Should We Introduce a Curation Reward Slider?
The debate about changing the curation reward economics is ongoing. Some people have suggested an alternative solution: let the users decide how their post gives out curation and author rewards.
Basically when you create a post, you have a slider like the above. The slider determines the % of the post rewards which will go to curators. If you don't use the slider, a default value is used. Witnesses could decide on what the minimum and default curation rewards are. I would suggest they could go from 0 to 100%, but a more conservative approach could be 25 to 100%.
Would you be in favor of such a system?
Arguments for and against can be made in the comment section.
- Yes
- No
- Maybe
- I don't know
Answer the question at dpoll.xyz.
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
This System should be Introduced Soon!
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
I'm usually one for giving people more choice, however sometimes I worry that Steemit is too complex and that acts as a deterrent for some of the less tech savvy.
I'd say a big YES with the caveat that the structure chosen be highly visible in the newsfeed. The structure should be known prior to drilling down into an article. It could also be a criteria that could be used to filter content. I think this approach would really show that a person owns their own content, for the benefit of the curator or not. Curators at that point can decide on whether or not it's worth their time to consume it.
Some examples at the extremes: A charity blog could crank curation all the way down to maximize support for the charity, while a benevolent orca or whale could crank the curation reward all the way up as a way of giving back to followers. There is a valid business case for each end of the scale.
Voted for
Voted for
100 % agree, Reason it, most of the curation reward is going to the useless bots who auto upvote your posts. It should be changed or bots should be banned.
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
I like this ...
I for one would do a 25/75 or more for curators on all of my posts just so I get more upvotes
Voted for
I think this makes sense but then a question comes in. Will there be authors that will offer more than 25% curation rewards on their posts? I don't think I will, to be honest!
Yes, definitely a good idea. If authors only willing to give 25% to curators then so be it. Authors that want to increase curator rewards may do so by using the slider. More choice is always better as the behavior of participants is self-correcting to the most beneficial choice.
Yeah, I agree with this. Just providing more option is better and would probably make things interesting.
But then this still wouldn't solve any of the problems with Steem aside eliminating bid bots.
If this is the aim, then is all good!
Posted using Partiko Android
There's literally nothing we can do to avoid circle-jerking without breaking the entire system. I believe big stake holders should be able to use their stake however they want, they have the more to lose anyway. Or are you talking about other problems that aren't bid bots or circle-jerking?
#sbi-skip
You just planted 0.10 tree(s)!
Thanks to @fuadsm
We have planted already
7593.03 trees
out of 1,000,000
Let's save and restore Abongphen Highland Forest
in Cameroonian village Kedjom-Keku!
Plant trees with @treeplanter and get paid for it!
My Steem Power = 20931.76
Thanks a lot!
@martin.mikes coordinator of @kedjom-keku
"Will there be authors that will offer more than 25% curation rewards on their posts?"
I would. In the hope of getting more upvotes.
"I don't think I will, to be honest!"
Why not?
If you think about it, it would be a win-win situation.
Both the authors and the curators would earn more rewards.
50/50 will only eliminate bid bots and nothing else. Cycle jerking/vote exchange will continue.
I think mainly high SP accounts that currently get high votes will benefit more with this system as they will be targets of many curation snippers
Increasing curation rewards would be similar to soliciting bidbots. You would be getting less % but encouraging more votes, which means increased visibility and potentially increased rewards overall.
I know, the theory always works well but I am looking at the practical part of it. People will always develop different strategies to beat the system.
We might see less bid bots but more curation snipping bots (many of them already exist)
We might see something like 1k bot accounts voting very early on posts of some survey users at 10SP or less (for example) just to snip out curation rewards.
Posted using Partiko Android
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
It is already possible to turn off curation rewards, even no front-end uses the option and the curation rewards seem to simply vanish (I think). It should be visible how big the curation reward is for a post if there is such a slider. =)
Do you have a source on that? It's news to me. I am only aware of being able to disable rewards altogether.
Yes, here is a post: https://steemit.com/steem/@emrebeyler/hidden-gems-on-the-blockchain-disabling-curation-rewards-on-your-comments
But I'm pretty sure that disabling it doesn't give more rewards, but only nothing for the curators.
Yes, this post might be misleading. I believe after some source review of steemd, it turned out author rewards stays the same.
Ah, good to know. Thanks. =)
Interesting. The curation rewards presumably bounce back to reward pool, just like if you vote before 15 minutes.
Voted for
Can't vote from pill at the moment. I say yes. I suggested this about 1 year back I think. There has to be a clear indicator on the post/feed UI to show the curation percentage on each post.
You could have a colour scheme on the rewards symbol. The more red it is, the more for authors. The more blue, the more for curators. There may be considerations for colour blind users needed. If you hover over the symbol it could show a tooltip saying the % of rewards going to curators.
I was thinking about a double slider too where the voter could choose. I wonder what that would amount to for those voting?
Voted for
Yes
25 to 100% good decision
Voted for
I have not heard that one before. Great idea
Voted for
I don't think this would solve the underlying issues. It is a good idea, but I doubt it can have an impact on improving two issues: organic voting & increasing interest to buy steem and power up.
I think these kinds of changes should be universally applied, so there is no confusion. I think 50/50 standard split can achieve that.
I personally think curation reward should even be 75%. This would encourage organic voting and increase interest to buy steem. More people buying Steem will increase the demand and price of Steem, which will result in higher pays for authors. At the same time, authors can also be curating, so I doubt the authors would be at a loss.
I equally think it wouldn't solve any of those issues you pointed out.
Still, 75% wouldn't encourage organic voting because the system will still look the same for those who cycle jerk and exchange votes as they still get and equal treatment among themselves.
Moreover, at 75% curation, we would see more curation snipping bots and spam voting bots (like these accounts that have voted your comment). I mean bid bots will simply be replaced by more of these bots. I can picture seeing posts with 1k+ upvotes having something $0.01.
Posted using Partiko Android
You bring up a good point, that votes on posts and comments should have different structure.
I think with 75% curation reward people will be more likely put in their live savings into steem instead of other investment options which in return increase the price of steem and more votes for authors. At 75% curation there is no need to invest in bidbots. In this case investors will be more interested in steem working organically because it will increase the the value of their investment.
But this will never happen. People are focused on short term gains.
75% curation reward could have a huge impact on authors and their rewards. The question is if there will be less posts because the rewards. The voting amount won't be bigger and getting only 1/3 of the former rewards can be hard.
Posted using Partiko Android
Voted for
Voted for
The more choice and flexibility we can give to authors the better
Voted for
To be very honest, i don't know.
Voted for
very interesting
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Thanks for contributing to the dPoll content.
You have been upvoted from our community curation account (@dpoll.curation) in courtesy of This Guy... @bluerobo.
Come, join our community at dPoll discord server.
If you want to support dPoll curation, you can also delegate some steem power. Quick steem connect links to delegate:
50SP | 100SP | 250SP | 500SP
Voted for
Voted for
EDIT: Adding my comments here since voting on dPoll using keychain didn't allow me to comment. I think a curation slider would be the best approach to this current situation. This would allow authors to decide who should reap the most reward from their posts. If this ability was available currently, I would probably give curators more of a reward than they get now. However, I still believe the author deserves to reap the greatest reward from their posts and so I would still give myself the larger percentage of reward. I do agree with the general idea above of having some limits on it, maybe 25%-75%. However, there are situations where being able to give curators 99% of the reward could be useful, such as getting your name out there through large voting. I ultimately have to say that I think it should be up to the user as to what percentage to choose, whether that be 1%, 50%, or 99%.
What's most important here is choice. The ability for an author to decide who is rewarded the most and how big that reward will be. The ability to choose is what's most important and adding such a slider would be very valuable to the Steem community.
Voted for
Yes, but... I think people are willing to donate only a part of their income/wealth to unselfish purposes. It depends on the person, but maybe between 5-30 percent...
Voted for
Voted for
No. If anyone can choose his own percentage it doesn't mean that every choice will be in the self interest of the whole
Voted for
Congratulations @demotruk!
Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:
https://steemit.com/utopian-io/@miniature-tiger/curation-earnings-analysis-with-stats-and-thoughts-on-50-50-curation-system-proposal-1556541324925
The analyst seems to think a slider would be a good idea, but one for the voter, not the author.
Curation rewards % at the discretion of voter is a significant change to how things work technically now compared to setting it per post at the discretion of the author. It would likely mean completely changing how rewards are calculated.
This would just probably lead to "curators" piling up on these posts no matter the content quality.
I still feel raising the curation reward up as a baseline to make manual curation actually worth while will save this place or even better, actually make it mainstream eventually. To who'm this place works fine the way it is now? Everyone is either selling majority of their votes, or even worse, just voting themselves or inner circle. What good authors we may attract, they'll soon after leave because we don't have anyone trying to find them and bring them to public eye. Of course it's questionable how many views our trending get these days, other than those who just want to kiss some authors ass in hopes of upvotes. I've also noticed how many of the regular bidbotters just offer tips to their "readers" for some action, which they benefit from directly. @ned @andrarchy ; When will you put end to this madness?
Voted for
That sounds cool, but if it were to be added there would definitely need to be some sort of indication of what the values are on the frontend.