Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?
Currently, upvotes on Steem reward the author 75% & curators share the remaining 25%.
This poll is asking if the community believes that curation & author rewards should be split 50/50.
- Yes
- No
Answer the question at dpoll.xyz.
Voted for
I don’t think this alone is the solution or if 50% is the right number but what we have now doesn’t work and the gap between curating, delegating to a bot, and self voting is huge.
I believe it needs to come with changes to flags as well to encourage quality negative curation.
What we will see is that substantial stakeholders will vote for this, because it will allow them to extract greater rent from their stakes.
Eliminating profiteering is a far more productive course that may draw in investors to promote development of Steem and create upwards price pressure and effect capital gains. Making it more profitable to extract rewards by voting only decreases actual incentive to reward content on the basis of it's quality.
We don't see proposals for improving curation at all, because we don't have investors at all. We have profiteers. This is no way to run a railroad - or any other investment vehicle. Warren Buffet is sad.
The main point of this is to close the gap between organic voting and self voting and make it more appealing to most people to vote with your heart instead of the most profitable.
Raising the rate at which profiteers extract rewards by financial manipulation, such as selling votes, will only make the problem worse, and continue the downwards pressure on the price of Steem that diminishes all our stakes. That is exactly what raising curation rewards from 25% to 50% does: doubles the share of the rewards pool you can parasitically extract by selling votes, literally renting your stake.
Eliminating the incentives to pervert the mechanisms intended to market Steem by creating incentive to produce quality content will restore the mechanisms intended to create capital gains. I therefore posted mechanisms capable of effecting elimination of those incentives, and that instead create incentives for stakeholders in the form of dividends for delegation to development, to effect capital gains. Despite your base financial rapine, even you would profit more from capital gains than ever greater extraction of ever shrinking tokens from the rewards pool. In fact, the more substantial the stake, the more beneficial capital gains are to the stakeholder.
Whether you are capable of grasping that fact is not my responsibility. Your prosperity and felicity depends entirely on you yourself. I encourage you to prepare either to flee to another host to parasitize when Steem falls to prices that make it useless to extract with such machinations (as the result of doubling the rate at which the rewards pool can be parasitized, and the concomitant abandonment of the platform that will engender), or to switch business models to promote development, marketing, and creating capital gains that will benefit not only you, but all Steem stakeholders.
Increasing the financial rewards for voting for content does not increase the propensity to vote for quality content. It is exactly the opposite of that in it's effect, and your support for every mechanism that increases the degree of parasitization that can be effected belies your claims you care at all about curation itself. All you care about, or concern yourself with, is extracting profits. Therefore it isn't surprising at all to see you promoting doubling the rate at which profits are extracted by your voteselling enterprise.
Who'da thunk it?
100% this.
Magic Dice has rewarded your post with a 100% upvote. Thanks for playing Magic Dice.
I Fully agree with you.
No, we should not introduce a Voting Slider or change the curation percentage, because this is not the fundamental problem with Steemit.
We need to acknowledge that the Proof of Brain mechanism of Steemit doesn't fit to the overall Dapp ecosystem of the Steem Blockchain. Instead of thinking how we can improve the Author / Curation system we should think about how we can change the rules of the reward pool distribution for the whole Steem Ecosystem. My proposal would be to get rid of Steemit exclusive right to mine Steem Tokens. Steemit should become its own SMT project so that the Reward Pool is free of this entanglement. Than we can develop the Reward Pool towards an DAPP Ecosystem which should put Steempower Holders, RC Holders and Voting rights for Witnesses in the center of the Ecosystem.
Why should we mine Steem by only posting and Blogging on Steemit when the whole Ecosystem is changing towards Dapp Economy??? Please, guys lets take this serious there is no need for changing just the Curation Author reward system we need complete change of the Reward Pool Structure!
I also 100% agree on this. Can we have witnesses vote about this issue to see where we stand and could we implement the change as a community if there's a clear majority supporting the change?
I guess since someone has to do the work, proposal system would be needed to make this change happen through community? We don't need Steemit Inc's approval for this, right?
Voted for
My vote is yes to 50/50 as a good first step, but just to clarify on my position, check out the end of this comment at the "extra" as I just want to focus on the 50/50 item atm.
Concern: 50/50 is too heavy. 40/60 might be better. Curators are taking too much of a cut while doing much less than authors. Better to focus on more apps and biz. There will be a different maximization game with the change.
Response:
Firstly, think of a hypothetical Steem economy with 100% author rewards and 0% curation rewards, 100/0. Voters will most likely just upvote themselves all the time. Broadly speaking, 100/0 is in effect, the economic equivalent of 0% author rewards and 100% curation rewards, 0/100, as voters just end up getting all the rewards voting anywhere. Nothing left for authors either way for any decent content. Looking at this symmetry, it stands to reason that 25/75 today is in effect like 75/25, and 40/60 is like 60/40. So 50/50 is in effect, just the same at 50/50. In fact I'd expect anything besides a close approximation of the 50/50 effect would end up collapsing into somewhere near the 0/100 or 100/0 region, after a long period of time. Again, just broadly speaking though. Not really debating 60/40 or 40/60 is better than 50/50, as long as it achieves the 50/50 effect in the end for every vote given out to something decent.
Secondly, authors effectively get their rewards from curators, and authors are also curators themselves. It's a social
networkblockchain. Personally, I don't really get the dichotomy here even though there are obviously users that only create or curate. Saying no to improved curation reward is almost like telling our sponsors they shouldn't get the best and most sensible returns possible from supporting our work.Thirdly, imagine a channel where the best curators hang out while onboarding / promoting great content creators. Let's say Pewdiepie or whoever else you're already digging on Steem or anywhere else. With the right incentives, we'd be happily voting on content that we're already consuming everyday and even take the time to promote upcoming great content creators. Sure, the many different apps that developers build are important, but I can't think of a better business for everyone other than going the route of trying to improve Steem's economy via its rewards or POB protocol, something which no user interface or application can ever do. More biz and apps are good but they're not necessarily Steem's topmost differentiating factor in crypto. There are plenty of high performance blockchains for biz and stuff. It's better to get Steem's economy around the right ballpark with the community we have, build it, and then the best of apps and biz will thrive along the way.
Extra:
I hope the other 2 items would get considered sometime in the near future to seal all the conceivable leaks in the boat the best we can. It also adheres to a better blockchain philosophy in my opinion, if considering notions of quality & quantity & incentives. Everything we encourage shoving into the chain is a cost someone has to bear in the future, etc. Sure we can and should have loads of activities coming from a social blockchain perspective, but incentives are another matter and not necessarily and straightforwardly all kinds of activities == incentives. We shouldn't get mixed up between these arguments. Minimize costs and maximize benefits. Cliche, but it's paramount to any blockchain design, moreso than anything that revolves around traditional databases if we're considering a very very long-term game.
Maximizing rewards through whatever means, even the most lazy via curation trail is perfectly fine. There just needs to be checks and balances in the economy (as proposed in the link above) so it can at least benefit Steem as a whole over time. Even the most hardworking people will be lazy at some point, or lazy in certain dimensions. Or whatever, lazy is not really the point. We just need to design a environment or economy where lazy produces something good, like a working content discovery and rewards platform. Imagine if lazy autovoters are voting on crap stuff. Some "bribe" and deterrence from the change to 50/50, superlinear rewards, and downvote pool will likely change behavior or the "path of least resistance" to point to the good stuff that actually helps the platform.
Of course, a working economy means a positive feedback loop on the network, and that would necessitate improvement in part of reward beneficiaries as time goes on. It's the other way around at the moment, imo.
I appreciate your substantive and informed comment, even though I strongly disagree.
It's been tried, and through socks it happens alla time. Remember @mindhunter though? He's just gone after his ploy was revealed. The community disapproves of self voting, and for good reason. Why have rewards at all? To create incentive to produce quality content that markets Steem and potentiates capital gains for stakeholders. While curation rewards were instituted to further create incentive to do that, they don't amount to much for insubstantial stakeholders, who in general just ignore them as a reason to upvote.
Curation rewards thus aren't any incentive for the majority of votes. For those with substantial stake, curation rewards are the end - not curation. Votes cast to attain curation rewards by those folks are cast without regard to content quality at all - contrary to the purpose of curation rewards - but solely and strategically to gain rewards.
Until vote bots arose self votes and similar mechanisms were roundly criticized as simple profiteering (and that censure has now included votebots), that at best did not create incentive to come here and buy some Steem and drive the price up. That's a good reason. So, let's admit that curation rewards don't work for the purpose they were instituted to achieve, and go on. @edicted proposed giving authors a slider, so they could set curation rewards to whatever they wanted, and despite my initial advocacy for eliminating curation rewards completely (as simply another vector for extracting rent with stake) I agree this is a better solution, as it becomes a means of attracting votes by letting voters attain to the rewards themselves - eliminating bidbots and enabling authors to promote their posts by eschewing rewards to the degree they are willing to.
As my goal for Steem is nothing short of world dominance, I want to see investors acting to create capital gains, and float every boat. Profiteering is contrary to that, despite lolbertarian freedom to do what one wants with one's stake. It isn't wise to drain the blood from a barnyard animal you'd like to sell at market for a good price, and that is analogous to profiteering and extracting rewards from the platform when you'd like to see Steem generate capital gains. Plus, it's gross, and the community does seem to dislike it.
Instead let's consider mechanisms that allow substantial stakeholders to get dividends by delegating to development projects that potentiate capital gains. Let's also limit potential rewards on posts, to eliminate that vector as suitable for profiteering. Huey Long proposed that no one should live on less than 3% of median income, nor attain to more than 300%, and I reckon that's not going to impact actual content quality negatively, as that's a significant range that allows incentive to be exerted, while also making bidbots useless for folks that abuse them just for rewards. Now, Long proposed that when he was very popular and no little ferment was ongoing in the US, and got assassinated for his trouble. I'd prefer not to get shot.
The rewards pool has been gamed to the point that Steem is suffering from poor enough optics that we underperform the market. Tweaking curation rewards isn't going to fix the problem of profiteering, as you acknowledge, and simply eliminating curation rewards won't either. Creating a vector for dividends from delegating to development projects, and limiting the extractive potential of votebots does make it possible to decrease financial incentive to abuse curation for profiteering, and enabling dividends from delegation presents a mechanism that will drive capital gains. Maximizing rewards at any cost isn't wise. You point this out:
Maximizing rewards for improving development and driving capital gains is what actual investors should want. It sure is what the market wants to see, as well as most everyone on Steem today. If you got this far through my extemporaneous comment, I am grateful.
Thanks!
50/50 alone isnt that effective, from my pov the fix would need other measures as per linked in my comment above. It should be thought of as a chord to play and wouldnt sound as nice if we just play one note. If curation rewards aren’t important, then 100% author rewards would just cause more to self-vote and is the equivalent of 100% curation rewards as I’ve demonstrated above. I’ll just copy and paste trafalgar’s comment on it:-
Hi
I know you have proposed changing the author/curator split before, as the first step in changing the economical model here on Steemit. I think you have the knowledge and/or connections to people who could execute my proposed solution to this problem, so I hope you don’t mind me sharing it with you here.
I think solution to this issue, at least a theoretic one, can be accomplished by using partially existing infrastructure and rules, and also taking advantage of an existing capability in Steemit code, which would allow people to choose to change this split themselves.
After I read this post, I studied some of the existing graphic interfaces and I found that some of the existing sharing features on Steem-plus and some other graphic user interfaces on other platforms allow people to change the sharing of rewards on their specific posts to 50/50 percentage of the authors rewards with a single named beneficiary.
Since the number of beneficiaries and the way the term beneficiaries is defined is written into the code underlying the graphic user interface, it is in theory possible to redefine beneficiary in other terms, such as beneficiary equals user who comments on my post or beneficiary equals user who upvotes my post. After that the code would define the math formula or algorithm which determines the amount paid to this newly defined “beneficiary”. Most developers would use the existing code found in the Git Hub library for this algorithm and not rewrite that portion of the code.
I would suggest incentivizing a developer with JavaScript JS experience to write a code modifying one of these interfaces.
In fact, it would be interesting to find out if a developer has already worked on some code to achieve this goal, i.e. a way to change the author/curator split and the code is stored on someone’s Github site.
The final pice of such a code would connect to Steemconnect similarly as we do now when defining interactions between our Posting authority and the Steem Blockchain and especiallywhen defining interactions between our wallet and the Steem Blockchain.
I think that in theory this could be done, and it would not require special permissions from Steemit, inc, as it requires only user granted permissions to change the split for an individual user.
I hope I have summarized the problem correctly and explained my proposal clearly. If not please contact me.
@shortsegments
Voting no here, as I have no way to log into the poll there without giving a third party my key.
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 .
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.
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
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 .
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.
I support the restoration of 50/50 rewards on a post (50% to the author, 50% to the curators). The change to 75% author rewards was extremely damaging, IMO, and led to excessive self-voting and finally to the bidbots we have today.
I made a post on this issue a long time ago that covers my reasoning in depth: https://steemit.com/steem/@blocktrades/voting-abuse-and-ineffective-curation-a-proposal-for-blockchain-level-change
I haven't voted in the poll, as the security of my active key is extremely important, but I would vote in favor of returning to 50/50 split, otherwise.
As a side note, the display of stake-weighted voting seems broken on dpoll right now.
Thanks! I have identified the error in the logs. Will be fixed with the new release. It happens in rare cases - should be ok most of the time.
You should be able to send the operation manually without requiring to use your active key in steemconnect or keychain.
Yup, it's possible to vote without keychain and Steemconnect. Here is a proof of concept.
I don't as a rule self-vote in part because of the 75/25 split ... I definitely will should it become 50/50
Judicious self-voting was originally intended as part of the system: having more stake meant you could bring attention to your ideas/messages. This would also give users a reason to accumulate Steem (there has to be a reason to hold Steem, otherwise it won't have any value, and there will be no reward pool to speak of). On the other hand, if you self-voted on entirely silly things, the idea is that you would get downvoted.
Such a simple concept yet so hard to understand.
@blocktrades, concerning the reason to hold Steem, I think commerce is the best reason of all. We need to get more businesses selling everyday things on Steem.
Yes, more business buying/selling with Steem is definitely super beneficial. That, after all, is the original design goal for cryptocurrency. But it's a tough nut to crack because it's competing against an entrenched competitor (fiat currency) and it's been an uphill battle for all cryptocurrencies to make a dent there. One of Steem's advantages over many other cryptocurrencies is that it has other reasons beside commerce for holding it.
Voted for
I think @valued-customer and @krnel explained already very well, why they are against an increased curation reward. I agree with them.
I read the argument that other methods (vote selling, self-voting) would be much more profitable for (money) investors (don't forget that authors are also investors, time investors) than curating, thus curating should be made more attractive.
I just ask what a few times more profitable means if at the same time the STEEM value is more and more decreasing? I would love to earn less STEEM than now if only the STEEM value would increase again. And it will only increase if we manage to attract more users (who in the best case are contributing interesting content). Only then potential bigger investors (companies) could be sure to reach a big audience (for example when advetising their products).
It's hard enough for new users anyway: to create an account, have enough RC for upvoting and answering comments, earning any small amount with their posts. It would get even worse! And if then for example I would be one of the few upvoters of such a small new account I would get a big part of the author reward myself (as curation) instead to give it to the author ...
I really like to curate already NOW with only 25 % curation reward if I find good stuff (I don't care when I vote and who else did vote). I curate because I like what I see. I think the voting behavior of people who are curating this way wouldn't change much with higher curation reward. I guess only people who curate just for earning money, most of the time in an automated way (without reading what they curate) would be affected by this change.
Voted for
Voted for
I think it's important to first release SMTs and Communities to see how those developments impact things. Those are major improvements that represent paradigm changing additions to the Steem ecosystem and it is important to observe how they change this complex system.
Those features might not just solve the problem, may fundamentally shift the entire dynamics of the system such that the nature of the problem totally transforms, as does the optimal solution. Even if people still feel that curation is not optimized at that time, there is a very good chance that the solution they envision will be totally different once SMTs are out in the wild (or even just advanced Steem-Engine tokens). There is a non-negligible possibility that once SMTs are mature, people will want to remove curation rewards from the base layer entirely and raise that functionality to higher layers where they can be better customized and more rapidly adjusted.
I can see it making sense to remove curation rewards once SMT's become the backbone of how rewards are distributed. Steem, IMO, is not a rewards currency (right now it serves that purpose, but SMT scales much better) - however, it is a distribution currency. DPOS being a vote based system requires great distribution to succeed in the long term.
While removing curation rewards down the road, makes sense from an investor POV, not forcing me to curate in order to get my rightful claim to the inflation, I wonder if we do remove curation would we remove the upvote from the base layer altogether and just direct that to passive interest earned for powering up steem?
And what immediately comes to mind by removing curation is the need for a decentralized resource leasing market, because people need steem to transact on the blockchain, businesses will need to allocate resource credits to new users who don't have access to Steem. - I envision most Steem will be locked up, not being circulated (esp if we remove curation, distribution will decrease dramatically) but rather used to power apps. It may be hard to find steem, or at least the price to entry may be too high for someone just looking to join a steem powered site and not care about paying for the rights to vote on witnesses, ETC.
I do not see eliminating curation rewards as synonymous with eliminating curation itself. Is that what you meant?
Would you please have a look at my comment to @kevinwong above? I'd love to have your consideration of it to contemplate, and I also reckon it's better to see how SMTs, Oracles, and Communities change the dynamic.
Thanks!
But nobody knows when SMTs come. Or you have some Information about?
Voted for
Maybe add a slider for between 25% and 75% for a trial period until finalizing on the exact amount.
I like this idea
My thought is it will give time for curation groups and bot owners to figure it out and for others against it to come around or at least see the effects.
My hope is people will find themselves forced to set it high as bot owners, large voters and curation groups won't interact with people who arent setting it higher.
As for the people saying curation is not linear, I am not sure about the details, but it seems trade off there is also possible. For example the higher the curation on the post the more linear rewards become. Also, curation should be linked to the size of the vote and not post pay out, or no one will curate people outside their circle.
Posted using Partiko Android
The Slider Idea is really good.
The only people against the slider would be people who realize raising curation would actually work but find the current system to be in their advantage. I actually suspect that within a couple of weeks no one will be getting unpaid votes unless it's set at 50-50 and it will even take on the curation bots as people realize curating is more profitable than just delegating which is the current problem in my opinion.
That sounds like an interesting experiment. It would make it difficult for the bots to calculate an ROI if posts have different curation rewards. I am guessing many of the hardcore vote buyers will keep curation rewards low to get a higher ROI on vote buying. I like the idea of offering as high as 75% curation rewards. As I don't buy votes, I will most likely be offering higher than 50% to my curators.
Well if it was like beneficiaries you could change with every post.
Posted using Partiko Android
Voted for
No, for several reasons. I believe bid bots would be capable of adjusting to the new dynamic. They would gain heavily from increased curation reward and be able to pay that forward to their delegators, making this change minimally effective in incentivizing better curation from higher SP individuals. Rather than improving authentic curating, I think a 50/50 split would instead incentivize more curation trails and schemes to maximize rewards. It would definitely slow the velocity with which Steem is distributing out to more accounts. Those who vote generously now would have to start actually tipping Steem instead of voting if they wanted to continue building minnows or their communities up at the same rate they currently are, which simply over complicates the system. Most importantly, I don’t think the current curation system is showing its true maturity and function yet due to Steem’s low userbase. If a post gets genuinely popular at present, it may get a few hundred organic upvotes. We have yet to see true virality and popularity on Steem. With broader distribution and more activity we’ll see curation truly shine as some folks will be the first to discover & promote content that goes on to millions of upvotes! That kind of curation reward won’t be bought or manufactured like in today’s small ecosystem.
edit
I also see a future and application for businesses and brands that purchase stake to reward their fans & customers by upvoting positive posts, reviews, comments, etc. In this scenario those users care more about their voting strength, not their curation kickback. I don’t want my vote based “marketing spend” hobbled by 33%.
Great input. I want to say that curation rewards for bid bots are terrible, as they have zero control over when they upvote, it is supply/demand driven. People use bidbots and upvotes after they have upvoted and usually people don't upvote after they see bidbots have upvoted. Point is curation rewards highly favor those who upvote before most others do.
Also, for low SP holders, the best thing you can do is try to accumulate more SP, so your upvote matters more. Having 50% instead of 25% of curation rewards allocate you the opportunity to earn more curation rewards if you are skilled in timing your upvotes. Meaning, lower SP holders now have more of a chance to increase the SP in their account by effective curating in a 50/50 system. Now, of course, if they self upvotes in this current system, that is the fastest way to get more SP. But I want to make it so curating gives the fastest SP.
I forgot to say businesses that want to reward their users, the best route is an SMT that they have full control over the split. Steem IMO is for distribution, second layer tokens like SMTs will be for rewarding users of each ap. In DPOS, distribution is very important. There should be two layers, one that distributes and a second layer that provides liquid rewards based off the apps popularity.
I’ll be interested in seeing how SMTs play out, but I think Steem itself has good viability here for small business. Sure if Coca Cola gets on Steem there will be a Coke coin, but someone porting over their Etsy shop won’t necessarily want to launch a token.
In a long term future I’d envision average social media users maybe making $50 - $100 USD a year on Steem. Generally not enough to care about linking bank accounts or setting up a fiat gateway for themselves. But they will spend it back to the brands/business/creators that voted it to them... possibly with some extra fiat from their own pocket to boot! It’s really the ultimate “self upvote” as savvy creators get back a chunk of the Steem they “voted away” while building brand loyalty & shopping conversions. I think Steem can handle this elegantly at its base layer.
SMTs don't have to be website specific. I agree that the owner of a shop won't launch a token, but that doesn't mean he will use STEEM. He will use whatever SMT is best for his business, or simply best as a currency. Since every SMT will have its own properties (for example 50/50 curation or not), I will believe the best SMTs will be naturally adopted through economic incentives.
Voted for
No because the Author does the work on the content. The whole argument of value on Steemit is based about the value of content,so I don't understand why you'd want to give half of the content writers pay to the audience. think 25% is a fair take for the audience & ensures money circulates back into the ecosystem. Oh, & I don't even post anymore so this doesn't affect me. The only problem that anyone should be worried about here, is how lame Steemit has become. Audiences are bored and so I don't even tell people about this place anymore, it smells of old socks & dungeon-dwelling programmers
Yeah... this seems imbalanced to me... 50/50... because clicking a mouse button means you should get more and the author less. Not all authors are the same or put in the same amount of work, but anyways, clicking a mouse button, or autovoting and doing nothing, needs to be kept in mind. If the voter likes the content, great, then they get what they wanted: content. Getting curation rewards is a nice extra when all you need to do is click a mouse button and nothing else, even not look at the content if you don't want to... ;) Just click a button to get some rewards back for that action... I like to look at the work being done, and creating content demands more work than clicking a mouse button.
It's not 50/50 in that sense: there's one author and tons of curators on popular posts. The author will pretty much always get more rewards, unless its one big curator doing the voting.
Ya I don't disagree with that. I just point out why curate when I can sell my vote? If you want curation to happen at scale then you must incentive curators to upvote others and not incentive self upvoting. But maybe selling votes and self upvoting being top of the list isn't a bad idea, not saying know. If people are willing to buy votes then there is demand for the eyeballs here.
Changing to 50/50 would just get the vote buying to change how they charge for what % to 'ROI' give, while the delegators and owners would make even more than they do now. That's the outcome I see. Vote buying would continue,a s long as they adjusted and still provided a positive return for the amount of money sent out.
If people want to buy votes, it's not about eyeballs. It's about making more money. Thats why the bots calculate their votes based on money sent to give an ROI that's positive, not negative. Would people use ocdb if the return was negative? Would they use any of the many other bots? Maybe a few would, but that would be the people who are willing to actually spend money to get more eyeballs by reaching a high enough payout to get the eyeballs (like $100). Buying votes to get your post at $10, $20, or even $50 isn't getting anyone any more eyeballs. You have to spend a lot more. That's when it has an effect on the trending page. The majority who buy votes are doing it to get an ROI in a rigged voting scheme-platform where you can just pay to get more rewards. THAT is what makes Steem a sad joke imo.
And you curate, or anyone else, because you care to reward content you value, which is how the whole system is supposed to work (and in exchange you get rewards too, curation rewards). That's when the platform gains more value, when the content is rewarded because its valued by curators. Again, vote sellers just want to make easy money by doing 0-actions, if they cared about rewarding content they would be doing that. And vote buyers want more money because curators aren't curating them, they have to buy votes to get rewards, not earn them.
@ocdb is different from most other bots as it is not content agnostic. You need to be whitelisted by getting curated by the OCD curation team. Secondly, they can throw you out if you buy too large votes for low quality content. @ocdb is a both a curation and distribution bot. It is designed to distribute stake to authors who put in some effort to create decent content.
And with higher curation rewards I believe these projects will be more in demand.
@ocdb aims to give vote buyers 10% in profit. Delegators 90%. Because the bot gets paid liquid STEEM or SBD by vote buyers, it is already easy to adjust the share of profits.
@tarazkp wrote a post about his experiences on Smoke.io where he curates. Smoke is a Steem clone with 50/50 split.
Vote selling platforms as it is already give 100% of the curation and take a small cut off the top. I don't see how they would earn more. Also, curation on bidbots or vote sellers is not good because it isn't timed well, it's used to vote on content that has already been widely upvoted. Most people don't upvote content after they seen it has been already boosted by bidbots, so they usually are some of the last upvotes meaning the tail end of the rewards.
And you're right, people curate because they care. But also, investors curate because they have to, if not they are missing out on Steem they could be earning. Right now as an investor I have to choose between delegating to projects, selling votes, self upvoting, curation (manual/auto). I believe most investors will choose to delegate to projects, but some just want to just get as much Steem ROI as possible because they believe Steem is undervalued.
Tell me of another crypto out there that lets you get more of it by simply click a button or autovoting without looking at the content? None. Yet, what they do get isn't enough, so the greed has them wanting more. Or doing the work of voting isn't desirable when they can do 0-work and still get more crypto by delegation and getting returns that way.
If only merit mattered, where the merit of earning rewards was based on actually evaluating content to reward it, proof of brain. And because you value it, you get a reward too for valuing what others have put forth. It was a great idea, but the greed of wanting more or wanting to get the most with the least work, has us where we are now.
Yeah, ppl can just upvote authors they know buy votes, and its just a badnwagon effect of piling on for curation rewards, regardless of content.
Increasing curation rewards isn't about rewarding the clicking action vs writing the article, but about giving back more to stakeholders, to incentivize them to vote on other posts.
And by the way, what other cryptocurrency requires the stakeholder to lock up their stake for up to 13 weeks?
Would it be so bad if patronizing bid bots no longer becomes profitable?
50/50 doesnt solve the whole issue we're facing now but IMO its a good start.
I completely agree that bidbots and voteselling needs to be in our rearview mirror. I reckon a better mechanism for enabling stakeholders to get a return on their holdings exists, and @steemalliance and the DAO @blocktrades has completed should be that vehicle. We need to create a vector for dividends stakeholders can receive for delegating to development.
Instead of simply gaming the rewards pool and extracting ROI without contributing to the curation of valuable content, or development improving the investment vehicle (Steem), this would make their returns on their investments beneficial to all, by promoting capital gains - which has been the traditional incentive for investors since before we have historical records.
I have just posted a concept that needs community input to become a proposal, but the bones of that idea are in an extemporaneous comment in reply to @kevinwong above.
If you want to know what I think I made a video here with open discussion. https://steemit.com/dtube/@theycallmedan/ptb813uc
If a shop lowers the price on their product and ended up with more sales, is that a loss?
We're talking about Steem the blockchain not Steemit the website. Also, I believe @theycallmedan is doing this exactly because Steem has become "lame". the way things are now does not work and it's high time we explore this proposal that has been talked about for the pass 2-3 years.
No the User make the Work. If you have none read your Stuff is like worthless. Look in google if you are on Site 2. Its worthless. So people help you to share and reward your Voice have more Work. Think about if you real curate, you have to read a Ton of Stuff and Reward the best one.
IF you a a Author you want people to read your Stuff.
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Would be an interesting experiment at the very least. So I would be open to a trial of some sort.
I'm not sure if it would make much different though. People might start curating others more, but would they actually engage in the content, will they even look at it, or will it still just be mostly on auto pilot? It might even make people automate voting even more.
It would make it fairer for those who do curate though, not everyone likes to post a lot.
Voted for
My instinct is against this. Gaining 100% on my curation rewards would be wiped out by what I lost of post rewards and that would be the same for most non-orcas/whales. I know some of those who invested big initially would like a better return, but I think Steem has much to gain if it can get many more small accounts. Maybe it needs some adjustment, but this seems too big.
Of course vote buying is a big problem as it skews the rewards with little relation to quality. Perhaps there could be some change to reduce the impact of votes above a certain level, but I expect the vote sellers would find ways around that, e.g. using lots of accounts.
Steem will never be perfect, but I hope it can keep going anyway.
Voted for
Voting shouldn't be called curation. It's a misleading term. Curation means that experts help other people discover good content, preferably by creating a coherent collection for a certain theme or genre.
Resteeming is a form of curation, but it isn't rewarded. Voting is expressing your own preference, and extending the arts metaphor, it's comparable to buying a ticket for an exhibition or concert. Upvoting posts you like (including your own) should be enough of a reward.
A high reward for voting means that whales who don't post often stay rich, while poor bloggers stay poor, no matter how active they are. It also encourages buying and selling votes, because the voting bots get part of the money back as rewards.
Participation in the network is rewarded by rewarding authors and commenters. It would be better if voting would cost money, like supporting content in the real world does.
Voting does indirectly cost money. The rewards pool used for voting content comes from increasing the supply of Steem, which puts pressure on lowering the price of Steem (inflation). To cover the cost of inflation requires self-voting. Every vote for someone else is distributing coins to someone else which is like paying. The purpose of voting is to reward content that adds value to the platform. This is a community effort.
Voted for
I don't happen to think it really matters how much the percentage changes, the ratio probably won't ever be enough for the desired effect.
The problem is, there's never really going to be enough incentive based on ROI alone to start curating, especially manual curation, which will end up doing the most good, if that's what we're actually going for here. Autovoting and spreading out upvotes across hundreds of accounts by the larger SP accounts that actually upvote isn't going to change, other than the number of smaller votes that each can make might increase.
For me, one of two things is most likely to happen.
As the payout changes to 50/50, Bidbots will make whatever adjustments they need to do accordingly, they will then get the higher SP through curation, and continue to get delegations from larger accounts because they can up their rental fees. Meantime, the users will end up paying more to bidbots to make up for what they're losing in the payout, or they will just get less, period. I don't see hundreds or thousands of curators with large SP suddenly appearing to make up the difference that authors will be giving up, mainly because there aren't that many large SP accounts to begin with, especially compared to the numbers of active lower SP.
Or the system starts to fall apart quicker as fewer people post because the incentive for them to do so is gone. Fewer posts, fewer opportunities to curate, fewer opportunities to maximize profits as more curators fight for fewer rewards.
Personally, I'd like to see this tested somehow. If it can't happen on a testnet because the number of transactions, sample size, duration—what have you—wouldn't be large enough to give an adequate reading as to what would happen if there was a change, then I'd like to see those who would need to be involved with this just go ahead and do it now, without changing anything, to see what would happen. End delegations to bidbots, self-upvoting, circle upvoting, whatever activities we're talking about here, then start curating, preferably manually. Do it for say three months, less if it's possible to extrapolate what's happening. That way, at least someone's theory could be proven, rather than changes being made based on what we individually opine.
Voted for
Think from perspective of 80% population who is not rich or does not have millions in their SP.
They come, write great articles.
First,It is so hard to get rewards on steemit for good work and then even if some of our posts makes good rewards, 50% goes in curation, that would be sad
But it would encourage people to read and upvote their post!
Posted using Partiko Android
Hmmm, people with higher SP does not reach the poors always. So i think it would not help the existing ecosystem anyways. Bot services will keep running and people with huge SPs will get the extra 25 from pockets of genuine content creators.
In addition even if they reached them they couldn't support them anymore as good as before, because they themselves would get a bigger piece of the rewards (as curation) instead to give most of it to the supported author ...
Great reply. That is a real concern I agree but the rich and the tech geeks getting richer is already how Steem seems to work sadly. Steem already is a rigged game against the poorer people on the platform like the traditional financial models. So what do you think we can do to help this situation ?
Posted using Partiko Android
Current situation is bad for content creators.
And the move of making it 50/50 would sadly make the situation worse but they will most probably do this since the big guys are rich here and they are thinking about just their pockets. No community feeling, no user base retention worries.
What can be done to improve situation is :
But i understand since no one cares, at the end of day it all about profit and that is why bot system came into picture and masses left steemit in mid of 2018.
I doubt it, individual curation rewards are even smaller. It's the absolute numbers that matter, not the relative numbers. Yes, 50% of an article reward will go to curation, but that means ALL curators, not just one. So, in the end, plankton and minnows might go from 0.002 SP in curation to 0.004 SP ... Do you think the additional incentive in curation rewards will be enough to sustain engagement in the face of a dramatic drop in author rewards which might go from 4 SP to 3 SP (for a good plankton/minnow post) ? I doubt it
Posted using Partiko Android
This is the 64000 question and I guess I am fence sitting a little but the biggest payout posts will still be getting bid botted so going 50/50 would be an improved distrobution of wealth.
Something must be done to improve organic 'eyes on posts' to make content creation more relevant and encourage customers to come here and read and engage.
There are a million sites online to read content and we need to divert their customers here.
Posted using Partiko Android
I agree that "something must be done to improve organic 'eyes on posts'". My proposal is that posts should be of higher quality. More "Medium" or "Quora" quality, less Facebook or Instagram quality.
As "quality" is relative, the typical way to address this is to foster the creation of communities which agree, each one for itself, what "quality" means for that community.
Fundamentally, you cannot repair broken economics by using solely the economic lever, you need an external reference. Think of a helicopter: it cannot function with one rotor only, it needs a second, stabilizing rotor at the back
and even a dramatic drop in author rewards will mean 99% of authors are earning 100% more than they are anywhere else online!
Posted using Partiko Android
That is not enough. Money (especially in very small amounts as is the case here) is not enough to compensate people's effort of switching to a different platform.
Voted for
If we were to raise the curation rewards to 50% it is hard to predict the outcome - it should diminish the incentives to write articles (hence the number of articles) and thus the overall activity of the blockchain. For investors and advertisers less activity means less value. On the positive, those who do keep writing will do so more because they have something to say than because of the money. At the margin though, I expect to see more people leaving the platform because the rewards will be even smaller than today.
But I admit these are speculative thoughts, it's hard to predict how the community will react. My main problem though is that it doesn't feel right. The effort is not the same in writing an article and in upvoting it. How do you justify rewarding the same two activities which require such vastly different effort ?
Hey,
I think 50%/50% are fair. Because to curate is a hart job. If you read a ton of article and Reward the best ones, its hart work.
Like 100 cooking recipes. A user want only to read the best but if you curate them, thats a ton of work.
In my opinion is curating more work then writing ( depens on article for sure).
The next point is, you need to spend Money ( buy Steem) to get higher votes. So why i should spend money as a Voter?
I would Favour 75% curator 25% Author ( or maybe a Slider).
Reason 1: Make Vote selling less profitable.
Reason 2: Because of the work to curate all this Stuff
Reason 3: Curator need to power up for huge votes, so there Trust the Steem Blockchain for longer Term.
Reason 4: The decision is more easy to upvote as a Investor, if there is no more profitable way.
I think Authors get more Rewards. Because Vote Sellers maybe think " hey i can reward the Content i really like and i dont lost some Steem ROI".
We should work on a System that is not so easy to game. Or Stop the Voting System and make a Subscription System out of it.
I think Authors should get a aditional Author Coin too, maybe a SMT.
Voted for
No, we should not introduce a Voting Slider or change the curation percentage, because this is not the fundamental problem with Steemit.
We need to acknowledge that the Proof of Brain mechanism of Steemit doesn't fit to the overall Dapp ecosystem of the Steem Blockchain. Instead of thinking how we can improve the Author / Curation system we should think about how we can change the rules of the reward pool distribution for the whole Steem Ecosystem. My proposal would be to get rid of Steemit exclusive right to mine Steem Tokens. Steemit should become its own SMT project so that the Reward Pool is free of this entanglement. Than we can develop the Reward Pool towards an DAPP Ecosystem which should put Steempower Holders, RC Holders and Voting rights for Witnesses in the center of the Ecosystem.
Why should we mine Steem by only posting and Blogging on Steemit when the whole Ecosystem is changing towards Dapp Economy??? Please, guys lets take this serious there is no need for changing just the Curation Author reward system we need complete change of the Reward Pool Structure!
Voted for
The creator of the content deserves the bulk of the rewards for that content. Plus it will hurt user retention, enough damage was done with RC in that regard already.
Voted for
Whilst I think a change to the curation mechanism would be beneficial, the proposed approach (like the current system) is too inflexible. Different Steem users have different priorities and any new system should reflect this, allowing Steem to cater to all needs.
For example, some accounts may want to provide upvotes 100% to the author, i.e. with no curation, or at a lower level than the current 25%. Examples could include dApps trying to build their community, or "basic income" style systems.
Clearly some accounts (those currently delegating to bid-bots) would prefer much higher curation even than the proposed 50% but perhaps could be convinced to manually curate at higher curation reward levels.
I would propose:
As I see it, the goal for the "content creation" side of Steem is to get people to vote on the content they like best, irrespective of the timing of the vote or the existing rewards on the post. This will get the best content onto trending.
As for the rewards, you cannot force unwilling people to give vote rewards to others - there are, and have always been, many ways to avoid this on Steem. You can only encourage them back to manual curation by providing the flexibility to distribute the level of rewards they are comfortable with.
Voted for
Voting "no" with my second account in order to draw attention to something else: curation rewards are a red herring. We are wasting effort on a topic which is strategically secondary.
By contrast, one of the BIG, hugely important topics in the steem eco-system is that of personal accountability. If participants felt responsibility about the way they act on the platform, we'd be having a lot less problems and would be seeing a lot less abuse.
Yet personal responsibility is tightly linked to identity. For as long as people can act here anonymously and under the cloak of as many anonymous accounts as they want, we are going to see on display our lowest, most despicable instincts.
Voted for
I do not think 50/50 would encourage manual curation or reduce usage of bid bots. Using 50/50 doesn't mean every voters (if any) will get 50% of their vote value back rather the curation bots that vote at optimal time will get a lot back from their investment.
To my knowledge all current bid-bots take 25% curation split into account in calculating ROI, they might as well take 50% into account by changing 2-3 lines of codes. Some share curation rewards with the delegators now, so they will have no problem sharing then.
Lastly and most important to me, I want bigger rewards for the creators, they put time and efforts into creating contents, so they should receive more, not a person with huge stake or a bot that votes indiscriminately.
Voted for
Voted for
Voting no because authors still need to get something. I'm a lot more of a curator than an author, even running @hoist to help new and (subjectively)good authors. But making sure that new users see some rewards for posting is important to keeping them so 75/25 is a good split. Now that 15 min cooldown period for voting for a post I think we should remove.
Voted for
Voted for
Current system is fine. Making a change in it will reduce author reward.
or more people will vote and the votes increase. Guys that only sell there vote
an unfair approach for the author, employee should earn more
Voted for
I believe that when we start bringing in the masses with a large portion of it is influenced by businesses they need to be able to sustain and know that STEEM blockchain is not a "charitable" organization however its a platform where they can leverage by earning by their own investments staked into the blockchain and also be able to reward their user base.
Even conventional reward programs gives less then 5% of reward points based on the amount spent by their users and users will still try to find the best way to earn more points.
getting the curation to 50/50 is just the first step however with SMT about to be launched (taboo), that variable should be able to be determined by the founder of that token.
Voted for
Let's see what will happen... if the effect will not be positive, we can always go back, right?
LOL, not likely. Of all the changes that have been made in forks over the past 3 years, can you name one that has been reversed?
Good point!
However, if no changes have been restored in the past, it does not mean it cannot be done. ;)
Voted for
I vote yes. If we are in beta then let's be in beta and be bold enough to try things. Throw shit (not literally please) and see if it sticks.
Yep, we should play all we can early.
I completely agree: we have to test, being in beta! ;)
Good point
Hey dude!! Long time no see! How are ya?
It seems to me a lot of bot owners are “eyeing” this 😂😂😂
Posted using Partiko iOS
lol ... i believe so !
👍👏👏
Posted using Partiko iOS
Voted for
How about 60:40
50:50 seems extreme. Yeah, I understand the current reward ratio has loopholes but I'm sure the 50:50 ratio can be exploited as well. I don't think altering the reward ratio will have a significant effect on the voting habits of most steemians. Maybe some sort of debate regarding this can should be done so people can have a more balanced view and then decide.
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
The richer getting richer
sell votes brings the "riches". 95% of there Voting Power back. So i think 50/50 are a good way to fight against vote sellers.
Voted for
50/50 especially when curation rewards are using square root rather than linear rewards? Might as well just ship bundles of cash directly to whales and skip all the intermediary steps.
Voted for
The wealthy curators or big fishes will make more money without doing anything on curation trails. Imagine making 25% more money with a tool like SteemAuto.
Then you collect the money once a month while you are at the beach. ;)
Steem Power is like an axe on the reward pool, the more you have it, the more you make money!
Voted for
Of course, because people will be more happy to curate, investors will invest more in steem power and steem will be just better !
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for