Seems like Near zero curation is being done manually just before the 15min, all automated, it could get way way worst. With 50:50, author will definitely get less
Automated votes before 15 minutes are perfectly fine. It benefits everyone else because it puts a share of curation reward back into the pool. The idea is that if it is so obvious that content is worth many votes (for example, based on author track record) within a short time, it doesn't didn't take much skill or effort to identify, and doesn't deserve much curation reward, and that cost is better spent elsewhere. This is equally true whether those votes are automated or not, perhaps even more so if automated.
My view is that the 15 minutes should be much shorter. Automated votes can still do their job of putting funds back into the pool on the no-brainer votes and it would get out of the way of human voters for all other cases.
It only happens when I'm too lazy to wait ;-) Still doing a lot of manual curating (with some auto mixed in) nearly three years into it. Loving this thread, good exchange of ideas for steem.
In its current form (75/25), there is a big incentive to be an author who's powering down & selling constantly, instead of powering up and keeping the stake. What we need are authors that want to become big whales, because it's so lucrative. And whether you get 3$ or 2$ for your post - it's still a great deal for simply being an author/contributor.
There are no creators here that will ever become big whales. Pretending that there is even a chance at that is extremely misleading.
It would take 15 years for a creator to become a whale if he earned as much as 100 STEEM a day consistently. I dont think there is anyone here outside @gooddream with @xeldal support, maybe, that has even a slight chance at that. I wont count haejin or the bidbot posters that arent "real" creators.
If Steem ever created a stand out creator, even if it was just a single one, i dont think people would have a problem with any kind of split change.
You need to form an idea in peoples heads that there is something they can strive towards. Provide them with a goal they can achieve.
Theres nothing like that here. All youre doing with this is saying: "Hey, im bigger then you, im going to take some of your shit and if you dont like it... Tough luck.".
That’s on paper. Desired effect of the entire EIP is to encourage content reflective voting behavior, so it’s expected that authors would get more in the end, improving content discovery, and in turn, better valuation for the network. What’s the point of authors getting more on paper if voting behaviour is currently so terrible, contributing to a declining demand for Steem itself? That’s not really getting more. Plus authors can also enjoy similar benefits using their SP for curation.
Seems reasonable, my first thought is large temporary delegations in the short term could create great incentive for small accounts to be engaging curators. Best of both worlds
I dont know if it is possible, but i am a fan of a curation slider. It is similar to beneficiaries sliders in my opinion. Some groups can demand higher or lower, aithors get final say. Min 25 max 100 go.
I know there are more important things in the world like feeding starving children. There are probably more important things to do on steem, but these seem like simple issues.
with 50/50 curation reward more will be willing to buy Steem and use for curating. As it is right now more people incentivized to self vote, sell and exchange votes. In the end, it will benefit the authors more as they will potentially receive more upvotes. Moreover, the authors will be incentivized to upvote those who comment on their posts and engage with them. I don't understand why people don't see this.
Why do you think people care about curation? Most of the crypto market doesnt care about much outside ROI. Why do you think they would care about voting up deserving creators?
I dont understand why you think others share your interests.
That's the idea behind 50% curation, but I don't think it would necessarily be a guaranteed outcome. Let's say an artist is blogging regularly and getting consistent support from regular curators. The audience is stable. If the author reward gets slashed from 75% to 50% it would demotivate the author more than guarantee a bigger audience or curators.
It's also a psychological factor: others getting more rewards for the work of the author! It doesn't make sense.
Another thing is the platform is growing, so curators are faced with more content to discover than to curate the current user base. To curators, it wouldn't really matter who/what they vote for, they would still get 50%. So when the user base increases, the support to that particular artist will be diluted. Therefore the artist will be on the losing side in the long run while curators reap more profits.
I personally don't care about my curation rewards, my joy comes from the work of people I support. I think curators greed may be driving that push for 50% which I find very steep. Perhaps 30% curation would be a good start to try that idea instead of doing a full blown cut on author rewards.
I didn't see you consider a situation where the platform is declining?
Imo, as an active daily Steem user, we need to fix content discovery at all costs. If we don't and competitor comes up that actually does reward content based on quality, this place probably will be forgotten so fast, it'll be like snapping fingers. We don't have a lot of time. And let's be real, look at our adoption rates, something is clearly wrong and keeping the same set of rules, in my mind, for that reason alone isn't a reason. After all, this place is paying for authors, yet they're joining in small numbers and most even leave after a while. So it's mind boggling to me how some want to keep the current system.
I've been Steemian for over 2 years but I'm powering down and selling in case this EIP is not implemented, as that's a clear sign that the users are actually happy with the current situation, and I cannot say the same, at all. Someone will get it right eventually, and I'm supporting the ones willing to try and I've heard there's one coming soon with major backing.
Edit: Oh, I can see you're powering down as well. It seems to be common these days, cheers.
You are probably right with the idea that a small increase would be good to see if it was having the desired effect. Maybe a 50% jump would be too big at this point especially with autovotes in play. But, I would be happy to share more of my post rewards with people that were interacting on my posts organically. I do think that we have to find a way to encourage more curation and reading of posts on the platform.
Another thing is the platform is growing, so curators are faced with more content to discover than to curate the current user base. To curators, it wouldn't really matter who/what they vote for, they would still get 50%
This and this:
I personally don't care about my curation rewards, my joy comes from the work of people I support. I think curators greed may be driving that push for 50% which I find very steep.
I saw that as the driving factor from day 1. Im a smaller account then you and i vote stuff i find enjoyable, i never calculate before i vote, i care little if my VP goes down..
My behavior will not change and i dont think the behavior of those that are using the platform "as intended" will either.
Seems like Near zero curation is being done manually just before the 15min, all automated, it could get way way worst. With 50:50, author will definitely get less
Automated votes before 15 minutes are perfectly fine. It benefits everyone else because it puts a share of curation reward back into the pool. The idea is that if it is so obvious that content is worth many votes (for example, based on author track record) within a short time, it doesn't didn't take much skill or effort to identify, and doesn't deserve much curation reward, and that cost is better spent elsewhere. This is equally true whether those votes are automated or not, perhaps even more so if automated.
My view is that the 15 minutes should be much shorter. Automated votes can still do their job of putting funds back into the pool on the no-brainer votes and it would get out of the way of human voters for all other cases.
50/50 suppose to fix that. 50/50 will make Steem more attractive to buy, power up, and curate.
They never seem to get this part. Wierd.
It only happens when I'm too lazy to wait ;-) Still doing a lot of manual curating (with some auto mixed in) nearly three years into it. Loving this thread, good exchange of ideas for steem.
In its current form (75/25), there is a big incentive to be an author who's powering down & selling constantly, instead of powering up and keeping the stake. What we need are authors that want to become big whales, because it's so lucrative. And whether you get 3$ or 2$ for your post - it's still a great deal for simply being an author/contributor.
There are no creators here that will ever become big whales. Pretending that there is even a chance at that is extremely misleading.
It would take 15 years for a creator to become a whale if he earned as much as 100 STEEM a day consistently. I dont think there is anyone here outside @gooddream with @xeldal support, maybe, that has even a slight chance at that. I wont count haejin or the bidbot posters that arent "real" creators.
If Steem ever created a stand out creator, even if it was just a single one, i dont think people would have a problem with any kind of split change.
You need to form an idea in peoples heads that there is something they can strive towards. Provide them with a goal they can achieve.
Theres nothing like that here. All youre doing with this is saying: "Hey, im bigger then you, im going to take some of your shit and if you dont like it... Tough luck.".
That’s on paper. Desired effect of the entire EIP is to encourage content reflective voting behavior, so it’s expected that authors would get more in the end, improving content discovery, and in turn, better valuation for the network. What’s the point of authors getting more on paper if voting behaviour is currently so terrible, contributing to a declining demand for Steem itself? That’s not really getting more. Plus authors can also enjoy similar benefits using their SP for curation.
Seems reasonable, my first thought is large temporary delegations in the short term could create great incentive for small accounts to be engaging curators. Best of both worlds
I dont know if it is possible, but i am a fan of a curation slider. It is similar to beneficiaries sliders in my opinion. Some groups can demand higher or lower, aithors get final say. Min 25 max 100 go.
I know there are more important things in the world like feeding starving children. There are probably more important things to do on steem, but these seem like simple issues.
Posted using Partiko Android
It's already working on Golos, which is Steem fork, so yes, it's possible.
Golos is completely dead.
So, even completely dead project could manage to implement this feature.
A completely dead project could implement a automated gif with a hitler speech and noone would notice it. 😁
Posted using Partiko Android
All I wanted to say is slider for curation rewards isn't rocket science.
Its not. But a curation slider wouldnt do much. You just open a venue for more arragements under the table.
Posted using Partiko Android
with 50/50 curation reward more will be willing to buy Steem and use for curating. As it is right now more people incentivized to self vote, sell and exchange votes. In the end, it will benefit the authors more as they will potentially receive more upvotes. Moreover, the authors will be incentivized to upvote those who comment on their posts and engage with them. I don't understand why people don't see this.
Why do you think people care about curation? Most of the crypto market doesnt care about much outside ROI. Why do you think they would care about voting up deserving creators?
I dont understand why you think others share your interests.
But, do you not think by increasing curation rewards more votes will be made to offset it?
That's the idea behind 50% curation, but I don't think it would necessarily be a guaranteed outcome. Let's say an artist is blogging regularly and getting consistent support from regular curators. The audience is stable. If the author reward gets slashed from 75% to 50% it would demotivate the author more than guarantee a bigger audience or curators.
It's also a psychological factor: others getting more rewards for the work of the author! It doesn't make sense.
Another thing is the platform is growing, so curators are faced with more content to discover than to curate the current user base. To curators, it wouldn't really matter who/what they vote for, they would still get 50%. So when the user base increases, the support to that particular artist will be diluted. Therefore the artist will be on the losing side in the long run while curators reap more profits.
I personally don't care about my curation rewards, my joy comes from the work of people I support. I think curators greed may be driving that push for 50% which I find very steep. Perhaps 30% curation would be a good start to try that idea instead of doing a full blown cut on author rewards.
I didn't see you consider a situation where the platform is declining?
Imo, as an active daily Steem user, we need to fix content discovery at all costs. If we don't and competitor comes up that actually does reward content based on quality, this place probably will be forgotten so fast, it'll be like snapping fingers. We don't have a lot of time. And let's be real, look at our adoption rates, something is clearly wrong and keeping the same set of rules, in my mind, for that reason alone isn't a reason. After all, this place is paying for authors, yet they're joining in small numbers and most even leave after a while. So it's mind boggling to me how some want to keep the current system.
I've been Steemian for over 2 years but I'm powering down and selling in case this EIP is not implemented, as that's a clear sign that the users are actually happy with the current situation, and I cannot say the same, at all. Someone will get it right eventually, and I'm supporting the ones willing to try and I've heard there's one coming soon with major backing.
Edit: Oh, I can see you're powering down as well. It seems to be common these days, cheers.
You are probably right with the idea that a small increase would be good to see if it was having the desired effect. Maybe a 50% jump would be too big at this point especially with autovotes in play. But, I would be happy to share more of my post rewards with people that were interacting on my posts organically. I do think that we have to find a way to encourage more curation and reading of posts on the platform.
Agreed
Posted using Partiko Android
This and this:
I saw that as the driving factor from day 1. Im a smaller account then you and i vote stuff i find enjoyable, i never calculate before i vote, i care little if my VP goes down..
My behavior will not change and i dont think the behavior of those that are using the platform "as intended" will either.