I've actually suggested a sleek solution to the whole curation and reward distribution problem, but the devs haven't reacted so far - if there's a way to let them know, please do!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I've actually suggested a sleek solution to the whole curation and reward distribution problem, but the devs haven't reacted so far - if there's a way to let them know, please do!
Dek, I don't know that there is. I managed to attract Dan's attention on one post by adding his name to the title and calling it an open letter to the powers that be. I don't think there actually is a problem with the system. I think once it matures, the number of bigger accounts will even it out some. I think they should wait and let it be what it is. No one has the right to upset the apple cart with their first vote. Those who either invested cash, or time, deserve to have more power and they won't have as much once the dolphin class develops.
Maybe you're not aware, but the developers are constantly updating (messing with) the system, and changes are introduced constantly. I'm merely suggesting one, which will benefit everyone - certainly not a huge change to the system!
I'm not saying your idea has no merit, but payouts have only been happening since July 4th. So, since we really only have less than 90 days of history to see how it's working, perhaps the constant tweaking is a part of the problem?
Well, most of the problem comes from bots and users exploring the system, which results in constant tweaking - and some of the decisions taken are completely illogical.
For example, the 30 minute penalty on the voting weight of early curators, resulted only in users getting less for their curating efforts, but bots remaining just as powerful - their developers simply tweaked them to vote after the 30th minute.
Sometimes Steemit looks like a pyramid scheme. And if many more such illogical decisions are taken and good ones like mine remain ignored, this suspicion may turn out to be true.
I took a look at your idea.
I think it would have a negative impact.
If you disincentivize new users, no new established accounts can ever emerge. Professional writers, like myself, see potential in the platform because the earning potential is equal. Everything else on the site is slanted toward established authors already.
The voting power structure will right itself as more whales develop and even more dolphin scale accounts are created. Writers with real quality voices will rise, and those who either don't have what it takes to draw an audience, or have no staying power will fade, if things are left alone to even out over time.
I'm replying here, because I can't reply to your last post.
I think you got my idea completely the other way around. The idea is to give curators 75% share of articles by new (poor) authors, so both whales and minnows have an incentive to sort trough new content.
The richer an author becomes, the less the curation reward (on a progressive scale, up to the current 25%). It's a clear win to vote for someone whose articles usually cash out, right? That's why there needs to be an incentive to look through the articles of new authors (hence my suggested 75% for new authors).
That's it. People will actually read the articles. Wealth is slightly better distributed among good authors. New bad authors still won't get cash.
Yes, that completely robs new authors, since steem power comes through payout, as well as cash incentive to keep going. It will have the effect of completely killing new writers after the first couple of votes. I think your idea didn't get attention, simply because it would be detrimental to the system. The creator of the post deserves the lion's share of the profit, period. Why should someone who just finds my hard work get more than me?