I think we're shuffling deckchairs. Little micro problems. The real macro problem is finding a revenue source that isnt new investors and that's sustainable and can grow.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think we're shuffling deckchairs. Little micro problems. The real macro problem is finding a revenue source that isnt new investors and that's sustainable and can grow.
Micro though it may be, if the suggested changes are seen as "fairer" by the majority of the user-base, then it's likely to lead to more engagement with the platform and better user-retention, which can't be a bad thing.
Why retain x% of the current 2k+ users when you can usher in 200k more?
because you can then retain x% of 200k more, as opposed to the much worse y% that we're currently at.
Yeah I agree with you. We certainly my need to hash out any issues at this stage.
It's the people that think they're too important that are stifling this at times.
We're the pioneers of this big social and capitalist experiment. Let's break a few eggs! At this stage the more mistakes the better :)
You're right given that the first 2k users are a representative sample of the next 200k. But that's a very low probability 'given' in my eyes.
Maybe, but I don't see how upping the average Steem distribution to the lower 95% (SP holders) can be viewed as a bad thing. If the people already using the system think that it's broken, who's going to sell it to the fence-sitters and those currently unaware of Steemit?
Make it right before you go alpha.
By all means, take everything you said in your first post into account as well, but we can't forget about the importance of calibrating the math side of the system to ensure the highest possible growth/ retention, either.
It can be bad to focus too much on the big picture (future), as well, particularly when something can clearly be improved in the short-term that will help calm the turbulence within the current community.
Nesting reply.
I can't argue with what you say, it makes sense.
Let me throw out a hypothetical. Let's say you own 50% of Facebook , you believe it's going to be successful in the long run. But you're confronted with an incredibly vocal first 2k users, influenced by unsustainable rewards. With opinions shooting out of them, non sensical bullshit you disagree with.
In that situation, if I had the belief that the platform would exponentially grow. Then I wouldn't really care too much about those users... They're early adopters, they're not the average user.
In fact (to be crass) I'd take my big wad of 'fuck you SP' ... and continue with my original vision.
We're so early stage, people seem to think they're more important than they are.
Perfectly reasonable position. Provided your crystal ball is working properly.
If, like the rest of us, you can only speculate about the future by observing the present and recollecting the past.. perhaps less so.
Well, I can't help but notice that neither Dan nor Ned are participating in any of this debate, so perhaps the:
is precisely what's happening...and maybe that's what's best for the platform, as I don't necessarily disagree with your last statement, either:
...but, of course, that's not to say that we should bite our tongues when we feel strongly opinionated about something that directly effects our investments.
Lately, there's a lot of $0.02 going around on this curation topic and I don't think it's so bad to consider starting to listen if one of the sides adds up to something like, say, $100 when the other is still sitting under $1.
if youre filling up a bucket with a hole in it, you plug the hole first, then you fill the bucket.
Or you fill it up faster, then fill the gap.
clearly you know nothing about bucket filling ;-)
These proposals are attempting to get at the core of several user retention issues. User retention is not a micro problem. It is something that we do need to address if we are going to build a user base that could sustain a profitable revenue model such as advertisements.
Its not a micro-problem. But the solution you provide is a micro solution. If the curation rewards fairy (should be a real thing) appeared tomorrow, waved her magic curation rewards fairy voting wand, and made curation rewards completely disappear, it wouldn't have much of an impact on anyone at all, and the average user probably wouldn't even know it had happened.
I disagree :)
If there was such thing as a curation fairy, and said fairy could magically make the curation rewards formula incentivize voting on the content that the voter believed adds the most value to the platform - I would be in support of that.
If that happened, it would literally make no difference at all. thats what you don't get... all these bots chasing curation rewards -- they don't have a meaningful effect on reward distribution. If they just stopped voting (or if they changed their behavior to vote for other things) it would change nothing. the real effect of what youre talking about, even if it does everything you believe it will, is shuffling around a bunch of nickles and dimes.
At worst they're exacerbating the problem a little (by piling on whale list posts). I won't say the effect they have this way is insignificant, but its relatively small. "mini" if not "micro". (though the only reason its that is that there's one or two bots that are whales, like wang)
And no. I don't think the whales the bots are following are motivated primarily by curation rewards. I think most of them have their own agendas (good, bad or indifferent) about who and what they want to promote and reward.