I mean to be honest, I feel like it's working overall so much better than 2-3 years ago. It's not perfect by any means, but subjectively speaking I feel it's not bad. Many new users get some smaller to decent sized votes and often those payouts actually end up making a difference to them as they might come from countries where a couple of cents a day is a big deal. Curators are mainly here because people don't want to vote themselves and/or want to make passive income on their stake and I reckon it's really not easy to read through all the stuff and pick "quality" content. so kudos to you! I have often felt that having the option of displaying posts by their number of votes instead of their payout rewards would really make it easier to spot actually engaging posts. Peakd has "most viewed posts", but getting a "most votes" filter would be better imo @peakd
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
We just hit an all time low in the number of users who joined and posted within 30 days in June.
We have gotten better at policing the raw exploitation of the reward pool (a comparison to steemit.com shows this plainly), but our traffic and rate of new joiners is flatlining.
I was referring to the practice of curation and upvotes in general. You will notice a correlation of users and price of Hive (it's for every chain like this). It will pick up when price goes up and v.v.; I am very certain that price > users and not users > price. But we still obviously have to keep building here if we want more adoption
This can be determined by statistical analysis. It's probably about time someone determined this for good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granger_causality
I mean it makes more sense as well: price increases > attention/rewards/engagement increases. But an influx of more users does not necessarily increase price imo. Only if they actually take the step to buy it off of the market which I guess rarely happens at large.