Right now curation rewards is the only incentive to hold long term. If we didn't have that I wouldn't have much faith in steems survival. I'm hoping there will be more incentives to power up (gamification maybe), but I also see curation being a really valuable role in making this the greatest social media platform alive. If people are rewarded for GOOD curation, I imagine there will some day be professional curators who started their career through steem! It will take time and the guilds are necessary for that to become reality.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You actually didn't answer my question :P Why facebook or reddit didn't have to pay for people votes? IMO this is because people just like to vote, when something is worth the effort.
Right now on steemit most of articles always has more votes than visits - conclusion is simple - autoupvoting has really nothing in common with good curation.
People are smart, because we can learn from mistakes. How often people revisits their steemvoter settings? If they don't, they actually decreasing quality. And right now there is incentive to vote for anything if you do not know what is worth of your vote.
The reason other sm platforms don't pay people to vote is because they prefer to use an algorithm to do their curating for them. Our likes and shares are only a small part of their algorithm. They don't care what we like or want to see. They care about what their stake holders want us to see.
An algorithm is cost effective but it's centralised and censored so we don't even always know what an algorithm is propagating or censoring.
Auto voting isn't always bad. A curator can decide this author should always get my vote without me always reading. But a responsible curator would regularly check and update their auto vote list, and be available to remove their vote on call in important circumstances.
Those with the most stake need to be the most responsible and careful.