As you can easily see on the platform, it is not always great content that reaches the top leading to high payouts. It is also not always content with the most upvotes that reaches the top. Instead it is always content that has been voted on by the same handful of people.
Always.
ned, dantheman, smooth, berniesanders, rainman, itsascam, , steemed, etc. Check the steemit richlist for the most updates list of whales. https://steemd.com/richlist
They also usually vote on the same posts. Is this really how great content is curated? No, because a handful of people cannot cover every sector of interest, most interesting posts will be left out. Also they may present an interest for certain posts that is not shared by the majority. This could explain why some topics are more popular on Steemit when compared to other sites with better curation (i.e Reddit) It really is a flawed system and people are only there because they hope that a few of these 'whales' will vote on their posts. Additionally, these people can simply generate substantial funds by simply upvoting their own posts or comments which is really counterproductive for the community as a whole. What makes it even worse is that noone will be able to reach the amount of steem power these accounts have, because there simply isn't this much available on the markets. I really like the idea and the general concept, but they have completely messed up the allocation and the incentive structure. What can we do to fix this?
You make some great points. Though I wonder if the current whale upvoting situation will resolve itself as steemit grows and more people / whales will diversify their interests and voting
Yeas, very possible that it would resolve itself. That would assume that the steem power gets distributed to more people though
No doubt the dynamics of the voting scheme can be fine tuned over time. It is early days with only 52k users and things will likely be tweaked as the devs learn.
Finally figured out how to vote. Was on the wrong page.
Got it
well no. But the more steem power you have, the more your vote counts. You can still vote now :)
Haha, what?
See the little up-arrow next to the dollar symbol below posts? Click that to upvote : )
cileremit, I didn't realise that was what you meant. Try the up arrow below posts or comments you like to upvote.
Thanks! Getting it now. Dah!
I do not understand the logic of evaluating the quality of content. it directly correlates with SP balance in the voting. we build a system of social inequality. The world of the rich. I think that the value of the content should be determined by the sum of all votes equally. and the distribution of remuneration should take place on the SP voting. or I'm wrong?
I do agree with you to some degree. If I take reddit as the example, where each vote counts equally, the over curation system seems to work really well with great content on the front page.
Of course, playing devils advocate, The people that consistently curate great content should get a further incentive to do so. So that the content that gets to the top is the best content.
Basically, the current system is a good system in theory, but the current implementation seems to lead to a 'rich mans world'. Maybe a solution should be that a portion of the payout should be given equally to all voters and a portion given out dependent on the Steem Power the voters have.