Good content gets good rewards. Great content gets great rewards. Excellent content gets excellent rewards.
Is this the absolute truth? Unfortunately, not.
Due to the Delegated Proof Of Stake (DPOS) mechanism, a wide range of publications aren't rewarded as highly as other content of a similar level. We can't find complete balance with this when there are only a few humans behind the wheel of the curation efforts at the top. There is too much content to digest and reward responsibly on any given day.
The whales ultimately decide what is valuable content if you are looking at the highly rewarded articles they've voted as the "best of the best" on the platform. If only it were as simple as that.
Do you believe that curating content should be rewarded the same as producing content?
We currently have a 50/50 reward split for author and curation rewards on POB. Whenever you receive a 20 POB upvote from someone, you receive 10 POB. The voter gets 10 POB in curation rewards (roughly, I'm elementary here and not taking beneficiaries and token issuance into account).
Consider this... if the higher stakeholders are receiving 50% of the rewards for voting, and you're receiving 50% for creating, are you ever going to build up a stake that "catches up" to the higher stakeholders?
The answer is maybe. Maybe if stakeholders sell off their curation rewards instead of powering up further. Maybe if you buy off the market and participate as well (use other curation rewards to buy off the market if you have the resources). Maybe if you have friends in higher places who can direct votes your way (you'll still not reach their level, but you'll outpace many others).
Too many maybes for me when the true value and attraction of Proof Of Brain comes from lots of people creating and engaging.
Proof Of Brain has started with the fundamentals of three separate projects. HIVE (DPOS structure, PoB), BTC (tokenomics), and LEO (reward split).
If Proof Of Brain is going to differentiate itself from the downsides that the platforms above have, it will need to look deeper into the flaws that they have and adapt before the same results occur. There have already been discussions started on automation and curation trails and how we need to find some solutions to this, so we're able to maintain the Proof Of Brain ideals in the long term.
Within the above post's shared comments, @felipejoys brings up a solid suggestion for a 75/25 reward split instead of the current 50/50. I've been thinking about this for the past couple of days now. I've been considering how LEO currently stands with this reward split in action.
I don't use LEO frequently, so I don't know who the leading players are there, but I know that I need to drop in a considerable investment or impress some whales if I want to get in a decent position.
Don't worry; I'm not even going to try. I'm already friendly enough with @onealfa, and he's never voted me once (well, he did once but removed it the next day).
Even if I impress them, I'm at their mercy because they're the guys who provide the rewards for me to grow and stay on track since it's 50/50. What happens if they don't like what I have to say on this free-thinking/speaking blockchain? (lol)
Anyway, here is my current pros and cons list if POB changed to a 75/25 reward split;
PROS
- Creators are rewarded better
- The increasing gap between high stakeholders and lower stakeholders shrinks
- More liquidity for the market
- More tokens are burned from burn posts for those who think it's a great idea
CONS
- More liquidity on the market = more buying opportunities for HIVE/TRIBE whales (everyone really, but we know who comes out on top)*
- Less quality curation because of smaller rewards?
- Unattractive to investors looking to autovote (could be a pro)
- Faster stake growth from circle-jerking (POB -> other tribes more specifically)
These are basic points I've pondered over; they should be expanded on and challenged, not seen as definite answers by any means.
*This isn't necessarily a black and white position. The main downside is having the existing stubborn mindsets enter into a community where there are efforts being made to change the damaging aspects of the previous models.
Let me know what you think. I was going to make this into an official proposal, but I still think we need to push the discussion further along at the moment.
In terms of importance with regards to the platform right now, I believe that distribution, automation, and curation are at the tippy top (in that order).
Please challenge my perspective and try to make me look like an idiot if you think it's necessary. I promise I won't shun you because you've taught me some insightful lessons about myself.
Don't forget to write your post for this week's POB Word of the Week!
There is 525 POB (delegations) up for grabs.
I am not in favour of changing everything.
Good Question.
I was here (Hive/Steem) in the days of 75/25 and a variety of timing/reverse auction/double payout/linear vs x2 rewards curves... and my primary vote in favor of 50/50 (and I'll add that I was skeptical for a long time!) is based on the fact that it encourages content creators to also be content consumers, which in turn helps drive engagement within the community. And an engaged community tends to be a stronger community that finds it easier to attract new members and thrive.
I think it's important to apply "Big Picture Thinking" here and not just think about who gets rewarded, but what kind of image will a given reward system portray to someone external to the community who's debating whether or not to become part of the picture.
Yep...what he said
I would personally like to see it stay the same 50/50 structure. I myself don’t always have as much time as I want to post but I actively curate posts daily. Me and a lot of other users like myself would lose half of our rewards with this change. I would love to be able to post daily but do not have enough time to do so at the moment, I barely have time to read and curate posts most days.
I think this issue will be a very difficult one to resolve. It takes quite a bit of time to curate manually, (which I prefer), How would the change effect curation from whales or very large stake holders? People seem adverse to vote trails and I fully understand the why of that, but with the amount of work needed to curate and to receive what an investor would consider a decent ROI , will it be balanced from their perspective? I don't think vote trails work, but with less curation will the large accounts go to auto voting via trails?
it is something for all of us to mull over and try to come up with solutions, but if the system is not really broken does it really need fixing? Is the current 50/50 system seen as broken by some people? Are the ones that perceive it as broken on one side of the fence that would provide them more?
I post and curate, and I see myself 100% neutral in the choice, I am also of a small enough account that I Can manually curate, even though I do blind vote on content I have not read or looked at but that is generally on People whom's content I have observed in the past and on people I have chosen to try and help give a boost to.
I have seen some post with lots of comments on the trending list, but when I look at a few of them especially on Hive side, not many of them have replies from the content creator. They just use Hive as another social, media dumping ground for their work from other sites, and I do not think they should receive the rewards some of them get, but that is my opinion and I choose not to vote on that style , (dumping ground), of post.
Ok second idea, what if the curstion split was inversely portional to your stake, so someone with 2 pob vote got 1, someone with a 20 pob vote got 7.5 and so on?
I was thinking the same thing as @bluemoon. Maybe a softer ratio like 60/40 could work. I think that in the beginning of POB we were talking about how this tribe could be different from the other in terms of authenticity and originality, and those come from the authors. So it seem right to me that the author could get a little more than the curator.
A lot of people are talking about the curators not feeling like curate. If this really happen, if just because they are getting slightly less than before (in the 60/40 ratio, not the 75/25), please stop curating. Because it would only show that they are curating for rewards, not for content. And it already go against what POB should be.
Yes yes money is important, I think so too. But it should be the consequence of a good job, not the drive of the mind.
Now about liquidity in the market: As some said before (sorry, not going to read all comments again to find who) I agree that it's not good to have a lot in there, but at the same time, even with 50/50 there are already people selling all they got and not staking 0,0001 POB. I don't think that people who are selling would sell more if they get more reward, so at least the people who are staking can get a little more too.
This is a really mindboger and I can't say for sure what is best. But I'm glad is coming up right now.
Thanks for bringing this up mate!
I personally like the 50/50 split but would be open to a small change like 55/45 it will give authors a little more rewards while still awarding curators a decent amount. 75/25 is definitely way to drastic imo.
"nice post" @calumam ... seriously valid points and observations made but if there ever was a change I'd go for the 60/40 ratio on this one and will spare you my mental droppings as to why :) I could be happy with either ratio though tbh. O.o
The place is new and flat out is a bit of a diff vibe (one which I like and am jaded). In the rather short time I've been in POB am seeing shifts take place a little bit. It would be nice to go to "Hot" and see the POB frontend used vs. others primarily but it's up to the people to mold it like they want it I suppose. I'm still quite curious why all the new taxes and stuff being put out there are not being questioned. We already pay an additional amount to the Community so we're not even getting that 50 percent then if the taxes talked about on Hive affect communities and the whole additional fees to power up or down. I TAKE THE DEAFENING SILENCE AS A HUUUUUUGE RED FLAT OP/ED
In the publication industry, generally the book writer or the article writer gets a very small amount of the total business of the book or the ad revenues from the article. It is the marketing agency which gets a significant chunk of the profits (whether it is amazon or apple or even learning market places like Udemy).
In this case of Hive and its tribes, the publication becomes trending if and only if it is voted by the whale. Hence, indirectly the whales do the marketing for you. So going by the logic of the centralized industry and fiat world 50/50 looks correct.
Secondly, the tokenomics depends upon the whales, since they are buying the prices of the tokens are supported and we are all motivated to make more contributions.
@onealfa is one the investors who helps in stabilizing the prices of the #pob tokens in the hive markets. They will invest their money only if there is an "opportunity" to make more money.
50% curation creates that economics around the content.
This helps the content creators as well. Just imagine, if the whales don't vote on any content as the curation is only 25%, then will the contributors be able to earn even the current rewards at 75%.
In tokenomics, whales occupy the highest position and by reducing the rewards we are probably disturbing the whole economy built around content generation.
Just this was what I made in a comment in an article in @onealfa, it will be interesting to see the price of pob when money is no longer coming from Lithuania.
When I first came to Hive and saw that the rewards were split 50/50, my initial reaction was that authors should receive much more than 50%. However, as I began dialoguing with others, I discovered that the rewards used to be skewed toward authors (75/25, I think), but that created a huge incentive for circle-jerking among certain whale accounts, which left genuine authors with even less.
I think another solution exists (and I am working on that, but I am still about 3-4 weeks away from being able to explain it in detail). No guarantees my 'new solution' will work, but it is something that I believe has a decent chance at working and I am willing to invest time and resources to try it out -- stay tuned.
I have my eyes wide open waiting for that moment to come. Something tells me that it will be more than interesting.
This is getting better and better, since behind pob there are brilliant minds, and I do not doubt that in the other tribes there are none, the difference I believe and lies in the ambition, which is still not seen much here in pob and if it is something that abounds in other communities.
And quite possibly the same actors who encourage that ambition in other tribes like (Leofinance) are the ones who want to take control by force here!
Let me guess :p
first vote from curator A to author B = 100% of their vote value
second vote from curator A to same author B = 95% of their vote value
Something on that lines?
🤣
This makes me reflect and remember my beginnings within the blockchain, especially in leofinance, they are 2 very different perspectives. I remember being very well received here in Pob, with great willingness on the part of colleagues to answer any questions. very different in leofinance where the largest whale to which you refer, questioned the fact of wearing a mask within the 3 photos, of which 2 was without said mask ... it seemed so arrogant and not very courteous and since then I have thought about that.
I wonder if in this way, a visitor would like to be received in a house, I must assume that the ego, has reared them and when noticing the degree of flattery to which they are subjected, it is where it shows where it feeds.
And with respect to 75/25 it is an issue which should take on great relevance, if this well benefits people of lower rank like me, it is also a double-edged sword, little is being cultured with stake and this can cause a collapse and be left in the hands of voldemort
interesting point, on repeated occasions I have commented something similar, but I suppose and this is where freedom of expression and the wonderful mechanics of non-sensura come in.
mmmmm ... although reviewing some articles may work better if you publish something about nature, roses, or planting a garden, it is very possible that you will achieve more empathy with respect to who you mean, I have seen great rewards in those contents!
There are great issues which I do not dominate within the community, but I do have experience regarding an environment with a lot of liquidity (And I mean the country where I live) which flooded with liquidity and now the currency is close of the underworld (If that exists), then based on that, where I could deduce that a 75/25 is not such a good idea, and it can and does take me after this, since as someone who is in the ranks more bottom of the chain of power, it would undoubtedly benefit greatly, not only my economy but also my participation in stake could rise much faster!
I like 50/50 .... it encourages Curators to curate.
I agree some of us don’t have to much time to post like myself everyday. Some days I barely find time to read a few posts engage and curate. This way I still get rewarded for my curation even though I might not have enough time to post.
50/50 is better. When 75 /25 , 75 for stakeholders and 25 for content creators will make content creators less motivated. The effect is that POB will only circle among whales. There will be no fair distribution. New members will find it hard to get upvoted because the curators will hold their vote only for the circle of friends and closed members. As you can see that the trending posts are almost from the same authors.
When new members are not motivated, they will leave the platform and sell their few amounts of POB. This situation will make hyperinflation of POB in the market. Middle man of creators will also less motivated to post on POB. It will make POB an exclusive community. Once whales need to cash out POB on their holding, it will dump the price of the POB in the market. One thing that more content creators join is the reward system. When in a month, they get only few cents, they will leave this platform.
75/25 will just incentivize circle jerking upvoting as well as the upvoting of proxy accounts. It's human nature to pursue the most profitable route. Seems like people have learned nothing from Steem's early days. Sigh...
Yeah, 75/25 is like donation model, why someone would buy POB when hive has 50/50 split?
Agree, 50/50 is a fair share. Leofinance has proved the model that attracts more authors and investors. Besides that, 1 month of powering down is another side that attracts more investors.
And Not only Hive. How about LEO?
Do you think I would have sell about ~5000 LEO ( where it is 50/50) and put all the received funds in buying POB ( which did last few weeks) with only 75/25 ???
This could be the most STUPID think I could do in my entire life
Are they able to change it without proposal?
Yes, 75 curators 25 authors will make authors less motivated, 75 authors and 25 curators will make investors run away.
I'm glad to se more and more people understand this
I thought they meant 25% for the whale?
You're right, there is a lot of inequality in content curation. I've seen great content being ignored, and low-maintenance content highly rewarded. Sometimes when I see it, I think that I do not know if it is luck or a matter of being a friend of a whale. But, wait ... whales get along with whales (mere truth). What makes the system fall into abuse, closes doors to new content creators and also, it is always the same people who lead the trend positions ... And I have seen it in all the tribes, not only in POB . I think it is a difficult evil to correct. Nepotism has existed since before Christ. But, putting that aside ... regarding the rewards, 50% to 50% is good if the creator receives good votes, it could give him an opportunity to generate money for himself and stake. But, if the context is: receive small votes? then you have to decide (there is no other way). But it is also fair because it allows the curator to earn money. In sound mind, 50/50 is fair. This is deeper, I don't want to swim here.. JJ. (I'll have my cup of coffee in peace)
Greetings. Have a wonderful day.!
Go welcome to the club in case I share a large part of your points, but I also give some credit to those who vote, it is a sea of content overnight in pob, I think it happens due to the fact that there are no rules about that you can publish or not, that's why you see that we have a complete and beautiful chaos within pob, where you can find statistics of the tennis open (Is there not an exclusive tribe for sports) or you can also see how repairing a guitar has a lot of relevance, is where you understand that everything is subjective, linked to what I call, TIME, FACTOR and SPACE, when these three come together, no matter how good or bad your article is, it will be fine for you!
LOL. A holy rough sea!
I haven't studied the voting power of whales but I don't think they use it all up every day. With a different split of say 60/40 or 67/33, they could probably earn the same amount of rewards by voting more. At the same time authors get more rewards to stake and grow a stronger middle class.
To avoid circle-jerking maybe whales can agree not to vote for each other and their alt accounts or on anyone with pob power above a certain threshold (e.g. 10,000 pob power)? The bar could be raised as more accounts cross the threshold. This is very idealistic and requires the good faith of all involved.
From a price perspective, i'm not sure it will result in a dump. On one hand, authors who are going to dump will have more to do so, but whales can always control that by choosing not to reward them. Ultimately, when one has too much of a resource, they will dump it for something else elsewhere. It's true whether it is a whale or a minnow.
@calumam this is a very thoughtful post that has kept a lot of people thinking for a long while.
I was about to make my suggestion s known but I decided to read through the comments first, it has been interesting all the way seeing different opinions with strong backings.
When I read @charcoalbuffet opinions which lined with mine to an extent.
At the first paragraph, I was thinking of a readjustment in the persentage, something like (60/40)% is very much on track.
For the second paragraph, I don't think that would happen. Good contents are meant to be rewarded no matter if the creator is a whale or not, having more stakes shouldn't deprive you from getting adequate rewards
Thanks, corporateay. Regarding paragraph 2, it is a modification of something that happened back in 2017. Not sure what the conclusion of that experiment was but I thought it was an awesome period for the platform.
Anyway, it will require folks with that much stake to decide whether doing so would be for the benefit of the community, otherwise it won't work.
On an individual post, definitely agree. Whales do make a lot more from their curation so I'm not sure if they would mind their occasional post not being rewarded as much.
I wouldn't want to tell anyone how they should vote. Ultimately, we create the community/society we deserve through our votes or lack thereof.
As an investor I really like the returns on pob. I get your reasoning but prefer 50.50
I see three major issues for discussion in this whole 75/25 or 50/50 matter. First: distribution. Second: curation. Third: investment attraction. (I don't really know what you mean when you say 'automation' can you explain further, pls?)
On these other three issues, we know distribution is really important and so is curation and investors. The current 50/50 does it promote distribution, curation and investors attraction more than we predict 75/25 would? My bet is that it does. 50/50 gives more incentive for investment and so attracts more investors (also gives more incentive for powering up which also passes for investment). 50/50 gives more incentive for curation and finally causes more distribution as a result of this increased curation.
There are a lot of arguments for 75/25 but can 75/25 score so high on this three issues like 50/50 does? Bet not.
I wrote this post on the topic. TLDR: Changing the split would turn away investors and be bad for the platform. Currently authors get paid more here than anywhere... why mess with something that is already working great.
Yes .... 75/25 would work if Curators/Investors earn 75% and Creators earn 25% .... we need to encourage Investment and Better Curation.
It would not work and be off from reality - I rather would do the opposite 25-75 (ok maybe bit too much :-)!) as we need to attract investors which are mainly also curators. I cross my fingers this works in the future - a bit concerned these days to see LEO drop a lot even below Hive prize which I currently use to buy and stake a bit more Leo (hope this is a good decision) while also powering up Hive and PoB.
Hi @calumam,
I can't tell concretely from this post if 75/25 is weighted toward the author or the curator.
Some years ago we had 75/25 weighted to author. That was the age of bidbots and delegation rentals. Bidbots would rent staked power from whales. If you pay a bidbot then they would vote for your posts. That created a sick culture. In a best case scenario creators will create a lot to get votes but considering the return for curation is only 25% they wouldn't have much reason to stake power and their influence declines even thought they are making content.
Now if the vote was weighted toward the curator 75/25 then curation would become masturbation or at best circle jerking. Most would put their vote where they could get the best return.
It's good to think about every scenario but I can't see anything better than 50/50
Really complicated! The idea seems very good, but in a detailed analysis of the pros and cons, I think that the risk of actually curating curation activities (good wishes) is great, and from there we will see situations like the steemit where posts have very low reward value it doesn't motivate anyone.
It seems a sudden movement that would not completely solve the problem, however, I understand nothing, it is only personal opinion. And at least for someone like me (a Brazilian), I cannot complain about the current model, even though it is only 50% of the value, it is a very attractive payment when the dollar is converted into BRL. But, I will keep an eye on the ones that the most knowledgeable decide!
Uhm, what a controversial topic... like everything that involves money. The blockchain, even if we don't like to see it that way, is money, gentlemen, and those of us who are here want to generate income and have fun while it happens. We are different actors and each one will defend his role to the hilt: the content creator, the curator and the investor. And in the end we are ALL the same: I create content, but I can also curate and invest (stake, buy, etc), and each of us invests time, knowledge and desire in each of these roles. If the creator's reward is lowered, I will simply lower my quality or end up leaving; if the curator's reward is lowered, then he will not do the job in the best way and could even fall into bad practices and harm the creator; and if the investor sees his money at risk, what will he do? He will also walk away with all his dollars. We ALL want to win, so I think it should stay 50/50 and work because the blockchain and the community grow, so we will win more. We can't forget that in this space there is subjectivity in all of us and human beings are ambitious and the more they have, the more they want and that can be detrimental. That is my perspective.
Wait, if we do 75/25 split then we are adding another barrier to manual curation. I think maybe we should go for 60/40 split. I think the best solution to 'token distribution' problem is to create and promote curation projects. Btw, 50/50 split is the reason why anyone would want to stake their PoB, otherwise there would be no reason. What I am trying to say here is 'staking' will be lucrative if people get more rewards for curation.
On Hive, the distribution of rewards is getting wider day by day, thanks to the several curation initiatives that are working day and night to support underrated authors.
These projects on PoB can provide returns to delegators in Liquid PoB. I am sure many would delegate to bootstrap. We can rely on a group of people rather than one person. For a solo stakeholder, it gets tough to distribute rewards manually to a wider range of people every day. It's humanly impossible to expect them to go all in. Whereas a group that is fully dedicated to doing this on a 24-hour basis will perform better. This can also be coupled with curation trails to make it more interesting and efficient.
In short, these projects can pay curators, pay delegators and distribute rewards in a decentralized manner. WIN WIN WIN for everyone! We need to create a self-serving economy where everyone is incentivized.
Very interesting topic to talk about . I will say my opinion with a detailed post ( maybe will add some data to spice it up :p )
That's definitely messed up, I won't vote someone and remove the vote the next day even it they stole my wife. But then he's probably done something similar to me so I guess it's probably normal.
But then sincerely the cons of 75/25 is quite of a concern. I wouldn't want a lot of liquidity to be in the market as this can tank the prices. Sincerely, the people complaining that the 50/50 isn't fair are the ones that would abandon POB if the prices tank, I think 50/50 is fine. I believe curators too need the incentive to curate if not they wouldn't deem it too necessary.
You're a brilliant man, you have done the best so far for POB, distribution is fine as too much liquidity will kill the value and less value actually drives people away. As for leo, I think POB is different and shouldn't be compared with the yardstick.
Congratulations @calumam! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 15000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPSupport the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
Interesting points you make there, matey.
I've not disappeared or anything - just having to change things around a little to cover my rekt hive earning from 'you know who/ what..'
Keep up the good work, I'll be back fully as soon as I've sorted things out...
(i'd love to dissect it and make you look like an idiot!...lol.... but I'm not focused here right now - and my dissecting would only be with the best of intentions - but you already know that)
As a content creator, i would favour the 75/25 model. The main goal with the 50/50 was to incentivize more manual voting. Most of the changes that have been made on hive over the years have been, in my opinion, geared towards making the whale participate and in the right way.
From a content creator's point of view, more rewards incentivize better posts ( I earn decent upvotes from my pob posts so I can't complain. however, if is was enough to even forgo other tribes and even hive, that would be something. i want to think from a competitive viewpoint--attracting more content creators and engages to pob (I still do want to see a modern interface--that's top on my list)).
It may work, but you must take into account how little the population community has been educated to maintain their pob, and as long as that does not happen, then this effort will be in vain, everything will go directly to the sales orders and it will end in a few hands as before!
i don't think that would change if there the reward ratio changes. the 50-50 ratio doesn't stop people from selling either. those who see value in the coin will hold long term. personally, I think it is about creating more use-cases around a coin to maintain its value over time.
That's where you give reason without knowing what I mean, if now that the reward is 50/50 in some cases 100% is sold and nothing is left in stake.
Now imagine the scenario but with 25% more to be able to sell, and if that does not seem like little to you, just multiply it by 60% of those of us who are active in this community, and that is where you will see the increase and how much it can get to flood of liquidity to the market, which would result in a drop in price!
This is highly unlikely. If it was the case then even with a 50/50 model the price will tank (given your scenario where most people are selling all their token). A 25% increase would only translate to a deeper dip, but the impact of a mass sell action would still be obvious even with the 50/50 ratio
I don't there is no directly correlation between increase in author reward and selling pressure.
It is case between price stability and better distribution.
you are within your rights to think that way, but the math points the other way, and I am not at all right, but you don't have to be that smart to figure it out, you just have to see how the market has behaved and draw your conclusions based on what you see!
It's simple just follow the money trail and do a couple of sums!
The reason POB's price is strong is because investor's think they understand the rules of the game (economic model) regarding the tribe. POB isn't like other tribes where you can change the levers midgame. You should think of POB like bitcoin. Bitcoin is boring but people trust it. Trust is EVERYTHING.
great point, but you can maintain a level of trust and still change/improve by being open and straightforward with your ideas, and including other members of the community while trying to achieve consensus, which seems to be what is happening here.
I've been wondering what curation actually is on Hive. I mean no-one has fully explained it to me so how would I know. Can anyone curate and if so how? Pretend ur talking to a 5 yr old coz that's how it feels on here for me. ;-)
upvoting = curation
OK. I did hear this. I will use my upvotes wisely then, thankyou.
Upvoting / liking a post is what is called curation.
There is usually a reward attached based on several factors especially your stake
Thankyou, very good to know. I've upped my stake recently so will see what difference it makes. I'm more of a content creator than anything else tho, voting is a chore but will keep it up for the good of Hivers.
Always the artist, the creator earned less than the merchant, the one who sold the work. Here the curator is not really a merchant, but both the author and the curator are connected to each other and depend on each other, but they want to win something. If we still want to give importance to the one who makes a greater effort and creates something, then the reward should not be equal, but 75/25 seems disproportionate to me (although it would suit me). A ratio of 55/45 or a maximum of 60/40. So I think it can be better but without being able to bring the arguments after some logical projections of the consequences of such changes.
I always thought the jump from 75/25 to 50/50 was a little extreme but saw its merit in the sense that you didn't just have to solely rely on author rewards to grow your stake. Also it encouraged more activity in a sense.
On the other hand, all one needed to do to get curation rewards was set up an autovote and hey presto, you get the same rewards as you give on auto to someone who may be busting their balls (or female parts).
Has a 60/40 or 66/33 author/curator setup been considered? Seems to be the best of both worlds if you want to keep encouraging authors and there is still enough of an incentive for curators?
The 75/25 or 50/50 diatribe always carries positive and negative opinions, it depends on who usually expresses his opinion.
I have always been of the opinion that authors are the focus of every blog and without which there would be no curator.
I am a post author, I like to write and I don't have many chances to buy tokens so obviously I would like to get more rewards, I guess whales like @onealfa who invested a lot of capital would rightly like the 50/50 system confirmed.
Which option is the best? Could we think of an additional reward system for curators, such as reward.app?
What is the full meaning of POB?
I believe that POB is a great community with a great future, staying as it has been doing is important so that it continues to expand and be of benefit to everyone. Despite not having a lot of time in the community, I find it great and it is a pleasant environment, it seems to me that it is towards horizontal management rather than vertical, and this is really good for decentralized communities. I am sure that the leaders will always do the right thing and will always take the helm of the ship on the right path. Regards
Well, either way we're at the mercy of the whales. Maybe a 60/40 split instead so curation doesn't dump drastically.
I might be wrong but lets say i write a really good post and it get 25 POB votes from 4 whale. At the end I get 50 POB and each whale gets 12.5 POB, I have gained 37.5 POB on each whale? Rinse and repeat and I catch some whales..
As long as they don’t post of course.
Of course if we are serious lets go 90 / 10 then the only way to earn is to produce
I think the 50% -50% percentage works well, but if I had to make any changes... Something around 55% - 45% or 65% - 35% would be more appropriate.
I lost time to comment on this post. I just saw it today.
Regardless, there are already many opinions here.
What worries me in the long run is the lack of news and investments in POB
If we always continue with the same front end and nothing new or updated here, that POB value will eventually fall and there is no point in piling up today to get to the top.
Let's look at LEO, which has already reached more than 1 dollar the token and has a different front end and several projects and even so the value today is low ...
Let's think about the long term and not the short term just thinking about getting more and more POB ...
I still didn't laugh but damn that's an impressive trail of comments like woah! You don't reblog the shit outta anything and everything, too, that's comforting. I'm sure you'll say something funny eventually.
Now don't disappoint!