This is a great opportunity to sell your free downvotes if you never plan on using them and to use bid bots to make sure all rewards are 20+ SP so you don't get cheated.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is a great opportunity to sell your free downvotes if you never plan on using them and to use bid bots to make sure all rewards are 20+ SP so you don't get cheated.
Hopefully, the stakeholders that have stayed with Steem through the bear market understands that min-maxing returns from selling down/up-votes doesn't result in profit, but a decrease in the value of their holdings. Let's change that.
@edicted is making a point that is logical. The reality is that most people's posts don't get anywhere near 20 STEEM without bidbots. That's just a cold hard reality. This change is making bidbots more necessary for content producers.
It wasn't always like this. Hardly anyone reaches that level because so much stake is bound up in bid bots. If we can return much of that SP to manually curate content and also build a new culture where people vote to bring value to Steem then it is absolutely possible for more creators to start earning those levels of rewards once again.
No the cold hard reality is that new people will loose interest before they even know how it all works. What they should have done is make post with higher value on it reduce the gain. And those with lower votes gain more. That is logic. Now they are kissing up to high sp people.
We can't know this until we've seen how things play out. But I agree that it is a fair concern that smaller users, communities, and comments in general may suffer.
However, stakeholders can choose to avoid this if they want. We for instance build our curation system on @steempress to add support behind a large number of curation projects. So that smaller users who write original content and get engagement from others can quite easily reach 20 Steem in total post rewards.
Speaking for Steem in general, a lot rests on the assumption that a significant amount of the stake currently delegated to bid bots will go back towards manual curation, as well as downvotes returning rewards from vote farmers to proper users.
Like you said before nearly no one earns 20$ on their posts at the moment. The only people that do are those with either a big pocket or a big following. They will be earning more. But to be frank it is not those people that need to stay around to make a "SOCIAL" network. It are the small people that make or break a big system like steem. We have seen a decline in activity for months now. Because the small people don't interact anymore. Everyone is scrounging to get ever last bit of steem. And what do the devs do? Make shure the small people earn even less while the big whales earn more .... ?
@zoef, thanks God there's someone that says that the king is naked. I am curious to see the curation level when what will remain is just a bunch of whales'posts on whose quality and intrinsic interest allow me to doubt. At this point, mass adoption is a utopia. Surely this is going create another disincentive for content creators: why should they write quality posts when their time and effort is worth nothing? Why someone new should feel curious and attracted by Steemit? Probably, this is just not the place where to find interesting contents (interesting per se, aka something that anyone steemian or not would come and read). So what place is this? Let's stop being delusional high there: time is passing and scaling/broad adoption is not happening.
The break even mentioned in the post is 20 STEEM, not $20. (It is also not a hard barrier; at 15 STEEM or 10 STEEM, or 30 for that matter, the difference is still pretty small).
20 STEEM = $3.60 currently.
@fredrikaa I think this upgrade is based on wishes how we all want it to be, but it's also based on 0% reality. You who were working on upgrade, should have known better by now
Im sorry, but I had very little say in the changes to the curation system. I fear this can negatively affect smaller users and communities as well as engagement due to comments being less attractive to hand out smaller votes to.
Why would they want to choose to avoid this if they didn't want to choose to avoid this so far?
Ah! that's the KEY question here. If they choooose to avoid 'this' if they want!! eh?
C'mon @fredrikaa. Please, start reading another kind of stuff. :)
Well, the whole point of the fork is to try to align incentives better for content cautious curation instead of the system we have now where holders seem to earn more STEEM by voting whoever wants to pay the most for a vote with no real risk of being downvoted. That could change.