Reducing author rewards from 52% to 41% is way to much for something that we have no idea about. It may be gamed, have bugs, ect. I recommend starting smaller to make sure that it works and work out any bugs or gaming of the system that arise. Then after some time, say 6 months or so the community can decide if we want to additional funding to this project.
I like @theycallmedan idea of using burned / declined payout money as a good starting point.
Messing with rewards should only be considered AFTER it proves itself.
I disagree. Author rewards are too lucrative now (personal experience) and this is making people abuse bots. I won't mind receiving less rewards in exchange for a better Steem. But what I can't understand is 110k dollars for 2 months of development? Are they using a team of how many software engineers? This is a full year budget for most startups!
Posted using Partiko Android
I'm not sure what country you live in, but the only kind of software company I know of with a budget of 110K for a year would be one where the programmer owns the company and does all the programming himself (I started one like this, back in 1992).
Keep in mind that Steemit is paying for this, and they have a pretty good idea of the costs involved, since they employ their own team to do similar work.
BS - Im a cofounder of a successful enterprise SaaS company serving multi-hundred-million dollar revenue scale clients that employs half a dozen devs and our running dev costs are under 8K a month. Nice try though, the noobs will swallow it hook, line and sinker.
The company that never produces, laid everybody off, and burns money faster the feds, "has a pretty good idea of the costs" of colluding again with the same old insider people.
Sigh. This is why all the provable brains have left, except for those of us that enjoy warming ourselves beside the dumpster fire.
I'd love to find out where you're hiring 6 devs for 8K a month (china, maybe?).
But let's get real and just use the results of the first web search I do on programmer salary in the US:
https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/computer-programmer/salary/
Why does it matter, are ya racist or something?
It matters because the prices you're listing don't make any sense.
I don't see any point in discussing this further, your "rascism" attack is such an obvious ad hominem.
They make sense to anyone who builds software in the global economy that doesn't inflate their prices to ridiculous levels while realizing the typical onlooker here doesn't know any better.
And my observation, which you label as an attack is far from off the mark.
Just ask any non-US based programmer on this world wide platform who is wondering why you value only US based programmers so much.
You basically just shit on everybody's intelligence here and you want to try and turn it around on me?
You'll have to do better than that. Deflection of truth won't get you very far with credible observers.
Sorry pal. Not buying the bullshit.
Or how about this one: "Projects are now directly funding those who have an interest in blockchain programming because there is a severe skill shortage in this space. From beginners to experts. Even though the average salary of a blockchain engineer in Silicon Valley is $158,000, programmers who have experience in Solidity (language for creating smart contracts) is in short supply and high demand."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shermanlee/2018/04/11/the-demand-for-blockchain-engineers-is-skyrocketing-but-blockchain-itself-is-redefining-how-theyre-employed/#49f5a5a96715
Right, use the highest (and only?) bidder, got it. That makes good fiscal sense and visibility.
@igormuba bots aren't the issue here. Most people actually lose money on promoting with them after curation. The real problem with incentives is colluding upvotes. Nevertheless 20% cut in author rewards is way too much.
This isn't a completely new system: it's been tested conceptually already in BitShares. We plan to test it heavily before releasing it to look for any bugs that may be introduced in the port of the algorithm to Steem. "Live" testing shouldn't be relied on to find bugs.
Also, it's not like huge funds will be immediately at risk once it goes live, because the pool fills up gradually from inflation.
Someone else suggest an idea similar to the one you mentioned: create a version of a post that pays to the proposal funding account (instead of redirecting the burned/declined payout post). A more general version of that could be to actually allow users to create posts that payout to another user.
One advantage of using the declined payout posts versus either of the above options would be less code changes (including no real interface changes), but it also has the disadvantage of disallowing users from actually burning the rewards.
Sounds like a pretty good place to start to me. Plus this fund will be able to take donations so funding drives will be easy. I am pretty sure a lot of us would not mind donating an up vote or two per week especially as people see it working to better Steem's eco-system.
People were already donating votes to the burn post every day, why not just have them donate to a development post every day?
Because those quantities would never pay for any serious development.
I am against pulling 20% from the author reward pool. Pull some from every category and there is less of a dramatic effect on any one group.