I agree we need to balance the interests of authors earning fair rewards with investors earning a good return by holding Steem Power. If we go too far either way with the rewards skewed too much to authors while investors struggle to earn, the price of Steem is not likely to grow. If it is too easy for investors to get a return but great authors struggle to earn anything, we will never hit critical mass in terms of users = readers. I trust in looking at these needs we will find the best way forward for everyone involved to get a fair share of the rewards and maybe be at peace with what we are each receiving and giving today.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is very lucid. There are many examples of real world investors being too greedy and eventually cutting their own throats because of it, Enron, Bernie Madoff, more beyond count.
The white paper supposed that ~90% of rewards going to ~30% of accounts was the correct ratio to best encourage growth of Steemit and price appreciation of Steem. However the lastest numbers I have seen indicate that ~99% of rewards inure to but ~1% of accounts, and this is orders of magnitude more skewed than they claim to have intended.
This data is from just prior to HF19. I don't think (but don't know) that the situation has changed much. Some of the names have changed, for example @mindhunter should be at the top of the chart in recent data, but the distribution of rewards is probably the same, or perhaps even more skewed, as the decrease in minnow votes by 400% has dramatically impacted curation.