Ever since I've been on this platform there has always been a feeling that this was an arranged marriage between people that are here to invest and people that are here to create.
The investors often just look for the most efficient way to get the highest ROI, which has lead to autovoting, curation trails and in some cases upvoting lower quality content.
While I feel post quality is always subjective, I can't believe people seek retaliation just because you stated your honest opinion on how you feel about a certain piece of content.
As for the self voting, you are one of the most respected people on this platform and you are taking the time to explain it and even telling us where the funds are going to. That's just awesome. Much respect for that.
On a sidenote. Is there a technical way to reward manually curation more than autovotes? I think that would help a lot.
Posted using Dapplr
@jeanlucsr
Exactly. However, there are those of us (yes, I do...because there aren't enough hours in the day) who will autovote creators who produce consistently good posts. That said, they are creators with whom I interact on a regular basis. It's a fine line IMO.
Which brings me to:
I could not agree more. I have opined more often than I care to remember, about the issue of "quality" in comments and on Discord, in the 3 years I've been on the blockchain. To use an analogy "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I have more recently begun to look at how much effort someone puts into a post or comment. That's also subjective. However, my teacher training (for creative writing, among other things), taught me that even if you don't like, or agree with, if there was real effort, rather than having been just slapped together, it's worth reward. And we had rubrics for marking accordingly....
As an aside, sort of: as my little contribution to @traciyork and @victoriabsb's power up day, I looked at in excess of 300 posts (I need my head read!). Even a quick skim through them showed me who had put in real effort and who had not: from the banner to the content as well as, of course the powering up. The quality, effort and/or lack of it are there for all and sundry to see.
My last point: these are going to be a perennial debates and wars (yes! urgh!) on the blockchain. Frankly, I don't know the solution, but I do know that they are a lot of the reason why "little" people simply follow suit or even bow out (and I know of at least two fantastic content creators who have abandoned the blockchain - largely over quality vs reward issues). You know what they say:
Right? And which is exacly the point @acidyo is making in this post.
True. And I do have to be fair.
Many investors over the past years have been more kind to the creators than 2-3 years ago, and many creators have started to learn how to invest as well.
I think we have grown a lot. But just thinking how these issues (not just his post, but other issues as well) start to arise exactly at the pount when we are going to run a #joinhive campaign and I want to onboard people to the platform. It is just a little bit confronting.
I guess there 2 ways we can go about this:
Posted using Dapplr
This is true, and that includes me. I see my content creation as my sweat equity (time is money) investment in the blockchain. This is why I was not in favour of the EIP, initially. Once instituted, I changed my mind (and actually showed the impact on my rewards in a SPUD post), and which brings me to my next point: investors are kind to creators because curation earns them more - now.
It really is a one hand washes the other situation, but few realise that. Continuing the cliched analogies, it's also the 80:20 principle and few seem to really acknowledge that we need the many to feed the few.
So, yes, I concur we do need to:
Totally. I was worried at first, but the 50-50 split really had a positive impact.
I agree. And a pity the potential was never properly communicated. Would have prevented a lot of FUD. Lessons learned and now we move on. 😀
😊