Hello there,
I know, thanks for reminding us that. It would be great to have some statistics regarding self-voting after HF20 and if the objective was met. Since you have a voice and ideas given for Steemit to improve, I would like to take the opportunity and ask you,
- How about only eliminating the timeframe for voting and leaving the rewards as they are now?
- Why going up to 50% instead of 35%? for example.
- What kind of calculations are behind those numbers?
What I'm thinking here is that curation can be stimulated but not to the point of making that equal to content creation. Of course, I'm asking for things beyond what has been posted about this. Perhaps since you've been involved in those talks this post mention were held, you can give us some more info about the reasoning behind the decisions.
In any case, thank you.
50/50 between authors and curators isn't even close to "equal to content curation". Because there's one author and a lot of voters.
Saying equal is talking about the rate of distribution. It's a 1:1 relationship. But of course, what you are saying it's completely true. There can be many voters on one post, and while they get the 50% of their vote back, the author collects the other 50% that represents the addtion of all those 50% from each voter. Still, we see 400 votes on a post that equal 2 STEEM and while the author obtained 1.5 now he would obtain 1. Whether those votes got there through trails, or bots, or manual curation, it's still concerning how this change will affect content creation.
It would be amazing to define the standars to see proof of brain actually met on the platform as a guide for current and new users. Maybe something the dev team could work on and publish as general guidelines.
There wasn't an special calculation performed to come up with 50/50 vs some other combination. 50/50 is just a reversion to a formula that was working better.
After the switch to 75/25, we saw the rise of vote bots and the result was that manual curators like me pretty much gave up in disgust. The rules of voting became simple under 75/25: delegate to vote bots or have your stake eroded badly versus those who didn't delegate to vote bots. Either way, eventually all stake was going to be delegated to voting bots.
I also saw a pretty clear decline in the quality of articles on trending as a result, destroying the promise of "proof of brain" on the platform.
hey, thanks for answering. This is pretty interesting. You think reversing the formula back to 50/50 would have an impact against bots? Manual curation can be increased after this hardfork?
That's the main intent of the 50/50 change, to encourage more manual curation again.