I want to figure out how we get to a point where that user is earning $100 or even $1000.
That will literally never happen. There is no scenario where a single quality creator increases average earnings so much (unless Steem goes to 100USD today) under any circumstance. The platform isnt built that way.
You have a an upper ceiling on what a creator can earn and i think i could do a break down of each creator group to tell you exactly how much they can earn pretty easily.
Due to the very nature of those that do redistribute their votes you can never have anyone stand out. The "very best" and the "decent enough" will earn around the same with the focus on consistency and content quantity.
If you consider that, then thinking that someone will have such a jump in earnings (or even something close) when you cut author rewards across the board doesnt really make much sense.
What i expect to happen is an initial curation surge by proposal supporters that will dwindle after a short time when people realize that curation is damn hard and not very fun. Some quality creators will get a few more votes from kevin and the gang which wont amount to much due to the massive cut, the curation philosophy and because we all have friends (orcas as well) we like here that arent amazing creators, but can make a shit ton of photos daily (lol); smaller accounts, dolphins, minnows etc. wont change their voting behavior.
Vote selling will still be a thing. A few curation services might pop up eventually that will either maximize curation returns with "questionable practices" and vote subpar content that maximizes returns.
I sincerely believe that this will be the case. An initial shift in behavior from proposal supporters to prove that the proposal was right and a swift adjustment to reality.
When I joined the platform, top authors were making thousands of dollars per post. I disagree that it is “impossible”. Fully acknowledge that it is a long uphill battle to even get remotely close though.
In most cases I would prefer using the term "popular" instead of "top", but anyway, I think it was only possible because of the n^2 rewards curve we had these days.
I am in favour of implementing a convergent rewards curve, but more or less against the other two changes.
Apart from some whales most people won't downvote anyway because of fear of retaliation.
(OK, maybe some will create alt accounts just to get the curation rewards for downvoting them). :-)
I also tend not to cut author rewards not to discourage newbies even more than it happens already now.
My STEEM Vision. is a concentrate of my thoughts concerning problems and chances of STEEM.
Nah, even under linear rewards there have been mid-$100s in rewards on some content, and definitely a lot of content regularly earning $10s.
Not so much recently because of a combination of low price and vast amounts of the reward pool being siphoned off by self-voting and vote sellers.
He was writing about thousands of dollars per post ...
Of course rewards were higher than now, also with a linear rewards curve, but not as high as at the very beginning of STEEM(it).
Yes you're right, the very tip top obviously makes more under n^2 (which was even tens of thousands in a few cases). I guess I was responding to his broader point of it being possible for authors to make a lot more than now under a more functional system, and I do absolutely believe that to be the case.
So you think that EIP will lead to a more functional system?
Actually, if I had to choose, altogether I wouldn't be against EIP. That's how I see it:
I am in favour of the convergent rewards curve.
Concerning the 'downvote pool' I see the benefits that spam, plagiarism and bit bot supported trendig posts could be downvoted more effectively.
On the other hand it would allow (and make it profitable for) whales even more easily to follow and downvote every single posts of people they just don't like ... unfortunately this happens here and makes a devastating impression on new (or potentially new) users who are observing these 'flag wars'.
As I described in My STEEM Vision. for example a committee of respected users elected by the community and equipped with sufficient delegated STEEM power could be called in such cases and then decide whether the flags were justified or not.
Users who aren't ever affected by these kind of flaggs out of personal reasons really underestimate their bad effect on STEEM in my opinion.
I think apart from whales ('good' and 'bad' ones) most users wouldn't flag more than before anyway, due to fear of retaliation.
Maybe some would even create alt accounts just to downvote them without risk to get the curation rewards (Steemians are so creative). :)
Concerning the 50 % curation rewards I am not against trying it, but I am not so convinced of the positive effects. I understand the idea to make it more attractive for whales to upvote again ... but at the same time I wonder why these big accounts are that fixated on their ROI? If the STEEM price raises significantly again, they will be unbelievable rich anyway, if it doesn't, the ROI also doesn't matter much: they have lost money anyway. I personally would agree not to earn one single more STEEM if that would guarantee a significantly higher STEEM price. Better concentrate on making the cake bigger than on getting a bigger part of a cake which is getting smaller and smaller.
I curate manually and anyway already now (with 75/25) I upvote posts which I like and don't care much about the curation rewards (most of the time I upvote late and don't care who else upvoted these posts). That wouldn't change at all with '50/50': I still would upvote what I like.
I like to upvote new/unknown users manually. Often my upvote is the only 'big' upvote under their articles. At least I can support them. With 50 % curation rewards I couldn't support these users as effectively as now because anyway I would get a big part of my own upvote back.
I think many manual middle sized curators do the same. They curate because they just like the curated posts.
Yes, with more curation rewards whales would maybe join automated curation trails instead of using bid bots (that would be a progress). However, I am not really a fan of these automated curation trails. They select a few lucky users which start earning quite some money on every post (the posts are not evaluated manually) but the big majority of users still doesn't earn anything. I would prefer that as many users as possible earned small amounts of money instead of a few selected ones earning quite much. That would be only possible if more (bigger) users were making the effort to curate manually and really read/watch content before upvoting.
And yes, I think the number of satisfied 'normal' users ("authors") does matter. I described it like this:
"A rich pool of satisfied users would also make STEEM much more interesting for larger investors in the long run than it still is today, interesting to place advertisements read by many, to market products, to disseminate information. The value of a (social) network is measured among others by the number of its users."
Even if I don't like it, Facebook is a successful example ...
I think it is very possible and a credible sincere effort that is worth a try. I don't think it is guaranteed to work, but little ever is.
When steem started you had a much smaller user base. And i would hardly call those top authors. I wasnt here at the time but i remember someone mention a thousands of dollars make up tutorial. .
Those makeup tutorials aren't my cup of tea but I think it's wise to mention the fact there is a market for that kind of thing, and I'm sure the most popular act on Youtube who specializes in that sort of thing is a millionaire because of it.
Hehe. I think we should look at the couple k USD make tutorial in the context of what was going on at the time. 😁
Posted using Partiko Android
I missed those crazy early days by only a couple of months, but I know all about it, including that of which you speak of. So far, I'd say the most reasonable period of time to be a content producer here would have been the couple of months before the vote selling started. The token woke up, as some say, people were flocking to the place, content discovery was decent, organic trending posts were a thing, still a few flaws, wasn't perfect but I can say this community was a lot happier than it is today... then it went downhill basically the moment SP delegations and vote buying came into play. Oh well... live, and hopefully learn.
Exactly that was my impression, as well.
Thousands of people delegated to one entity. That entity combined the power, converted thousands of potential free votes into one paid vote. Then those same thousands of people sat around wondering why thousands of people were not voting for their work.
This place needs it's own variation of the Darwin Award.
I flag trash (and morons). You have received a flag.
Oh Mitrado. Youre still at it. Bernie is leaving. How do you feel about that? I thought you would be happy about it but you still seem to be on a witch hunt.
Posted using Partiko Android