Hey, @cervantes.
Thank you for doing this. It's hard to get everyone represented in the way they feel they should be represented. Thank you for taking this on.
I'm not a witness, nor am I someone who has been around long enough to even know how things were before, nor do I have a technical background in development or game theory.
I am, however, someone who spends quite a bit of time, all day, six days a week, posting, commenting and curating. I do it all manually. I don't self-upvote, I don't use bidbots, and I spread my upvote around as much as I can based on what I deem merits my upvote of what I do see.
This is how I interact with the STEEM platform. Other than some investing in STEEM, what I have in stake is what I have earned/received from my efforts, which will also include contest winnings.
That's where I come from. I don't know what's best of any of this. I don't know which of you here claiming that this or that will work best even knows what they're talking about, even though you say it with such authority and such absolute certainty.
I am grateful for the discussion, at least. And I think it's worth discussing further. I even think it's worth testing out in as big of a test as possible. I don't think these are the types of changes that just get implemented. I think they need to be tried out to see if they even do any of what all of you are saying they could/will do.
I've read in the comments that testing will take place. I've also read comments that make it sound like this is already a done deal, rather than an introduction of sorts to the greater community. I would hope that would be much more discussion on these issues among the rest of us other than the witnesses, so hopefully there's more to be discussed and more to be learned.
While I would love to see more curation among the higher SP accounts, I also know the higher SP accounts who do curate do so through curation trails and other means of autvoting. Someone else is already doing the actual reading, or they've prescreened authors somehow. I don't know how any of that changes this. I don't see where any of this causes reading of posts to increase among them, or for that matter, the rest of us.
Personally, if quality post discovery were easier to begin with, and not dependent on upvotes by large SP accounts or whatever it is we're going for with this, that would be the first step. I don't think quality content discovery happens through upvotes. We've already seen bidbots at work, and it seems to be quite widely recognized that they are not the ones discovering content of any kind—they are merely a workaround for the issue of visibility, and the creator's means of self-promotion.
I guess in my mind, there's much more to discuss, a lot to fully test, before these changes ever become a reality. They were changed to this from where they were for a reason. At one point, these changes were deemed more fair, or equitable, too. Now, they're being deemed as not so equitable or fair, or at the very least, that conducive to curation. I don't know. Myself and others have been curating since we got here. We haven't needed extra incentives. We haven't even been able to figure out when or optimally how to vote. The reason for that is, we've been more focused on finding stuff we like to read and engage with, rather than how much greater of a percentage we're going to end up with if we upvote on certain posts at certain times.
I don't think the masses are going to want to learn all of this. I think they're just going to want to upvote what they like, and be sure that it gets to the author. I think they'll be happy to get something in return, since that's not been an option anywhere else. I think they'll recognize that what they do in curation takes less time and effort than what a creator takes producing this quality content we keep talking about. Quality that is subjective and in the eye of the beholder anyway.
Well said - thanks on behalf of authors/creators of good posts.
I also feel that if the ratio of reward is changed, then we must inform all posters that the first thing they must do on posting, is vote for themself (even that ability in our preferances was removed, already working against posters, as bots can react faster) so that they still get more than 50%.
People will always look for loopholes so as to make the system work in their favour and we've seen from the way the legal system works in real life, it is like the dog eternally chasing, in circles, its own tail. We need to provide other incentives. For instance, I write stories and a few poems. When a group like the writers block congratulate and thank for for making a well written piece of work available, that is worth more to me than an upvote of $100
How about a board where the best posts are preserved for a time? Such board can include various conditions that have to do with originality of work and so on, but must not try to set out voting rules. Maybe posts shown there will only appear AFTER the 7 days? That means it will be there to be read, not for voting on.
Hey, @arthur.grafo.
Well, I'm not sure what I actually said of worth in re-reading what I wrote, but thanks for the kind words. I'm kind of wary when anyone starts talking definitively about any of this, regardless of which side they're coming from. Obviously, not everyone can be right, and so trying to sort through all of this is virtually impossible. That's why testing it thoroughly seems to be about the only way to come close to knowing how it could turn out.
re: 50/50
I earn a decent amount in curation as it is. It's not nearly as much as someone with higher SP would make, though. But it's constant, and it's what I have the most control over. I can determine who I vote for.
It use to be a 50/50 creator to curator ratio and they got rid of it in favor of this. I've been trying to find out why, but so far, no answers to that. My guess is, combined with everything else, it didn't accomplish what they wanted it to. Or it could be that conditions were truly different back then when there were fewer on chain.
Regardless, in my mind, there is a definite psychological barrier to a 50/50 split. I can manually curate dozens of posts in the time that it takes me to research, write, add images and edit a post. So the amount of work differential is an issue.
Also, there's no guarantee that enough high SP is going to change for what amounts to a 33% increase in rewards. Nor that they just won't put it on autovote, through a curation trail or their own. So, no greater amount of eyes on post.
And now some are arguing that instead of de-incentivizing the bidbots, it will just allow them to continue because they will be able to get greater curation rewards, too.
re: self-upvoting
The ability to automatically self-upvote was removed, but so was the reward for it. Since HF 20 went into effect, all curation from self-upvoting at 0 minutes go to the reward pool now, rather than to the creator. So, self-upvoting upon posting would need to be nearer to the 15 minute mark, if I understand correctly.
re: a board
I think your comment about what happens within the writer's block community is probably our best bet, just in a more formal manner. Communities, the change in UI that is supposed to be coming, is probably going to be our best bet for actually truly compensating quality work. And since ned has started a new company to work on such a thing, maybe we'll actually get it.
I tried to avoid showing my bias in too didactorial a form, but on one point I remain adamant. Many posters on Steemit are complaining about how impossible and disheartening it is to get started as a poster here, which is why I said that this may be the wrong time to make changes, for it will be perceived as a move to take away from posters and give to those who already are making the most.
The word perceived is more important than some seem to realise. I also see comments, again and again, that 'content' is not as important as we claim it is.
The reaction by those who do not understand the arguments (like me) is not going to chase away everybody. Probably just those who produce the kind of content that makes this an interesting place.
Just before you posted this comment, I found and read two posts (a new story) by perhaps one of the best known authors in Steemit, @johnjgeddes
I cannot reward him in a meaningful way (moneywise) but I rejoiced at finding something good to read and made a few comments.
It made Steemit feel like a nice place to be.
No curator has made me feel that way.
Ey. Thank you. And hopefully, as someone mentioned above, we are able then to focus the - often fuzzy - discussion - on discrete and widely agree updates on the blockchain`s codebase.