Your arguments make sense, but why isn't our secret sauce working better? I mean, there is a reason why STEEM hasn't found its way back into the top 20 - let alone top 10. What's your opinion on that?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Your arguments make sense, but why isn't our secret sauce working better? I mean, there is a reason why STEEM hasn't found its way back into the top 20 - let alone top 10. What's your opinion on that?
I think curation rewards should be higher. Even at 50/50 the author still gets the bulk because the author does not have to share with anyone while curators can share with many people. As Joy just commented "I think it’s hard to tell authors apart from curators, nowadays most people are both authors and curators, right? I think we actually have or at least had enough content creators here for the size of Steem, but it’s just not well curated."
So the issue IMO is we need to encourage curation and the one way to do that is to make it more lucrative. I also have been brainstorming some ideas about how to help humans get an edge on bots for curating. Maybe some kind of randomizer that is visible to humans when they read (red light/green light) that says when to upvote. If you upvote at the wrong time the reward is burned. Something along those lines. If we can find a way to give humans an edge to make better money then bots, then it raises the standard of curation as a whole. This is the 64 thousand dollar question though lol.
Note that retention is already below 10% and has been steadily decreasing for some time. Further reducing author rewards can only make that worse. Let's not kill the golden geese that lay the golden eggs of content.
I agree with 50/50 - you might have already read this post of mine. On top of that, I would also like to see better use of downvotes, so we could finally use them to clean up trending, without it resulting in an economic loss.
I used to think this as well, and now I realize that curation should be abolished from the consensus layer entirely. Curation should be an opt-in mechanic.
Posts that have high payout are not getting curated by the blockchain; they are getting curated by the front-end that decided to curate them.
Curation is a mechanic that is very easily gamed. If we doubled down on it all bid-bot owners could create infinite money-making loop cycles. The only limit would be the number of fools willing to sell their vote while all the curation get's leeched away by the whale that voted before them.
I agree, most people are both content creators and curators. High curation rewards are good for both content creators and curators. Curators get high rewards so that's a given. Content creators will be able to grow an audience and following more organically because of a greater desire to actively curate content.
A lot of people blame the growth of bots on greed. That's a part of it but there are other reasons such as lack of alternatives to earn using stake. Delegating to a bot returns more than 3 times curating. Delegating to a bot requires almost no work, using 10 full upvotes a day takes time and effort. Curating makes very little sense when the rewards are so low.
Another issue is lack of alternative promotion. Content creators buy votes because there no other viable ways of promoting content on Steem. Steemit promotion is a waste of money. Steem.chat and discord are quite ineffective. Frontends should offer some form of promotion. It'll help them raise revenue and it will lower demand for bots if it's done right.
Increasing curation rewards has been talked about for over a year. Even most witnesses agree it's a good idea; @cervantes conducted a witness poll a few months back. I think support is even stronger if a separate downvote pool is created, which I also agree with.
So what are we waiting for?