I use a hybrid approach and I freely admit that I have changed my voting behavior because for an entire year and a half I never even bothered to look at how curation rewards worked. When I found out that I received more SP for rewarding comments and unknown people, I thought it was great, because I am both giving people more directly and also getting more ROI. The combination of those two things make it more attractive. I am not saying that I operate on voluntary basis, as I have an entire family to support (including my parents). I am the only breadwinner and as a creative person, I never understood how to monetize my energy.
Everyone has to eat, I am just laying it out there that I value my integrity more than my payouts....because if I was to lose it all, i could rebuild.
If I did what you're doing, I think it would damage my integrity. We are operating differently.....
You can do what you wish, and I am glad you wrote this post. You writing this post opened up my eyes to something I was totally ignorant about.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's the goal.
why wouldn't you do this then, at least on a part-time basis?
Because like I said in OP, voting for the content that I like means I would have to sacrifice some rewards. There is no way currently to ally both upvoting the post I like and profit which is why I proposed a solution to re-align incentives.
I wish to understand why curation rewards hold such high priority. I view curation as a gift, not a means to earn. I personally write and comment to engage and earn.
Curation rewards determine the quality of content . If you get the curation incentives wrong you get shit content.
But the curation rewards you're delegating to a bot are being blindly assigned to whoever pays for it, unless it's some type of guild arrangement. That means that any junk that qualifies with the minimum amount of words can be upvoted by you indirectly. I'm not sure I follow your logic, completely respectfully said. If you've delegated to something like @curie or ocd, that's a bit different, and worth clarifying.
That's exactly my point. If you get the curation incentives wrong you get shit content. I have no incentive to curate properly which is why my voting power is used to upvote shit content.
It's purely economic, that's the point. The logic is simply based on return, not on quality. Since what gets rewarded is de facto quality in the steemit system, @snowflake is able to say "Curation rewards determine the quality of content".
The problem they are highlighting is that it is more worth while for them to sell votes than it is for them to curate with attention because the incentives (read: rewards) favor that in the current system. So - change the system.
I agree with @steemmatt. From my observations, a big chunk of the paid bot upvotes goes to content that is of low quality (posts that are shit).
"I have an entire family to support (including my parents). I am the only breadwinner and as a creative person, I never understood how to monetize my energy. Everyone has to eat, I am just laying it out there that I value my integrity"
I totally get all of that, thank you for sharing. I'm glad I am not alone. What creative asset can I monetize and how fast? I wrestle with that, so many directions, so hard to know, which path is the right path. Thank you for the kind upvote @stellabelle