Curation of content is not very incentivised and most people do not spend time on things with low short term gains. @mindhunter was not doing anything different than what many other people are doing. Mindhunter just did it on a larger more detectable scale. Whats kind of even more ironic is the fact that even @jerrybanfield is profiting from this because he is writing about it with a profitable post. :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think we need substantially higher curation rewards. We should make self-voting or vote-trading the LESS efficient way of maximizing Steem gain.
Even super-saiyan human curators like @ats-david may have trouble keeping up with curation rewards relative to straight-self voting, if the rewards I have seen from curation are any example.
I'd love to hear his thoughts on how we could make curation more rewarding.
Lmao right! At the end of the day everyone is here to make money :-)
While I am very grateful the rewards have been so great from using Steem, my main hope is to collaborate with all of us to help heal our world here and help empower each of us to have a good life together. The existing companies drain employees of life while draining the entire planet of creative energy into a funnel which then allows advertisers to maintain control over the majority of the planet. I hope with Steem we have a chance to break this cycle and empower every individual to earn enough money to pay for basic necessities by sharing here.
Yeah, no.
I am not here simply to gain money, but rather to use a platform where financial incentives strongly discourage trolls, and the blockchain precludes removal of posts entirely.
While there is nothing wrong with money itself, and I don't hate it, capitalism is dependent on value being delivered in order to gain capital, and so many tricks are used to simulate value that real capitalism just seems to not even be possible.
Every crypto has the potential to deliver capital gains to the investors, and each seems to have a different use case. Steemit is the use case that seems to me to deliver the greatest capital appreciation potential to investors.
While I don't see any problem with authors that produce content focused purely on wealth accumulation being considered valuable, and upvoted accordingly (I hope this indicates that I am not jelly, as I do not post such content, and am not focused on wealth accumulation), it is a fact that gaming the rewards pool drains it of rewards that would inure to authors and curators that deliver such valuable content.
That decreases the rewards available to promote the creation of such valuable content, and strongly incentivizes folks to simply game the system, as you found to be true.
I reckon were the system such that content creation and curation were strongly incentivized over gaming the system, you would have no compunction about using those means of improving your profitability.
Since that would increase the value of the platform, and thus increase the value of Steem, you would see significant capital gains as a reward for your investment in Steem, which I also do not denigrate. Indeed, I strongly support the capital gains mechanism, as it is a true capitalism - as long as it isn't the result of less fair businesses, such as the defense industry promoting war and the profiting from selling weapons to nations through capital gains.
At the end of the day, you seem to be focused on making money, and that's ok by me, as long as the means you use to do so don't harm others. I see certain games and financial manipulation as strong negative impactors on the potential of the platform to grow, and to deliver on it's potential to create uncensored content and overcome the controls on capital used to devalue humanity, and concentrate wealth to the point where 85 people have more than 3.5 billion.
There is a point beyond which wealth accumulation is untenable, and I reckon the world has passed it. YMMV. Perhaps you simply want to be the 86th. I am not stating that you do want that, but that, if you are only focused on wealth with such a goal, I consider that evil.
People are worth more than money, and money is merely a veil behind which real wealth is concealed.
Actually, I'm here because the blockchain means my posts / profile can't be erased from the internet by some totalitarian freak who hates free speech. The money is a nice side benefit though, don't get me wrong.
Lol, yeah, your existence is probably contrary proof to the assertion you responded to.
hahaha you are right!!!
@azfix you're right the combined power of all the systems we are not noticing is probably more than the top 10 authors combined from bot networks voting up comments $1 or $5 hundreds of times a day to authors posting on hot topics like this and then getting a lot of upvotes as has happened so far here on this post. None of us can totally separate our selfish motives from our unselfish ones :)
The problem is that short term selfishness often doesn't lead to long term success. If finally everybody came to the conclusion that it would be much more easy to upvote ones own comments or articles only, the quality of articles would decrease rapidly, new users would be completely frustrated (even more than already now) and the steem price would decrease as well. As long as only few accounts are doing that it may work very well for them - if all are doing it that's the END of Steemit.
It's a bit like the classic prisoner's dilemma.
"The prisoner's dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two completely "rational" individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
I agree with you there on the curation vs. posting decision. I love to write, so I tend to write more than curate. But we need curators.
I read some time ago that the best way to allocate time for steemit is to post 2 or 3 times a week and spend an hour or two per day just curating and commenting. I'm beginning to get the sense that is what needs to be done.
You are on track and have discovered the key to getting more exposure with good comments that show you have read the content. Manual curation is important no matter how big we all get on steemit. I am not opposed to bot voting but it needs to be with reliable consistent content creators and checked for quality now and then.
Good comments are critical to gaining followers.
Unfortunately, I don't think curation is rewarded nearly as much as it should be, game-theoretically.