All said, done and dusted here but I can hardly imagine myself writing a book and expecting those who invested in the book and sometimes consumed the book to earn more than I do.
Posted using Partiko Android
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Why are so many ppl saying that a curator will earn more than the author? Let's use the incredible power of mathematics and take a look at an example:
Jimmy writes a post and to make it easy the curators vote for $1 each so the post gets $10.
In the end that's 5$ for Jimmy and $5 for the 10 curators, $0.50 for each of them. The whole mass of curators is earning the same as the author yep, but the author is earning it as one person and the curators are only getting a part of it.
The curators are bringing in the STEEM we all are earning atm. Each vote an author gets comes from an investor and it's a normal thing that an investor gets some of the money. They are not buying one book to read it and the author gets some of the money (and a book author for example doesn't get 75% or even 50% if he sells a book xD).
Posted using Partiko Android
And there comes a pissed off whale and flag it to the zero because he thinks the book is shit ;)
Haha yep, that is the way of Steem xD
Posted using Partiko Android
But there were still 5 upvotes and one downvote, which means that if the whale is wrong and the book is not shit, those 5 upvoters can rally and post about the book and its unfair treatment and expand the consensus that the book should be rewarded.
Final outcome is very different than if the whale can push a button and the book is completely deleted from the platform.
How long would @berniesanders survive on Facebook if his beef was with Zuckerberg instead of with @ned (and had similar relative influence)?
That's one awesome point indeed! :)
Sir it downvote now :P
That's a good point. There is a mistaken focus on single upvotes. If content is genuinely 'quality', it's an easy sell to get readers to dust it and if enough of them do then the creator will earn more than any single curator will.
Your analysis is explicit. Both invested in something - the author invested in knowledge and time while the curator invested in his wealth/money. So I don't see any concrete reason why the later should earn better than the former.
Posted using Partiko Android
If you write a book and there isn't sufficient demand for it, then they will because you will earn nothing and be out the printing costs while they paid nothing (and get nothing).
People buy your book because they value it more highly than the money... so they are getting something out of it. Whether what they get out of it is more than what you get out of it is a function of demand, price elasticity, competitive options, etc. You should want your readers to get more out of it than you do... because they're a lot more likely to spread the word that way.
Like it or not, it's a DPOS blockchain. That means the chain literally belongs to the stakeholders (SP holders) in proportion to their holding. Convinced the owners that what you're doing on their chain is worth their support, and you will do just fine. Convince the owners that what you're doing devalues their chain and you will be obliterated.
The value of a vote belongs to the curator (it is inflation on their stake - and they control the distribution) by default. Rewarding the curators isn't to pay them for finding your content and putting a vote on them. It's to encourage them to vote your content by making it relatively cheaper to vote for your content than their own. And if it's cheaper, then it's more likely that they will pay for it with their votes.
I would rather have 1000 people send me 3 cents each than have one person send me $3, and if selling my content more cheaply (making voting on it cheaper relative to self-voting) makes a lot more people vote on it, then it's worth it.
On the other hand, if you churn out shit because you think you need to produce 3x as much to offset your 'lost' entitlement, you are going to get a lot fewer votes (because even 0.001 is too much for shit) and when you do they're more likely to be off-set by people that realize 0.001 is still too much for your shit and don't want that coming out of their inflation - even though the vote value belongs to the curator, it's actually the consensus influence that belongs to the curator, and somebody else may use their consensus influence to remove you from receiving rewards completely.