Cutting author payouts seems to be a bad idea. After all it is authors who generate the content. If their incentives drop then less quality content will be produced.
Posted using Partiko iOS
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Cutting author payouts seems to be a bad idea. After all it is authors who generate the content. If their incentives drop then less quality content will be produced.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I would agree. Some believe it will increase payouts but I do not see it for the vast percentage of the accounts. Most will get less and will not get increased votes to compensate for it.
Since I do believe the bid bots are going to get more powerful, that will cause them to have even a bigger influence.
Paid promotion is really going to take on new meaning in my estimation.
No, they will die under this model if everyone with stake uses their 2 free downvotes per day.
I know not everybody will use the downvotes, but if they did, bidbots would have no chance in hell.
They have to change the algorithm to make it (on paper) profitable for the users. But what happens if all those highly upvoted posts will get a lot of downvotes? I would join a flagging group to counter bidbots upvotes...
Lets say someone consistently sends 30 steem to a bidbot and his post gets downvoted to just 5STU. I am sure they are gonna do that 2-3 times max and think to
themselves never again... Why lose 100 steem on bidbots?
i can hardly wait to downvote an orca with my massive new curve vote of 0.02$ 2500 ps. i can't wait to get auto bot downvoted with 1% of his free downvote. yap that is what i can't wait to do.
I will disagree for a couple of reasons.
To start, much of the stake is with people who own bidbots themselves. Think of how many witnesses run those services. Secondly, a lot of the stake is invested in bid bots. This stake is certainly not going to downvote people who use the services.
The other piece of the puzzle is the tendency for flag wars. In my, just under 2 years, on here, we saw two major flag wars. The fallout of them was great. So I am sorry, but I cannot buy into the idea that the majority of the stake will be used for purposes being proposed. I have a feeling the masses are going to engage in behavior like we saw in the past. They did it when it cost them VP and now they will have 20% free to use on downvotes.
I cannot buy into the presumption of responsible use based upon past history.
This looks serious @gtg @exyle
If they cared about abuse and quality content it would show.
I totally agree!
Posted using Partiko iOS
And... it's for the authors.
TL;DR:
Trending page is full of paid votes.
Paid votes are there because it's a great business within rules of current economics.
So many people sold their SP to voting services because they are getting paid for votes, votes, that are going to those who pay for them. Content is irrelevant in this scenario.
Those are not the authors we are looking for.
Empowering curation makes this game more complex than just: "sell your SP to bots and profit." and incentivize to look for good content instead of just selling votes.
Who will play this game .... looks to complicated.... why not just make it a job for someone ... more curies project, influensers etc ..
Hi, I am wondering if there was any discussion amongst the witnesses of some manual curation positive incentive versus negative incentive with the downvote pool. If we wish to encourage people to read posts and reward quality, perhaps we could give extra curation to manual curators and less curation to Bid Bots.
I know that Bid Bots attract investors to Steem and this is a good thing, but the curation system could be tweaked a bit, say 10% extra for manual curation or even 20% like the proposed downvote pool. I am thinking that one of the creators of Steemit thought we should build a system which rewards people for behavior you wish to encourage, so that it becomes in peoples best interest financially to do the right thing. Your thoughts?
Posted using Partiko iOS