Here, @fyrstikken interviews @ned about the idea of voting guilds.
Audio from: Steem Speak; Edited by: me
If you're interested in hearing the full interview, check out:
- Ned Scott CEO and Co-Founder, Steemit Inc. 2nd AMA on Steemspeak Radio - Oct. 1, by @applecrisp
- SteemSpeak_2016-10-01-20-20-21-London-Time
- SteemSpeak_2016-10-01-20-40-21-London-Time
- SteemSpeak_2016-10-01-21-00-21-London-Time
- SteemSpeak_2016-10-01-21-20-21-London-Time
I was curious to see where he went with "draining the reward pool" because I did immediately have the phrase it's designed to be drained stuck in my head.
I didn't care for saying it needed to be fleshed out, really the term need to be defined. Really... anyone can vote vor anyone including themselves and for any reason. Sure, I am on board with that, it's more about it being done in a way that's hidden... so the decision to countervote isn't used.
Voting guilds are a solution to an extent, but doesn't it add to the impersonal aspect of it more? I mean.... we don't want original content for ourselves to see it, we ask for it to draw more people. Voting Guilds in the form they exist today are part of the solution, and also part of the problem.
Solution
Curie does pretty well. I spoke with @donkeypong some time back and what they do, how they do it, is well done. It's a Voting Guild that has a specific role and does it well.
Problem
That steemian thing that was big. Give up your vote key, get pile-ons to your vote by recruiting MLM upvote thing. It's unfocused, and truly puts interest on self only. Vote for each other, vote for ourselves and the like.
With Curie, they shouldn't be forced to use their voting power to combat this. With Steemian.... well why would they? They exist because of the behavior and the rewardability of it.
I understand the role and purpose of bots, but their full on endorsement and mainstreamed use... I don't know. It forces people to compete as a bot, and ugh yuck no thanks. Vote following is also far too impersonal a solution... It's not the cryptocurrency part of it people struggle with. It's the site... people that jump on.... give it a try for awhile... and the realization hits that it isn't their quality of work, it's not their subject matter... it's that your post got $.25 someone else got $293.36... and neither was read. Nobody gave a shit about what was in either one.
Yes, your point about "it's designed to be drained" is good. I guess a better way to word it would be, "Should we audit author rewards?" Or, "Should we introduce some kind of vote negation logic to preemptively deal with certain voting patterns?"
I Love your Interview
Congratulations. Your posts received the most upvotes yesterday.
https://steemit.com/stats/@steempowerwhale/key-stats-for-authors-october-01-2016
Happy Steeming.