"what are we authors responsible for?"
It is content that creates any value in Steem. dApps, blogs, games, all that content is the only reason people come here. Without it, some nerds might trade Steem amonst themselves, but Steem would not have any value on the market - because there'd be no market. Creators are that market. Chase them away, and the value of Steem vanishes.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
Again you are twisting my words. I didn’t say content and it’s creators do not add value, I asked what responsibilities or risks they (we) have. The answer is none. You can make content and make possible rewards, no investment or risks needed. It’s sort of an important thing to consider when trying to state that somehow witnesses rewards should be removed as “content is everything on Steem” ... as without witnesses, there is no Steem.
I'm not twisting your words. The delivery of valuable content is the responsibility of content creators. They invest and risk hours of work, often for very little or no reward.
I am kind of surprise that after protesting I was twisting your words, you then proceed to mischaracterize my own. I have never made any comment - ever - to the effect that witnesses should not be rewarded.
This is silly. You can disagree with definitions from credible sources, but all you'll achieve by doing that is causing other people to not understand what you say, since you don't agree with the definitions of the words you and they are using. This entire conversation is nothing more than that, except you have falsely claimed I said that witness rewards should be removed, and then projected that I am twisting your words by stating some of the benefits of content when you asked what creators are responsible for. See tu quoque and ambiguity below.
Disinformation techniques prevent rational discussion.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
The comment you quoted of mine was in response to just that and it’s why I mentioned it here.
I will agree that there are some content creators who do create wonderful content and do not get much rewards, it’s why I manually curate and co founded a manual curation guild (where we work as volunteers) as I feel good content adds value. But I will say that a very large majority of content on Steem is made with little effort so no, I do not think it is the most deserving of the inflation pool, as I don’t think it’s contributing value back in most cases. That’s all I meant.
If we want Steem to be adopted by the masses, we have to reward content the masses can create. That's facebook tier content. We don't have to reward it equally with 'Moby Dick', but there's a reason we need to reward it: it is the content that brings the masses.
I'm fine with not agreeing on how to reward content, because that a subjective evaluation, and it's not particularly relevant to the EIP. The rewards curve, downvote pool, doubling of curation and halving of author rewards aren't for specific low quality content. Those are for all content. I see that without many users to create a market for Steem there is little impetus to push up the price of Steem. We have a terrible retention rate now, and HF21 will make that much worse. Pick any reason someone would come here, open an account and leave, and HF21 makes that reason worse. Low rewards? Cut them in half after HF21. Probably more than half because the rewards curve is going to lower the value of votes from smaller stakeholders in addition to the direct halving of author rewards. Clearly new accounts aren't going to be making anything from curation. My curation rewards are around ~4% of my rewards, and I do a lot of curating with a little bit of stake. Newbs won't have that stake to curate with.
The fact of financial manipulation via stake weighting means that 90% of rewards, author and curation, go to whales. The rest of the platform splits the remaining ~10%, and newbs without an established network get the least. The median payout last I checked was .01 SBD. Given that the largest group of content creators receives that payout for their posts, I'm surprised any of them bother to stay and post at all. Reducing that median payout to .005 SBD isn't going to drive higher retention.
The downvote pool may be the worst aspect of the HF for newbs. They might not grasp the fact of retaliation and run around flagging trending posts. If they do, they're going to be retaliated against by folks with more stake than them. That's just how Steem works. Newbs aren't going to just ignore that and keep on Steemin'. They're going to do the obvious thing and leave, pissed off.
Adding a tax shrinking the rewards pool is highly regressive and going to hurt small stakeholders most.
None of these things is going to solve any problems Steem faces, and all of them are going to make those problems worse.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
This is the best explanation I have read yet! Only thing is at end it should read "None of these things are going to..." Besides that A+!