I really vote for posts that I like - really not much worried about curation rewards - but I like whatever I get. But in case, if that also goes to nuts, then there will be no advantage to have the hive powered up, isn't it ?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I would say that you are correct. If the minority is a content creator (meaning really receiving meaningful author rewards) and the majority is a consumer of that content (meaning zero author rewards) and they only get 25% of what they vote? Time to pack it in as a curator I would say. Oh, and that's the majority, right?
And when you think about it, who really is working so hard, the content creator, or the curator? Perhaps we should actually increase the curator percentage!
!ENGAGE 25
I was thinking to buy some more hive and power up, but looks like its not going to be worth it. May be just buy and keep in exchange but again, I wonder what will cause the hive price go up, if curation reward is reduced to nuts. How many people who are content creators will be interested to buy enough hive to make the price go up - only time will tell.
I think this is true of most manual curators.
The counter to this argument is that rewards for curators were actually 50% less before the EIP, yet the EIP had no apparent impact on the amount of stake that was powered up.
To be honest, I never understood EIP at a very detailed level, and I doubt many understand it and then invest to curate. But I could be wrong.
The point isn't to directly make some change that attracts investors directly. The idea is to improve the curation system, which in turn makes it more attractive to consume content here (because you find things you are interested in reading more easily). This indirectly can lead to more investors. The other potential "side-effect" is that crypto investors often do look at coin inflation as part of their buying decision. But that's definitely a less important issue, IMO. My goal is mainly to figure out some way to improve what posts get rewarded, so that it's easier to find interesting things to read/look at. From feedback so far, I think the reward window/payout scheme looks like best area to investigate.
Improve the curation system without rewarding the curators ? Do you think, people will invest to curate just to read content and reward the authors ? Unless they themselves are authors, I don't think, many would do that only for curation.
My point is I don't think curators primarily curate for rewards. Because the rewards are much lower than the work involved. At best, the rewards are a bonus for whatever primary reason that curators vote for posts. As a clear example of this, people vote for posts all the time on social media sites such as reddit, without any expectation of a financial reward.
But nonetheless, the suggestion I've seen so far that seems mostly like to improve curation quality is to change reward window/payment algorithm, which would result in more rewards being paid to manual curators vs auto-vote bots under the current status quo.
I do not disagree here but I think, still the rewards gives something back to them which makes them happy, otherwise, they would have just powered down and leave this place, if they are not regular content creators. And definitely if the improved curation quality will result more rewards, then we would see more manual curators, which is also a good thing for content creators.
ENGAGEtokens.