I enjoy your posts @jerrybanfield, but I have to say that @mindhunter was one of the first to welcome me when I joined Steemit and has continued to be a source of encouragement along the way.
Honestly, the fact that either of you guys are bringing in $10,000 to $20,000 a month on Steemit is amazing to me -- not because I think you don't deserve it -- but because it's such a large amount of money! Most of us are making $100 or less per month, and are happy if we hit the $10 mark on a few posts.😉
I appreciate your investigation into how others' are finding success on Steemit. I just hope you don't let your discoveries overshadow your own phenomenal success here. You're doing great!
Best wishes to both of you and thanks for continuing to support the little guys.
I do believe Mindhunter provides a valuable service for this reason. Many other high-rep users will not respond to anything short of a legit thesis-paper written in response to one of their postings.
Thank you @redhens! Given that we are drawing out of the same rewards pool, those that earn more are directly reducing what those are the bottom make. For example, if all the rewards were eliminated from the top 10 authors, about $100,000 would then be disrupted in a month to the remaining authors are a ratio equal to existing votes. Thus, I think it is important for each of us getting a high percentage of the total rewards to be accountable to everyone else about what we are contributing in exchange for what we are getting. The authors we allow to earn the most also limit everyone else's rewards the most.
Very true. But unless -- or until -- the playing field is levelled out more or the "rules" are changed, I can't fault people for making it work for them. As with anything, if we're relying on those at the top to equally share the wealth out of the goodness of their hearts, we'll probably be disappointed. Some may, but others will not.
I'd love to see a more even distribution of rewards, driven more by votes than by investment. But until then, I'll have to be happy with my small rewards and focus on enjoying Steemits other perks.
I do appreciate your work and the insight you provide into Steemit's inner workings though. I think it's a valuable reality check for new users to be aware of how people are making as much profit as they do, if only to keep our own expectations realistic.
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.
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.
You have to put money into steem to make something out of it, or lease sp, or u are just wasting your good post.
If the only valuable result of a good post is money, then Imma quit posting. Perhaps other rewards than money, such as creating wider understanding of social problems that potentiates solving them, planting trees in Africa to combat habitat loss, or other benefits also have value.
Maybe even just the conversations and ideas being shared might be considered valuable. I know those things are more valuable to me. I frankly don't post at all for financial reward. I don't mind them, and find that such rewards being at stake dramatically have diminished trolling, making Steemit a much better platform than 4chan, for example.
People come into steemit to make money, get real now, 90% of them heard they can make money here so that is why they are here, if there are no $ they would stay on fb. People dont really care about ur post, good post dont get much money.
I am being totally honest: I have never spent one satoshi of Steem, and have no plans to do so. I came here because censorship. Fakebook, Twatter, Plebbit, Youtool, all are censoring their users, pushing propaganda, and Fakebook is even contemplating some pretty dramatic mental control technology, by incorporating VR/AR into the platform.
@corbettreport recently posted on Canada pushing an app that 'guides and rewards' good citizens.
That's why I am posting to the blockchain. Even if I get flagged to death, my posts, though invisible, will still exist. All other platforms can just delete them.
I'm not even sure it could be done here without a majority of the witnesses agreeing to do it on a per post basis, or at least per account.
And I'm not saying I don't WANT rewards, just that I work for a living and did well enough bending nails and smashing thumbs to die old. Cuz, I'm old. I can't take a bunch of possessions with me, so I dumped my possessions. What I can do is leave behind my children, loved ones, and thoughts, if the blockchain remains secure.
I like money, I just don't need more of it than I have.