img src
What?? Half my money for 1 click??
Let's get this one out of the way, which to me is the ugliest one and quite short sighted. I realize some of my words might come off a little harsh, but in all honesty It's hard to not talk about this without dabbing into that territory.
Let's begin with one question, a very crucial one at that: What do you mean by your money? - As far as I know absolutely no one is guaranteed a payout, and aside from the SP that you may hold, and the upvote that you may give yourself, there is absolutely no obligation by any stake holder on this platform big or small to give you one.
This of course without even taking quality of content into consideration. Let's not kid ourselves here, quality is subjective, and I'm a little exhausted at the moment on that topic. How do we define what's good? Who is the judge? Who is the jury?
So let's discard this position of entitlement all together, we simply must. But, before anyone says I'm not being balanced about this, let me just put it plainly and simply: What's better to have 100% of posts that don't get curated or 50% of posts that get heavily curated? 100% of nothing is still nothing, as far as math goes.
Whales are going to create more alts
I don't know about this, and I'm not sure it's actually correct at all. Why? Because they can already, and the accounts (not just whales) that are vote farming are not waiting for curation to change to do so. Why would they?
Here's the truth, we can't think that we can control bad actors 100% of the time, it's just impossible. What we can do is create a system of incentives that makes most people act in a beneficial manner towards the health of the STEEM ecosystem. In other words, if it's easier and profitable to be a good dolphin or whale, then we will get just that.
I know plenty of people hold on to idealistic views that no one should be allowed to have more than one account, but I think that analysis fails to take into account legitimate reasons to have more than one, like security measures for example.
This will just make people more greedy
I think of greed as a tool, I really do. It's part of our human nature to feel greed, to want to accumulate resources and what have you. From an evolutionary psychology stance it makes perfect sense, the more resources we secure, the safer we are, so to think we can create a utopian system that eliminates it is just silly.
Instead we should be embracing the idea and realize that if we give people more and more reasons to buy STEEM, to power up, to curate, because they are making more money, then we all win. Every single person who is part of this ecosystem, who is holding tokens, would benefit from an influx of accounts that want to partake on great curation rewards.
Imagine your posts only making two steem tokens, but each steem being worth 10 bucks each, does that not sound like a win to you? It certainly does to me.
Again the focus should be, how do we make the pie bigger, not how we make sure X account doesn't take all the pie, at least not exclusively. The solution, the long term vision has to have both angles for consideration.
Conclusion
I know we have quite a few big whales of STEEM for this, including @blocktrades and @transisto, so I would really like to know what it would take for us to move in this direction.
It seems obvious to me that if we give this a go, we might actually open the doors to investment, and that's what keeps the lights on so to speak, not just content as some imagine. We need both, we need people who are interested in buying up our tokens as well as people who love participating of this platform and it's dapps. You could say it's a symbiotic relationship between content creators and investors and that would probably be quite accurate.
meno that would incentivize steemit definitely. It is a struggle at the moment for me. There are times I just wonder if I am wasting my time here, and I really believe in Steemit!
The people just starting are getting no where.....
I have tried to write one to two post a day, and It is still so difficult. Sometimes it's like there is no one home........
resteemed :)
DTube offered 40% total curation rewards for months, it didn't move the needle on who was voting, and eventually they gave up. Given that, this really shouldn't even be an argument anymore. The only thing increased curation rewards will do is make a few whales richer at the expense of content creators.
johal was curating dtube videos the whole time this was happening... 1.2 mil STEEM is not something I would dismiss.
But please elaborate my friend, how do you see it playing out?
No he wasn't. The vast majority of that time his SP was in Minnowbooster or The Rising. I see he has it back now and is powering down again.
There will be even less reason for anyone to post. The big bidbots will do better than they are now, just less in cash and more in SP, which isn't difficult to adjust for. It will be even harder to get a critical mass of middle-class accounts because it will be much harder to get there by posting.
Hardfork 20 lowered author rewards and increased curation rewards, though not by a whole lot. You can see what's happened to activity.
have you ran numbers on this? I would really love to know the percentages of it all... i've been getting some decent curation lately and granted my account is nothing too impressive, but also I think it's kicking some butt for the size.
Smoke.io offers 50% curation. Seems to be going well enough except there isn't enough legit content to curate. I'd say that it would be worth a trial period at least to see how it goes for a couple of months. I'd say there are plenty of assholes here but, they are doing worse already anyway.
That's quite accurate I would say... hahahhaha
50 % of a XXL pizza
or
75% of one slice
Dude... pizza is american bro!!
everything is american in that sense...
I'm all for increasing curation rewards. But not until there are no more autovoters.
This is not curation, it's getting rewarded for an automated process.
I read your post a minute after publishing and then came back to it at 15 minutes then boom. Instantly your autovoters kicked in and the rewards jumped.
The rewards, fine. You deserve. But there was no curation. It was highly probably that none of them had actuallly read this post.
So whilst I am all for increased curation. The post must be curated, ie READ !! Upvote and comment if you like it and you've something to add, or even if you dont like it but appreciate the work put in or don't upvote it if you don't like it. Flag if its trash.
Curation should be that simple.
Agreed on that front... if it becomes all autovotes then it would defeat the purpose... I'm still not finding a way to boost up engagement, that is... To make more and more people read and comment...
Of course inside helpie we encourage it, we even give awards to the best engagers, but algorithmically speaking... I've not come up with a plausible solution.
No, that's the issue but until there is one, whether curation rewards are increased or nor becomes a mute point.
on @dlike, they issue tokens. 20 for a post, 25 for an approved comment. This manual approval must be a ball ache but damn do they get a lot of relevant comments. If there were a way to automate the checking of relevant comments and check whether a post has genuinely had eyes on, then its a whole different ball game.
Autovoters let me record live and playback later,...
Trust you to come up with an intersting slant on it lol! Meno, you need to steal that line!
Hi meno. We both got lucky tonight. I saw your post at 11 Minutes and had some VP. Normally i see your post way past the mark and think crap. That is what happens with manual voting.
Curation is good but dong 300 votes at 2% doesn't help anyone. If we are all going to grow we need votes to show value. Until I can be big enough and show value on a trail I must stick to manual. I know you like us giving lots of votes out but you have to be big enough to do that. It's coming, one day soon. Curating is the future for all of us as it helps us all grow.
curating is the future, you said it... and the bigger your account, the more you can do...
is there a real evidence that with bigger curation rewards the curators are going to feel obligated to curate more content?
i would not use the word obligated, but it's likely... at least to me.. think about it, instead of making 10 posts per day, you could upvote 12,14 pick your number and make the same amount anyways.
I agree that we are all focusing on the short term and what we see as value now but the future is where the realizable value truly is as the pie gets bigger. Then, it wouldn’t matter how it gets distributed because there is more to go around. We already see stats that suggest that Minnows are getting a larger piece of the pie because of growth and engagement, however small it still is. The fact is the potential of having thousands of minnows and what that could do to the ecosystem as they create value over time leading to a larger reward pool for all and demand for the Steem token itself.
It is a tough debate which makes it challenging but the self regulating part of the blockchain is part of the beauty. I try and focus on supporting the active and dedicated community members as I slowly build my stake. Then I can have the power to help the newer wave of folks which really is the near future of STEEM.
Anything the blockchain does to help them is a bonus. Until then, it is up to me to learn and support and grow and become a leader.
Bravo my friend!!
Make manual work pay of, tax capital .... There should be bigger reward for labor, less for captial ...
Meaning manual curation should worth more than auto curation ...
I can agree with that... that being said, how do we distinguish the two?
Well I'm not at that level of understanding of this platform to say how exactly... I don't wanna pretned to know the solution... but the priciples with wealth distribution problems are the above mentioned ... Make bigger pay check for labor, less for capital ... That been said, it has been shown very very hard to achive it in the curent system ...and the rat race keeps on going
Hey brother this was something that we regularly talked when some of my communities were still alive.
I remember that this was controversial because why should half of the earnings of a post be sent to a person who read and upvoted on something that a person created but to me it has always made sense because this will help the platform have both creators and consumers.
At this point most people are only content creators and as such aside from liking other people because they have formed a community there is not much to generate more curators.
as it stands, being a curator, unless you have a lot SP is not very profitable... And yes, we can talk about altruism all we want, but not everyone will agree with our views.
Food for thought for sure. the 50/50 split is interesting and honestly i don’t think i have enough experience on steem to comment whether it’s good or bad.
but i do agree. curation is vital to this blockchain. so anything we can do to get more people engaging with others (not just voting lol) would be awesome.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I should ask Paula or Asher to pull some hard numbers on the dtube 40% experiment that polymath is talking about... see if it did or did not move the needle.
lovely write
thank you for sharing
You got a 50.47% upvote from @ocdb courtesy of @meno!
Hi @meno!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.036 which ranks you at #284 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 516 contributions, your post is ranked at #20.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server