As of now there are three options: 100% power up (which I am using now), 50% split, and decline payment. But what if you want to give your payment to someone else. Maybe it is a contest or a post to support someone else. You can do the 50% split and then give them the liquid, but that is only half. And that is if you remember. Since you have to wait for seven days it is easy to forget who you wanted to give the money to and even if you remember you have to find it to figure out the amount. Would it not be easier to just select a person when you post and give the reward money to them.
You would be able to select the option under the rewards section when you post, and when you click on it another box would come up where you can enter an @ name. Maybe you can add up to three and they can split it among them. In order to make it less complicated, it would be 100% power up, the system would calculate the total and split it between everyone involved. Then the people can take it out as a power down if they wish.
This would help add more community to the site. You can make posts to support other users and not have to worry about the split down the line. And it would also help others know that you are being honest, when they can see where their money is going. Maybe we can even add the option of a blank name that can be filled in after seven days for contests, that way you can enter the winners.
What do you think?
*my upvotes/rep disclaimer: https://steemit.com/steemit/@whatageek/my-steemit-account-where-i-stand-on-bots-self-votes-and-multiple-account
The blockchain can support this since hard fork 17 even though the interface does not yet. It's a real pity, no one is really talking about it any more, but for example the eSteem app takes a 5% cut every time you post through it. See here for example (note that percentage
500is 5%)I'm working on a small single purpose app here which is not done yet but when it is you'll be able to do exactly as you say here. Though ideally it would be available through steemit.com
That is awesome! Thanks again for your hard work and dedication to Steemit.
I think its a great idea, indirectly people do this anyway, but why not add the functionality which would certainly increase the adoption.
I think this is a great Idea to help hold contest easier and not worry about waiting the 7 days, finding the name, and then getting them the exact number of SBD for the post or whatever you are giving away. Also you can help someone that you want to help by just posting content and you can help them.
I believe this actually exists, there just isn't a user interface for it yet. This is the rewards split feature that was introduced a couple hard forks ago. It's how Steem projects like ChainBB are able to keep a percentage of the rewards generated by content posted on their site.
*edit - Just checked and ChainBB has designed an interface to do this already. Post here. Lets hope Steemit builds a UI for it soon.
You're absolutely correct.
I think that's a great idea :)
I still don't get it, I keep mine at 50/50.
I appreciate folks like you who are trying to make this whole thing work better.
Thanks
Yes, nice idea in some aspects but not in competitions or giveaways, because how will you know who will win your contest before you post it?
Sounds like a great idea, why not :-)
That is a supercool idea.
You have an agile mind, and a heart for service.
So, what can be done to keep, actually to return, curation in the hands of people, rather than bots? Would making votes equal cause bots to decline in utility? Would making VP be unaffected up to ~75 - 100 votes and then rapidly decline discourage bots?
Steemit is about human interaction, and bots curating devalues all our contributions.
While there are plenty of other, even more pressing problems at the moment, such as VP decay (that is savagely curtailing curation), and SP weighting of VP (which is forcing whales to self vote, or vote in cliques), bots curating debases the value of Steemit to people, and this isn't a problem I have been able to even speculate a solution to in my head.
You're smarter than me. What can at least discourage bots from being involved in curation?
I think you're off on a wild tangent here, @whatageek did not make one mention of bots. And as far as I know they are an avid user of bots 😅
Rate limiting of voting power (i.e. after you vote your voting power drops somewhat, what you call VP decay here) is designed to limit the advantage of bots over people, and indeed of people who can afford to sit around all day up voting content. This is even more effective since hard fork 19.
I don't think there's a way to discourage (or rather disincentivize) bots which would not make human curation meaningless.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the first half of Jul 07. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $16.94 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jul 07 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.