For the record, I also vote no to a curation/author split change. While that might be a big deal to a very small number of people who are active on the platform and really understand how it all works, I'm pretty sure it's not the reason why most people don't know about Steem and don't invest in it or use it. I think we should focus our very limited blockchain development resources on things that solve the latter problems.
Ah that's fantastic! I was just clicking login and getting sent to SteemConnect. I didn't see the little message about being able to vote with Keychain! They should definitely add that option when you click login, but still glad to see the progress. Thank you for letting me know!
Yeah, Keychain support landed with a shortest time/effort to catch up with the steem alliance poll. So, Keychain is not a replacement for the SC yet, in the dPoll authentication system. Its usable only for voting now.
Agreed. I've wanted a return to 50/50 curation (and n2) ever since they changed; but the time, trauma and effort to switch back now just don't justify it.
We get to 500K active daily users and curation is going to get worthwhile again anyway.
I disagree. Everybody knows economics is broken, and partly a reason that drives people away. I think it is the most important issue that deserves dev resources and attention.
Giving 50/50 at least gives a fair chance to encourage use of organic voting and attarct more power ups.
This may divert some votes to authors for free rather than selling.
If you have noticed as soon as you power up bidbots send you memos with advertising their services and trying to get you use your sp for selling votes.
If you compare 25% return to almost 100%, which would you choose? 50/50 at least improves odds in favor of organic voting.
I don't expect 50/50 to work but I'm in favor of trying things out. However we don't really 'try something out' when we hard fork, we end up committing to that change because changing back would be another hard fork and a whole bunch of work just to get us back where we were.
We need some kind of trial period with a rollback at the end. That way we only continue with the new economics if we specifically elect to.
I agree with everything with all that, but I still vote yes myself. I see it as a distribution issue that can hurt Steem down the line if the token circulates among vote sellers and self upvoters since doing that is 3x more profitable in Steem ROI. But you are right, it doesn't matter much right now and isn't the reason a lot of people are not here, we need to build cool shit for that to happen.
if the token circulates among vote sellers and self upvoters since doing that is 3x more profitable in Steem ROI
No amount of tweaking the reward system algorithm will change that. If we change the curation reward percentage then the vote selling services / self upvoters will simply adjust how they work to take advantage of the new model.
In my opinion the best way to solve these issues is to fix the issues with downvoting. The cool part about Steem is the ability to crowdsource the rewards for content. Since downvoting is so heavily disincentivized currently, it's almost non-existent, which means it's not possible to have a true wisdom of the crowd effect.
Downvoting needs to exactly mirror upvoting for this to have a chance at working, meaning there needs to be a separate and equal voting mana pool for downvoting AND there must be equal but opposite curation rewards for downvoting as well.
then the vote selling services / self upvoters will simply adjust how they work to take advantage of the new model.
Im glad to see someone a bit more reputable then myself is putting this forward.
The problem here is that those that are for 50/50 have a overly optimistic view of the outcome. No one for one second is even willing to consider the fact that vote selling services will simply adjust.
Not only am i against this proposal, i fear it. Imo, Its probably the worst idea with the biggest support right now.
STEEM community size and retention are in direct correlation to the STEEM price meaning that if you cut author earnings you can expect a lot of content creators to leave and user numbers drop off. Assuming that vote sellers that are completely uninterested in curating will suddenly start curating after the vote selling services adjust is completely unrealistic.
The only time a cut in author earnings should be encouraged is if it leads to increase in price of STEEM. For that very reason im advocating for the cut to happen after the @blocktrades DAO is live and the inflation to be used to fund projects.
The loss in author rewards goes into improving the STEEM ecosystem which should by all account increase STEEM price.
Vote selling will be reduced due to lower demand and bots will have a much harder time adjusting since the curation would remain at 25%
Instead of giving a few curators more money and fixing nothing, i think this is the proper path to take that would have a much greater positive effect.
I absolutely agree with your reasoning here, except in the DAO. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean, but I understood that author rewards are going to be redirected (as inflation, prior to being filtered out via upvotes) in part to the DAO.
This amounts to a tax, and the creation of a central taxing authority, which equates to a form of involuntary government. I'm agin' it. I'd be happy to pick and choose developments or individual devs to support, with upvotes, beneficiary rewards, or any voluntary mechanism.
Please clarify if I have misunderstood.
Also, @edicted recently posted regarding making curation rewards a slider chosen by authors, who could set curation to 100% if they so chose, or at any level they want. I'm fully in favor of this, as it empower individuals to make that decision - which is the way a decentralized blockchain should work IMHO.
Thanks for summing this up. I've had a very similar view on the proposal ever since it came up and none of the arguments so far have been able to convince me.
There's a lot broken about the platform, but I also don't think the 50/50 will improve it, it has potential to make it worse.
What do we want to achieve? We want quality content to be created, made visible and easily consumable for users so that they are motivating to stay on the platform and engage with it. Would we want to distinguish between certain types of content? Sure. Would we want to incentivize creating long-living content (which probably is more work and therefore bears higher opportunity cost)? I would think so. Will there be bots exploiting any system we set up? Most definitely.
With 50/50, no more quality content will be produced (less incentive may even mean less of it). Will curators looking for rewards vote for quality content or the content that is most likely to receive large votes after they voted? Is that different from what it is now? Hard to imagine.
Indeed, my proposal for the structure of the coming SteemAlliance Foundation was based on evergreen voting for content, including development proposals, which can be withdrawn at the sole option of the stakeholder.
I see 50/50 mandatory curation as simply increasing the rentier income extractable from the various mechanisms extant and used for that purpose, none of which actually create incentive to produce quality content. They rather degrade it, and the optics are terrible.
Actual investors with substantial stake would be railing against this proposed increase in profiteering, because it will only decrease upwards pressure on Steem price, and make capital gains even less likely than they are now.
it is all about the culture . If there is a disaster like an earthquake happen, most country will immediately go riot or looting.
Yet in Japan , the citizen line up and behave properly.
If you left your bicycle unlock , you can bet it will go missing immediately in most country but in japan , it will stay there most of the time.
As you can say, it is all about the mindset or culture .
Just because I'm touchy, I'd like to point out that where I live, when floods or something happens, my neighbors and I head out and see if we can help our neighbors. I often don't even lock the door to my house.
What may be a national culture in Japan is much more regional in America. The 'flyover' parts are better folks.
That's exactly why @yabapmatt's proposed positive curation reward for downvoting cannot work, as two equal votes, one up and one down, should negate all rewards for the content, but his proposal would extract curation rewards for the voters anyway.
I'm agreeing that tweaking the author/curator ratio won't really have the desired effect, for all the reasons you describe and probably more, so thanks for that.
I understand what you're saying about the downvoting, and in a world where people actually used downvotes properly, I might be with you there. I wonder how this rewards for downvoting doesn't end up being abused too, worse than downvoting is now. As it stands, two larger accounts decide they don't like each other and people who have nothing to do with it, but because one or the other curates a post or comment, all of a sudden, they're being hit, too, along with obnoxious comments where it's painfully obvious they simply don't care who gets it.
So, how would you go about securing the downvoting incentive system so that people aren't just downvoting to milk it, and/or taking folks who have nothing to do with the skirmish down with them? And where would this separate pool draw from?
As we see that folks are milking curation rewards as simply a mechanism for extracting rent from their stake, adding flags to the mechanisms they can do that with is certain to be similarly abused. Further, @freddio pointed out that voters mutually flagging and upvoting would both extract curation rewards, and this would bollux the rewards mechanism.
Presently, flagging is a negative curation reward, which then returns Steem to the pool (before it leaves the pool at all, yeah). @yabapmatt's proposal would instead reward those ostensibly curative flags and increase the draw on the inflation pool. In many cases today, in the flagwar you mention, up and down votes cancel each other out (or at least eliminate author and curation rewards altogether, since they cannot be negative (although.... )).
Even if there's a separate pool for flag rewards, it would still draw from the source: inflation. So a post that has been reduced to zero rewards for the author would still produce rewards for the voters - creating 100% curation rewards.
First of all, I'm glad you and I see things the same way, though you have a better way of expressing it. Right or wrong, it's nice to see someone else express your own thoughts and concerns.
Secondly, it would be nice if all of this could be taken to the testnet, or wherever so that it could be tried out. It seems like we have here a bunch of different ideas, that in spite of what their motivations may be, are being expressed as "this is what will happen" when it's impossible for it all to result in all the ways each of us say it will. Someone has to be right, and someone wrong, and I'd like to prove it, once and for all.
I've read what edicted and you have both posted individually, and of the proposals that I've found so far, I like the idea of choosing your own curation rewards over getting rid of them entirely (though I do understand the reasoning and believe that we are not incentivizing curating quality content as is), but I would still want to hash it out, test it out, too.
The problem with all of this is, we tend to look at what it could do if people behave certain ways, while glossing over what they're most likely to do, and that's to either act in their own self interests, go the path of least resistance, or find some other way around it just for fun—to prove it can be done.
I don't think any of those scenarios are what we really want, if we can all avoid it.
You are exactly correct, and yet even the testnet doesn't accurately represent what people will do when their real funds are at risk. There's no better mechanism to do those tests, but tests cannot actually add money to, or take it out of your wallet and impact the rent you pay, the food you buy, or your actual financial situation.
What is obvious to me is what has been the result of people's financial interests, and that has been that folks most intent on their finances gain financial rewards most. As this process cascades, the other values society provides are increasingly diminished until those values no longer make the society of requisite value, and inevitably this fact then causes the economic value of that society to vanish as well, since it only has any value in society.
Piles of money in a cave have no value at all, absent a viable society to spend them in.
Sound economics isn't theoretical, but demonstrated by historical results. For millenia capital gains have proven to be sound incentive for investors, and yet Steem has continually been made less productive of capital gains and more productive of extractive profiteering, until we now observe the marketcap of Steem declining in a rising market. A student of economic history will not be unfamiliar with this circumstance, nor of what comes next if the problem continues to grow worse. Economic collapse is repeatedly revealed in the historical record.
The solution is to reverse those incentives for extractive rapine, and implement incentives to imbue the investment vehicle with growing value that produce capital gains. Doubling the extraction of curation rewards but hastens the decline. Only creating incentive that enables substantial stakeholders to attain profits by creating development that produce capital gains will reverse that decline.
No amount of tweaking the reward system algorithm will change that. If we change the curation reward percentage then the vote selling services / self upvoters will simply adjust how they work to take advantage of the new model.
This is true, but it still doesn't change the fact 50/50 makes curation much more attractive then 25/75, thus people would be more willing to delegate to curation bots that put in the effort to find content that will get a lot of upvotes and not delegate to bid bots. People who sell votes will take a hit because people only pay for the meat of the vote as curation is terrible with vote bots (ppl use bots on day old content etc.)
Not saying this is going to make it perfect, but I think it's better than the current setup.
I agree with downvotes; I like your idea. Just fixing how downvotes work will at least help keep vote buyers/bid bots in check, so they don't just run rampant upvoting any content.
This is true, but it still doesn't change the fact 50/50 makes curation much more attractive then 25/75, thus people would be more willing to delegate to curation bots that put in the effort to find content that will get a lot of upvotes and not delegate to bid bots.
Might make it more attractive to curators who for the most part are racing to vote at the right time more than actually finding good content which is what true curation is .. it wont make it more attractive to content creators who see more of their effort going to more bots.
Bid bots are not going anywhere. Doesn't matter how much you tinker with curation splits. That just changes their income pattern.
Some people value the work they put into creating content. Those people will take a serious look at this platform and decide to move on.
It comes down to why curate when I can sell my vote for 3x the returns? Put curstors aside, investors who want to maximize their returns (the only curators that can make a diff must also be investors to lock up 6 figures in capital) - their options right now are sell their votes, delegate to projects and or curate. As we can clearly see from the last year, vote selling is the route most deep pocket SP resort to because it is by far the easiest and most effective way to make more SP. if curation made more SP, investors would actually do it. Someone said between me and two other whales, no one else even curates anymore. I wonder why.
Why not make it more attractive for substantial stakeholders to delegate to development projects? That is a positive pressure on price that will produce capital gains, instead of the negative pressure that curation rewards add to for votesellers.
Well, instead of hopelessly tweaking curation, why don't we tackle voteselling head on? Hain't heard no one taking that on since @ned spoke in Korea, and that's the actual problem.
If I got a broke leg, don't paint my toenails. Set my damn leg. The problem is profiteering, and curation rewards only add to the extractive produce of that, at least by lowering the cost of buying votes. @ned attested to the potential of oracles to eliminate that problem.
The best example is Dtube .
Why do you think i still remain at youtube even when the payment is less? because i am pay at youtube base on view that serve with ads.
Here i am given only 7 days to cover my cost.
My video is not cheap to make.
The people here if so good, they would have upvote my video instead most of the time i get less than 1 USD.
I will be getting my second 100 USD soon next month or next 2 month time .
yes , it take 6 to 7 month to earn 100 USD but compare to Dtube , it is even worse. It is like working for free and get nothing back .
YouTube gives you ad rev not YouTube stock. Once steem becomes more popular and projects start sharing ad rev, the author will get the bulk of the ad share and curators will get none of it. Steem is for distribution and a second layer like SMT for actual rewards. Steem does not scale as a reward token, that is why SMTs are being made. If you had 10k site all using Steem it would be spread so thin barely any new content would get upvoted.
100% this.
For the record, I also vote no to a curation/author split change. While that might be a big deal to a very small number of people who are active on the platform and really understand how it all works, I'm pretty sure it's not the reason why most people don't know about Steem and don't invest in it or use it. I think we should focus our very limited blockchain development resources on things that solve the latter problems.
Umm, I could log in using keychain.
Ah that's fantastic! I was just clicking login and getting sent to SteemConnect. I didn't see the little message about being able to vote with Keychain! They should definitely add that option when you click login, but still glad to see the progress. Thank you for letting me know!
Yeah, Keychain support landed with a
shortest time/effortto catch up with the steem alliance poll. So, Keychain is not a replacement for the SC yet, in the dPoll authentication system. Its usable only for voting now.You beat me to it 😉❤️
score!! :P
Doesn't work on my browser. I tried.
damn. fixed it for me. @eonwarped? Any other ideas?
Agreed. I've wanted a return to 50/50 curation (and n2) ever since they changed; but the time, trauma and effort to switch back now just don't justify it.
We get to 500K active daily users and curation is going to get worthwhile again anyway.
I disagree. Everybody knows economics is broken, and partly a reason that drives people away. I think it is the most important issue that deserves dev resources and attention.
Giving 50/50 at least gives a fair chance to encourage use of organic voting and attarct more power ups.
This may divert some votes to authors for free rather than selling.
If you have noticed as soon as you power up bidbots send you memos with advertising their services and trying to get you use your sp for selling votes.
If you compare 25% return to almost 100%, which would you choose? 50/50 at least improves odds in favor of organic voting.
I don't expect 50/50 to work but I'm in favor of trying things out. However we don't really 'try something out' when we hard fork, we end up committing to that change because changing back would be another hard fork and a whole bunch of work just to get us back where we were.
We need some kind of trial period with a rollback at the end. That way we only continue with the new economics if we specifically elect to.
It is just so difficult to get everybody agree on something, especially the high stakeholders.
I agree with everything with all that, but I still vote yes myself. I see it as a distribution issue that can hurt Steem down the line if the token circulates among vote sellers and self upvoters since doing that is 3x more profitable in Steem ROI. But you are right, it doesn't matter much right now and isn't the reason a lot of people are not here, we need to build cool shit for that to happen.
No amount of tweaking the reward system algorithm will change that. If we change the curation reward percentage then the vote selling services / self upvoters will simply adjust how they work to take advantage of the new model.
In my opinion the best way to solve these issues is to fix the issues with downvoting. The cool part about Steem is the ability to crowdsource the rewards for content. Since downvoting is so heavily disincentivized currently, it's almost non-existent, which means it's not possible to have a true wisdom of the crowd effect.
Downvoting needs to exactly mirror upvoting for this to have a chance at working, meaning there needs to be a separate and equal voting mana pool for downvoting AND there must be equal but opposite curation rewards for downvoting as well.
Im glad to see someone a bit more reputable then myself is putting this forward.
The problem here is that those that are for 50/50 have a overly optimistic view of the outcome. No one for one second is even willing to consider the fact that vote selling services will simply adjust.
Not only am i against this proposal, i fear it. Imo, Its probably the worst idea with the biggest support right now.
STEEM community size and retention are in direct correlation to the STEEM price meaning that if you cut author earnings you can expect a lot of content creators to leave and user numbers drop off. Assuming that vote sellers that are completely uninterested in curating will suddenly start curating after the vote selling services adjust is completely unrealistic.
The only time a cut in author earnings should be encouraged is if it leads to increase in price of STEEM. For that very reason im advocating for the cut to happen after the @blocktrades DAO is live and the inflation to be used to fund projects.
Instead of giving a few curators more money and fixing nothing, i think this is the proper path to take that would have a much greater positive effect.
I absolutely agree with your reasoning here, except in the DAO. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean, but I understood that author rewards are going to be redirected (as inflation, prior to being filtered out via upvotes) in part to the DAO.
This amounts to a tax, and the creation of a central taxing authority, which equates to a form of involuntary government. I'm agin' it. I'd be happy to pick and choose developments or individual devs to support, with upvotes, beneficiary rewards, or any voluntary mechanism.
Please clarify if I have misunderstood.
Also, @edicted recently posted regarding making curation rewards a slider chosen by authors, who could set curation to 100% if they so chose, or at any level they want. I'm fully in favor of this, as it empower individuals to make that decision - which is the way a decentralized blockchain should work IMHO.
Thanks for summing this up. I've had a very similar view on the proposal ever since it came up and none of the arguments so far have been able to convince me.
There's a lot broken about the platform, but I also don't think the 50/50 will improve it, it has potential to make it worse.
What do we want to achieve? We want quality content to be created, made visible and easily consumable for users so that they are motivating to stay on the platform and engage with it. Would we want to distinguish between certain types of content? Sure. Would we want to incentivize creating long-living content (which probably is more work and therefore bears higher opportunity cost)? I would think so. Will there be bots exploiting any system we set up? Most definitely.
With 50/50, no more quality content will be produced (less incentive may even mean less of it). Will curators looking for rewards vote for quality content or the content that is most likely to receive large votes after they voted? Is that different from what it is now? Hard to imagine.
Posted using Partiko Android
Indeed, my proposal for the structure of the coming SteemAlliance Foundation was based on evergreen voting for content, including development proposals, which can be withdrawn at the sole option of the stakeholder.
I see 50/50 mandatory curation as simply increasing the rentier income extractable from the various mechanisms extant and used for that purpose, none of which actually create incentive to produce quality content. They rather degrade it, and the optics are terrible.
Actual investors with substantial stake would be railing against this proposed increase in profiteering, because it will only decrease upwards pressure on Steem price, and make capital gains even less likely than they are now.
it is all about the culture . If there is a disaster like an earthquake happen, most country will immediately go riot or looting.
Yet in Japan , the citizen line up and behave properly.
If you left your bicycle unlock , you can bet it will go missing immediately in most country but in japan , it will stay there most of the time.
As you can say, it is all about the mindset or culture .
Just because I'm touchy, I'd like to point out that where I live, when floods or something happens, my neighbors and I head out and see if we can help our neighbors. I often don't even lock the door to my house.
What may be a national culture in Japan is much more regional in America. The 'flyover' parts are better folks.
Ok then Downvote Services pop up and the Steem Blockchain will sucks. So vote seller earn twice. One time with upvote and another time with downvote.
That's exactly why @yabapmatt's proposed positive curation reward for downvoting cannot work, as two equal votes, one up and one down, should negate all rewards for the content, but his proposal would extract curation rewards for the voters anyway.
Great point!
Hey, @yabapmatt.
I'm agreeing that tweaking the author/curator ratio won't really have the desired effect, for all the reasons you describe and probably more, so thanks for that.
I understand what you're saying about the downvoting, and in a world where people actually used downvotes properly, I might be with you there. I wonder how this rewards for downvoting doesn't end up being abused too, worse than downvoting is now. As it stands, two larger accounts decide they don't like each other and people who have nothing to do with it, but because one or the other curates a post or comment, all of a sudden, they're being hit, too, along with obnoxious comments where it's painfully obvious they simply don't care who gets it.
So, how would you go about securing the downvoting incentive system so that people aren't just downvoting to milk it, and/or taking folks who have nothing to do with the skirmish down with them? And where would this separate pool draw from?
As we see that folks are milking curation rewards as simply a mechanism for extracting rent from their stake, adding flags to the mechanisms they can do that with is certain to be similarly abused. Further, @freddio pointed out that voters mutually flagging and upvoting would both extract curation rewards, and this would bollux the rewards mechanism.
Presently, flagging is a negative curation reward, which then returns Steem to the pool (before it leaves the pool at all, yeah). @yabapmatt's proposal would instead reward those ostensibly curative flags and increase the draw on the inflation pool. In many cases today, in the flagwar you mention, up and down votes cancel each other out (or at least eliminate author and curation rewards altogether, since they cannot be negative (although.... )).
Even if there's a separate pool for flag rewards, it would still draw from the source: inflation. So a post that has been reduced to zero rewards for the author would still produce rewards for the voters - creating 100% curation rewards.
Whaddya say @yabapmatt?
Hey, @valued-customer.
First of all, I'm glad you and I see things the same way, though you have a better way of expressing it. Right or wrong, it's nice to see someone else express your own thoughts and concerns.
Secondly, it would be nice if all of this could be taken to the testnet, or wherever so that it could be tried out. It seems like we have here a bunch of different ideas, that in spite of what their motivations may be, are being expressed as "this is what will happen" when it's impossible for it all to result in all the ways each of us say it will. Someone has to be right, and someone wrong, and I'd like to prove it, once and for all.
I've read what edicted and you have both posted individually, and of the proposals that I've found so far, I like the idea of choosing your own curation rewards over getting rid of them entirely (though I do understand the reasoning and believe that we are not incentivizing curating quality content as is), but I would still want to hash it out, test it out, too.
The problem with all of this is, we tend to look at what it could do if people behave certain ways, while glossing over what they're most likely to do, and that's to either act in their own self interests, go the path of least resistance, or find some other way around it just for fun—to prove it can be done.
I don't think any of those scenarios are what we really want, if we can all avoid it.
You are exactly correct, and yet even the testnet doesn't accurately represent what people will do when their real funds are at risk. There's no better mechanism to do those tests, but tests cannot actually add money to, or take it out of your wallet and impact the rent you pay, the food you buy, or your actual financial situation.
What is obvious to me is what has been the result of people's financial interests, and that has been that folks most intent on their finances gain financial rewards most. As this process cascades, the other values society provides are increasingly diminished until those values no longer make the society of requisite value, and inevitably this fact then causes the economic value of that society to vanish as well, since it only has any value in society.
Piles of money in a cave have no value at all, absent a viable society to spend them in.
Sound economics isn't theoretical, but demonstrated by historical results. For millenia capital gains have proven to be sound incentive for investors, and yet Steem has continually been made less productive of capital gains and more productive of extractive profiteering, until we now observe the marketcap of Steem declining in a rising market. A student of economic history will not be unfamiliar with this circumstance, nor of what comes next if the problem continues to grow worse. Economic collapse is repeatedly revealed in the historical record.
The solution is to reverse those incentives for extractive rapine, and implement incentives to imbue the investment vehicle with growing value that produce capital gains. Doubling the extraction of curation rewards but hastens the decline. Only creating incentive that enables substantial stakeholders to attain profits by creating development that produce capital gains will reverse that decline.
Thanks!
This is true, but it still doesn't change the fact 50/50 makes curation much more attractive then 25/75, thus people would be more willing to delegate to curation bots that put in the effort to find content that will get a lot of upvotes and not delegate to bid bots. People who sell votes will take a hit because people only pay for the meat of the vote as curation is terrible with vote bots (ppl use bots on day old content etc.)
I agree with downvotes; I like your idea. Just fixing how downvotes work will at least help keep vote buyers/bid bots in check, so they don't just run rampant upvoting any content.
Might make it more attractive to curators who for the most part are racing to vote at the right time more than actually finding good content which is what true curation is .. it wont make it more attractive to content creators who see more of their effort going to more bots.
Bid bots are not going anywhere. Doesn't matter how much you tinker with curation splits. That just changes their income pattern.
Some people value the work they put into creating content. Those people will take a serious look at this platform and decide to move on.
It comes down to why curate when I can sell my vote for 3x the returns? Put curstors aside, investors who want to maximize their returns (the only curators that can make a diff must also be investors to lock up 6 figures in capital) - their options right now are sell their votes, delegate to projects and or curate. As we can clearly see from the last year, vote selling is the route most deep pocket SP resort to because it is by far the easiest and most effective way to make more SP. if curation made more SP, investors would actually do it. Someone said between me and two other whales, no one else even curates anymore. I wonder why.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Why not make it more attractive for substantial stakeholders to delegate to development projects? That is a positive pressure on price that will produce capital gains, instead of the negative pressure that curation rewards add to for votesellers.
This is short term thinking and why I don't think it matters.
If you can't see the value in not selling your vote don't ask someone else to either
Well, instead of hopelessly tweaking curation, why don't we tackle voteselling head on? Hain't heard no one taking that on since @ned spoke in Korea, and that's the actual problem.
If I got a broke leg, don't paint my toenails. Set my damn leg. The problem is profiteering, and curation rewards only add to the extractive produce of that, at least by lowering the cost of buying votes. @ned attested to the potential of oracles to eliminate that problem.
What are some other potential solutions?
The best example is Dtube .
Why do you think i still remain at youtube even when the payment is less? because i am pay at youtube base on view that serve with ads.
Here i am given only 7 days to cover my cost.
My video is not cheap to make.
The people here if so good, they would have upvote my video instead most of the time i get less than 1 USD.
I will be getting my second 100 USD soon next month or next 2 month time .
yes , it take 6 to 7 month to earn 100 USD but compare to Dtube , it is even worse. It is like working for free and get nothing back .
YouTube gives you ad rev not YouTube stock. Once steem becomes more popular and projects start sharing ad rev, the author will get the bulk of the ad share and curators will get none of it. Steem is for distribution and a second layer like SMT for actual rewards. Steem does not scale as a reward token, that is why SMTs are being made. If you had 10k site all using Steem it would be spread so thin barely any new content would get upvoted.
I agree with this.
NVM @emrebeyler thanks! :)
I just used keychain....
Awesome! I don't know why I don't see it..
It could be that you are already logged in and given it authority. Maybe revoke access and try again.
https://v2.steemconnect.com/revoke/@dpoll.xyz
Thanks this worked
Dpoll uses keychain now, just so everyone knows.