Hi guys, I'm trying to understand the post here, but I must say, a lot of it is well over my head. I'm a long in the tooth photographer that likes to search for the essence of the human existance/condition, and a gigging blues musician (perhaps as an antidote to much of what I observe in my search with photography and the world at large! ), and despite my age I have a fondness for all night partying, so I'm perhaps not coming from a typical starting point, to be learning about blockchain technology and crypto currencies.
I'm pretty smart though, and in my 3 week crash course I've learnt a mind boggling amount, and find it fascinating enough to continue to read through some pretty dense, for me, reading, and I can clearly see the possible potential in and for steemit, and its influence on the future of social media as a whole, if it's developed and taken in the right direction.
So it's what you guys are discussing in this comment that has really caught my attention and the reason for me dropping in. So please excuse me.
I've been researching this issue for the past few days, and I feel it's the crux of the matter as to whether steemit wants to be, or if it can be taken seriously.
I say if it "wants to be taken seriously", or I should say if it "wants to be taken 'any more' seriously" than it already is, because after all, the 7% that own 90% (I think I've got that right) of the wealth here, and their surrounding boot and ass licking supporters don't seem to be complaining very much at all. They're openly scamming for sure, but they're doing it within the rules, and I imagine, laughing their greed ridden arses off as they dip their large ladles into the rich cream that sits on the top of the pool.
By "or if it can be taken seriously" I mean by the intelligent and the high quality creative content providers, who are going to be needed for any real longjevity in terms of the kind of communities, and social platform, that I hear everyone I know hope for and talk about.
Some already preach outside of steemit that it is already the artist's utopia, which is unrealistic and premature. No wonder many that come here are disappointed, they've simply come here with totally unreasonable expectations.
I've been reassured there are some Whales here that are sympathetic to our views and equally despise the kind of greed sickness that hangs around amongst the top trending posts on a daily or multiple daily basis.
I've been putting together an article, from the perspective of someone who has been on this platform for just 3 weeks, but of course, I've come around to the point of view, that although I think I have an interesting and intelligent piece in the making, and very relevant as many come and go away missing the point of steemit, and thinking it's rigged or stitched up, which of course, to some extent it is, that it's going to be actually pointless me posting it for the very reasons I'd be posting about. It'd reach probably 15-35 viewers, that is if I don't get flagged down for giving examples of crap posts trending and great posts that plummet quickly into the pits of oblivion.
We shouldn't forget or ignore that objectively, steemit is a very important, and one hell of an interesting, social experiment, and blockchain technology is going to be a big part of the future, so if all else fails, I feel I stand to gain from being here for those reasons alone. ;)
However, it's heartening to see others having intelligent discussion about these problems, and mooting ideas as to developments that could help bring some balance to this in the hopefully not too distant future.
We're all aware of the ills of facebook, but they do have things pretty well set up. I curate/moderate for two of the respected 'street' photography groups on fb. Before I go on, I'd just like to add that I'm not one of those sickening admin that will involve himself in any cliques, nor do I use my position to garner the artificial popularity 'like's, and then go one further and actually buy into believing it. I stay pretty much in the background, curating the group walls to avoid off genre and poor quality, constructively critiquing and educating.
Of course those positions are abused by many, but the groups there are communities with a unified interest, and it does ensure that even the absolute beginner can, for example, get his photograph in front of huge audiences if it's good enough. I think steemit definitely needs to push through with steps towards individual communities. I don't know how we'd stop those who continuously scam the system and take advantage of the reward pool, but it would be the first step towards a fairer platform, where the reward pool can be distributed a bit more fairly.
Maybe one solution would be that you can only vote for someone's contents once a week.
I'm not so short term thinking as those who come and go so quickly, and came here knowing very little about it, but with my usual conviction of "you don't get owt for nowt in this world".
@borislavzlatanov, I'm curious as to why you think the split should maybe be 25% author and 75% to the curator? As I can't figure out any logic to that at all, that's the equivalent of hanging a piece of art in a gallery and the gallery taking 3 times the amount received by the artist. That doesn't sound very fair to me, even though it's easy enough to accept the gallery would have reasonable costs to cover, ie, building costs heating, light, staff etc etc, but 3x the rewards of the artist/content provider stands out, from some other very sensible ideas towards solutions to unfairness, as being absolutely nuts. Am I missing part of your point?
Also, with regard to the 'communities' idea that many think will become a part of the steemit platform, how would we prevent them from being cliquey, and abused, after all, where there is money there is greed and power in every microcosm?
I think this problem needs to be put out there and mooted by someone or some body of people with some clout, but I imagine that'd be a brave or reckless move by anyone ewho has invested a lot of effort to get to the position they're in.
I hope you don't mind, and I don't know if you know him, but I'm tagging curator @mikepm74 here as I know him to be a good guy with a great sense of fairness, and he has an interest in this subject.
Thanks, I hope you guys and @mikepm74 don't mind the intrusion.
Best regards, Martin
Hey Martin. I suggested giving 75% of the post reward to curators because I hypothesize that this will lead to higher quality and lower quantity of new posts. To me it makes sense to set up the platform so that everyone is able to make at least a little bit. And then the high-quality content will have much less competition and I hypothesize that this will lead to that content being rewarded even more than currently (i.e. 75% of post reward going to creator). I'm saying that a very small minority of the platform users have much inclination or skill to write blogs, and I think it's important for those people to still be able to make a bit of money without creating posts, but just curating. Hope that clarifies it. I'm also saying that determining these parameters will very much depend on the community in question, so I'm definitely not suggesting them being hardcoded for the whole Steem blockchain.
I still can't understand how you think it works fairly for the artists and other content providers. For example I spend a few nights working working into the wee small hours on a song, then I get my cameras set for filming and studio mics set up for the sound. It's a few takes before I'm happy with it, then to the computer to edit and chop the footage from the 2cameras (sometimes 4), add and sync the sound, then render, before I post it up.
Now that's not including the lifetime playing the guitar and honing songwriting skills.
So please tell me where the sense of fairness lies in a situation where the curators then take 75% of the reward?
I'm not belittling the work or value of good curators, but really don't think you'll find that many of those who produce qood quality artistic content would not be prepared to go for that.
From my training, representing the world with terms like "fairness" goes nowhere. It doesn't allow for problem solving to happen because the problem is never identified in the first place.
What are you trying to achieve? Define your goal. To me, you are trying to reward content producers sufficiently so that they will use the platform (because it meets their needs and so on). If the setup I'm suggesting leads to more reward for content creators than currently, then it will be achieving the goal more so.