?   No!

However, we do have the history of Steem and Hive to (hopefully) keep us from repeating some of their mistakes.

In any event, making major changes when a new launch is doing better than its predecessors (although still not ideal), should be approached with the utmost of caution.

With that said, I plan to launch an experiment of sorts in the coming weeks that will (perhaps) provide a both-and solution. As I've alluded to previously, what I am planning will be designed to enhance and support the value of POB.

If my experiment flops, it should provide some valuable insight to this community in the process. If my experiment succeeds, it should enable a parallel value-creation pattern to emerge within this community (and potentially draw additional investors to the community).

What are the odds of success of my new experiment? I currently put them around 50/50 (which means the average 'outsider' would probably put them at less than 10%).

I teach entrepreneurship at my university and one of the definitions of entrepreneurship that I teach my students is:

• entrepreneurship is when you think you're right and most everyone else thinks you're wrong (see Mark Casson's The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory).

If most everyone else thinks you're right, then either it's already been done before, or it's trivial.

Entrepreneurship requires action -- action that others eschew because the endeavor is wrought with uncertainty.

---

_{Posted via proofofbrain.io}