Often enough, the curation rewards do all go to one individual, if it were a whale who voted first. Bringing the 30 minutes down to 5 might encourage whales to vote manually if they have a better chance of getting in before curation gets donated to the author. The 50/50 rewards however, will be a huge disincentive for good content creators. They would no longer have that 30 minute handicap, they would only have 5 minutes for minnows to get in and give the author some of the curation rewards which would mean we no longer have the underdog handicap where it's better to upvote an underdog (undiscovered but soon to be popular) than a "popular" (already recognised) author.
If you do change the ratio to 50/50, I would argue that the time for curation donation be INCREASED rather than decreased, to increase the incentive of finding hidden gems and DECREASE the incentive of voting the same posts all the time.
I agree that the 50/50 split would be a big hit to content creators. I would be OK with that if I thought it would mean that we were doing a better job aligning upvotes with quality content, but personally I am very skeptical/doubtful that this would happen as a result.
The 30 minuet limit primarily benefits established authors who already have a voting trail following them.
In this comment you say the 30 minute limit primarily benefits established authors. In the next comment you say a 5 minute window would encourage finding undiscovered quality content.
These comments seem to contradict one another.
Not really. One end favors established authors. The other favors undiscovered authors.
A longer "curation donation" window favours established authors who have inevitable support. This incentivises curators to seek undiscovered authors instead because the curation reward won't be donated.
A shorter "curation donation" window favours the curator who can vote on ANY post that was not recognised within the first 5 minutes that it would be a hit. This incentivises curators to vote for @sweetsssj, @timcliff, @blocktrades, @acidyo, and any other established author who is almost guarenteed to make it to the trending page.
That will inevitably make new authors see the game as rigged.
I see your point of view, but I think it oversimplifies things and also doesn’t account for irrational human behavior. The goal of increasing curation rewards (by changing the window from 30 to 5) is to try and incentivize more manual curation. Generally the established authors are the ones favored by bots, so the hope is that with more manual curators, the less established authors will get more attention from stakeholders. Whether that will actually happen or not remains to be seen.
The bot owners will just reprogramme their bots to vote earlier and bots will be even more profitable. At least that's what I see happening. I'd hate to have to say I told you so. lol
I realize that. I don’t see this proposal moving the needle very much. My root level comment (that we are replying to here) was actually to question the effectiveness of the change.
Really more than any code change, what we need is a culture change. I am doubtful that we can achieve it, but if the people most involved in curation think it will help, I am not really dead against it either.
I am most in line with the #1 ranked root level comment in reply to the main post by @liberosist
But don't you think the 30 minute limit (or curation donation window as I call it) should benefit the established author? This actually discourages curators who seek curation rewards from voting for the same authors all the time, because once they become established the curation rewards are harder to catch.
Meaning it's more profitable for a curator to find hidden gems, which means new authors have a chance at growing.
Right now the incentives for curation are not very high. The 30 minuet window benefits the author at the expense of the curator. If we want to provide better incentives for curators to find and upvote undiscovered quality content, changing from 30 minuets to 5 will help with that.
I think it will increase incentive to vote for the same authors all the time.
Can you at least explain, where the incentive to find undiscovered quality content comes from?
You will earn higher curation rewards by voting on an undiscovered post than one that already has a high amount of rewards.
Again?
:) At first I was amazed, how many of bigger fishes were also doing that. Now I don't even comment any more. It would take too much time...
I purpose self upvoting on comments to be removed. Let the blockchain decide who's comments are more important.
Nearly every big account holder owns several accounts which can upvote each other ...
I described the concept of 'diminishing returns' which could discourage self-voting, multi account self-voting and circle voting here.
Now that would change the situation a big way. I think.
from your article: "How about if after each vote on a specific account (including ones own account) each further vote on the same account would lead to significantly less curation reward for the voter and less profit for the upvoted account? Thus, when upvoting an account which I had already upvoted before, my voting power would be smaller than in case I upvote an account which I didn't upvote before."
Great idea in diminishing the curation rewards as they continue to self upvote or circle jerk. I think this would be helpful to the platform indeed. What do we do about all this selling of votes and leasing of Steem power? This also is not good for anyone but whales either?
I personally am not convinced that the option to delegate Steem power ist helpful for the success of the platform. Too many people borrow Steem power just to upvote themselves (and then that means they need not to care about the quality of their articles anymore). Actually I see more disadvantages than advantages. Therefore I would solve the problem by simply disable this option. :)
I agree. I feel it is extremely harmful to the platform. This creates no need for good quality just quantity with lots of upvotes. That's the mentality to profiting through delegation.
Perfect! Thank you for the link my friend. I will go read this now.
Apparently it's for visibility as I've been told. So if you have lots of money then your comment is more important. So you upvote it to the top of the list so everyone can see it. It doesn't even matter if the rest of the blockchain thinks it's a good comment it "Deserves" to be read.
That's what I've been told
"Just for visibility" is again, something that bigger self-voters mentioned now and than, why did they do that, and continued with the comment due to the article. What you have been told is pretty accurate :) And I 'd also upvote your comment but I delegated most of my SP, so my upvote is not worth even a cent