deleted
deleted
3 years ago in Proof of Brain by antonym (56)
$11.40
- Past Payouts $11.40
- - Author $5.71
- - Curators $5.70
62 votes
- trostparadox: $6.13
- buildawhale: $2.91
- themarkymark: $1.26
- proofofbrainio: $0.40
- smartsteem: $0.16
- therealwolf: $0.10
- thatgermandude: $0.06
- samrisso: $0.04
- holovision: $0.04
- smartvote: $0.04
- dylanhobalart: $0.03
- madstacks: $0.03
- allcapsonezero: $0.02
- nonsowrites: $0.02
- bluemoon: $0.02
- juanmiguelsalas: $0.02
- makerhacks: $0.01
- tombstone: $0.01
- steemitboard: $0.01
- failingforwards: $0.01
- and 42 more
Actually the curve is not that bad, better than most. Certainly better than Lassecash's disaster.
There is always going to be favored authors, but I would say {POB has a pretty decent curve considering. Curation on the other hand I think is a different story. You can see what I mean about that by looking at the staked tokens here:
As for 50/50 vs 75/25, I believe 50/50 is the fairest distribution. Even though authors appear to be doing "all the work", it's a lot harder to amass a good amount of stake than it is to write a blog post about what you had for lunch. Not only do you have to buy/earn a lot of stake, you got to spend time curating. I believe 50/50 provides an incentive for curators to be more benevolent and organic (although I agree this doesn't really happen as much as it should) rather than self serving.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Oh yeah. We definitely agree on Lasse. We already talked about this. :D
I'm probably biased since I'm earning more as a writer right now. :)
But it's a moot point, since I'm pretty sure changing the split wouldn't get the writers more value anyway.
So we agree. We should stay at 50/50.
I don't have the perfect solution to this problem, but one thing I always ask my readers for is that when they see a quality publication, don't hesitate to mark me in the publication so that I can take my vote there. I recently made a post encouraging people who tag me in posts of this type, who would be rewarded with a percentage of my vote
It is not the best of solutions, but in the short term it is something I found for the moment
Just yesterday I saw an article that I found interesting and I took the care to tag some whales, following that example you proposed in an article days ago, just in case I didn't tag you because I think a colleague had already done it!
This is why I started my "contest". For this kind of posts with no votes. Anyway, I think that the one who looks at the posts in the way you are describing is thinking more about the rewards than the content of the post. Why should the amount of reward be the reason to read a post?
Your contest is great!
"Why should the amount of reward be the reason to read a post?"
Because currently that's the only metric we get. I don't have the time to read 20 posts in the new page. That's why I'm proposing to show us the amount of views and votes to be able to pick posts based on something else.
If I remember correctly there was a time on Steemit that you could see the amount of views a post had had regardless of the amount of votes.
I don't think removing the monetary value would be good but it might be interesting to add the amount of views.
😅 I've had a lot of free time lately.
Thank you!
Yeah. That seems to be the consensus.
I hope, this will turn into something and we will be able to see the views in the near future.
This is my first time reading about this 75/25 debate and I agree with you wholeheartedly!
I've been here for a short time, but from what I can muster, POB will diversify as it grows, soon there will be curation for most, and there always will be big whales and big authors with big rewards, but I also see the little sardine voting without giving much thought to the whole economic aspect of it.
I guess this is the better discussion, how to make POB a mainstream social network, where there are so many curators, there will be enough for all authors... Maybe the debate shouln't be about 75/25, but about 25/75, to attract more curators/investors, as well as to improve the research tools and the amount of info that is shown, like you mentioned.
It's just an ideia...
I don't know the answer, but I'm confident we'll get there!
Thanks for you post!
It's smart on your part and even more so when you admit that you want a bit of pop from turning it into an article, I hope to see a little more content on these discussions which you initiate. So I think others will have the opportunity to use your articles when it comes to discussing something that concerns the community.
As for not showing who votes, I think it is a terrible idea, it lends itself to a murky competition, I think that showing who votes for you is a double-edged sword that should never be changed.
As for the number of votes with zero value, it has touched me, and I feel that it is a phenomenon that little by little becomes common, I think I have reached just over 400 votes in an article and its value was never more than $ 3, I think that although we are looking to have a population economy, the eggs should not be 100% in a canazta, this is not what I mean by having little commitment, on the contrary since I mean having a commitment very similar to when you started riding Bicycle as a child, you did not do it for money but for fun, this works in an abysmal way, when you do something for fun or passion, money comes alone.
When the trending / hot / new page is full of posts talking just about POB, I'm out - moving my attention to reading posts from other communities. If 361 people found your post valuable that is fantastic. I also had a post that got 516 upvotes and tons of comments with 56 POB, so what? If writing that post connects you with another human being and you become friends, bingo. If that post brings you closer to a new client, bingo. I know people here obsess about tokenomics, however this "game" just like the game of life, goes way beyond tokenomics & money.
You've made a lot of wonderful points @antonym and it's definitely nothing, but the truth. Regarding the display of names of those who upvote a particular post, i think that might not really work well since these names will also display on the hive interphase.
So my take on this is to leave the names, but never show the value of upvote for each names. Those who voted will be able to see the value of their own upvote, but won't be able to see the value of others as well.
Regarding the aspect of receiving an upvote from a curation trail that shows no appreciable #pob value, most of these votes are from the hive interphase. This still bulge down to my previous point suggesting the removal of pob values of the voting individuals. Though the total amount of pob earned on the post will remain displayed.
Thanks for the great insight once again @antonym
Personally, I think there should be a slight tilt towards authors but maybe not 75/25. 60/40 or 67/33 maybe ?Curators could still earn roughly the same amount by spreading a bit more love if my math is right.
On the selling pressure, while I think it will increase in the short term, longer term, it will be better for the system. I've seen many examples in real life and on the blockchain, when whales have too much of one market, eventually they take their money to another market and that causes a crash.
I think I know which network you're referring to. A lot of rules that work in real life fail because of multi-accounts.
If curators vote 100% for 1 person or 50% for 2 persons or 33% for 3 persons , they will get same curation rewards so yes you are right :)
Would love to know too , it is important for everyone to talk about it .
I believe this is the informationvault, stemaddict, brainylady, joytheteacher, abundanceheart gang as they were doing something similar unless there's more than one going around. They seem to have left pob when asked for an explanation for their behavior.
Really good analysis, bro!
I agree with everything you've said here apart from the 'Don't Show us the voters' thing. I'd say it is really important for transparency that the voters are shown, the amount of foul play not showing the voters can open up like you fear is so much that it trumps the advantages you've mentioned here.
Not only worth a full post, but also a very distinct analysis! thank you!
The distribution of wealth should be larger than other platforms. That makes the platform has value. When wealth distribution is among few circles, new members are like begging for upvotes for the whales. That is not ideal model.
When more wealthy accounts exist in POB, earning from hive is widely open for new members that start from zero power. As we know that most new members are starting with zero power. They join to earn. if they have no wide opportunities in this platform, sooner or later, they will leave this platform and the tokens will have no value in the market.