To get Steem to moon, we need to give more to the investors. They deserve it. They've got the money, and we need money to get Steem to moon! Authors don't deserve what they're getting. They're too entitled. Steem is a cash-cow for them. Curators/investors should have more rewards. It's only fair.
Hell, Steem should just be distributed based on who has Steem Power. The more Steem Power you have, the more of the reward pool you will get. That's a winner for investors, and we need that for Steem to win! It's what's best for Steem. Proof-of-Wallet is how we need to distribute the token more fairly and to who deserves it more.
Bid bots are also what's best for Steem. That makes people buy Steem in order to "promote" (buy votes for) their posts/comments and get more rewards. Pay-to-play is the best model for Steem's success!
That was sarcasm :P
I look at work done as having merit. "Proof-of-Work" of a non-encrypted format done by humans, not computers, sometimes called "Proof-of-Brain". Posts and comments are the bes measure of PoW and PoB on Steem. Curating is also a measure of it. Some think a 50/50 curator/author split is more fair, more deserving for curators and authors alike.
Why not a 75/25, or 100/0 curator/author split?
What does work matter at all, why not just give all the Steem based on who has Steem Power?
If the authors/commenters don't "deserve" 75% for doing most of the work on the site, why not just give even more to those with the SP, which is the what many of the arguments are for giving more to curating because "we want people to invest", and giving more to curators will mean giving more to investors to get them to invest. But, most investors don't want to do work. That's why they sell their votes for passive income. Bid bots are supposed to be "great" for STEEM and Steem. At least that's what we were/are told by some.
That seems like more of a "cash-cow" model than rewarding authors/commenters -- who do most of the work on the site -- with more than curators who do less work. Proof of work through proof of brain (for the most part).
Think about this. Why does anyone need to post anything? Just distribute the token based on who has the token (SP). That must be an investor dream, right? Just full passive income. WO0ot! That will drive investors to buy Steem and get us to moon, right? I've heard this promise before via bidbots... and that worked out GREAT didn't it?
But... what would the site be without those doing work to post and comment? They don't deserve what they're getting now... maybe they don't deserve anything. What would STEEM be valued at then... I wonder...
Work done matters. Invest in any/most cryptos and you don't get any returns for simply investing other that hoping the price goes up. The work of posting posts and comments is the way "mining" work (PoW) is done on Steem. Curation is a part of that work done, but not nearly equal.
Voting/curating is too much work to get a mere 25% potential rewards it seems. We need 50% to make the work of clicking a mouse or autbot voting worth it? Otherwise, that's why Steem doesn't have people buying it? We need to give more to easy or no work passive income! That will solve hte problem of STEEM not being purchased! Wo0ot! Again, why not distribute the token based on SP alone and see how "good" that is for Steem.
Because "bid bots" and selling votes was "good" for Steem, right? What happened to that "promise"? It was just a pipe dream people were selling to justify vote selling and making money doing nothing. Passive income for the win! Talk about a real cash-cow lol! I see 50/50 curation/author rewards going the same route. Another pipe dream to "solve" the problem of STEEM and investors.
Is Steem/STEEM winning with bid bots and vote selling/buying? Seems that didn't work out as promised, now did it? How much better is 50/50 going to make things? Will we "magically" get more investors to pour into STEEM and make Steem a success?
Food for thought. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider: Upvoting, Sharing or Reblogging below.
me for more content to come!
Like what I do? Then consider giving me a vote on the Witness page :) Thanks!
My goal is to share knowledge, truth and moral understanding in order to help change the world for the better. If you appreciate and value what I do, please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page.
Posted from KURE
It is difficult to describe how much your words here grated on my soul lol. And this despite knowing instantly they were sarcasm, only because I know they are actually serious arguments put forward by folks that don't grasp what investment really is, and how it works.
For untold thousands of years - not even joking - investors have underwritten projects in order to increase their wealth and power by increasing the value of the investment vehicle. Money is not actually necessary, but it is both an easier mechanism to enable investment, and increases the complexity of potential investment mechanisms. History reveals that investment undertaken in this way is beneficial to almost all affected parties, from the investor, to society in general. There are ways in which certain classes of parties are harmed by rational investment, but this is due to competition, and it is competitors that are harmed by being noncompetitive with competent investment.
Steem but little enables actual investment, as the devs that created it weren't competent investors, but good coders. There are many ways to profit that aren't due to actual investing, and the hostile buyouts and dismantling of profitable companies that became notorious in the 1980s exemplify profiteering as opposed to investment. IMHO, a great deal of the downwards pressure on Steem price is because the curation and author rewards were poorly devised to create incentive to invest rather than extract profits. The two directly oppose each the other in creating pressure on the price of the investment vehicle.
One of my last posts before the busy season (I work construction) overwhelmed me was regarding restructuring rewards mechanisms to create incentive to invest rather than extract resources from Steem. From an investment standpoint, rewards are the marketing mechanism that grows the market for Steem, and both author rewards and curation rewards were intended to create incentive to create quality content that attracted consumers to Steem. When self votes, circle jerks, bidbots, and etc., instead extract those incentives as rent on their stakes, instead of attracting potential investors to Steem, they do the opposite, and repel folks that are capable of increasing the quantity and quality of the content available on the blockchain.
What I proposed was decreasing the incentive to extract rewards by such manipulation of the marketing mechanism, and increase the incentive to fund development of apps and the Steem blockchain itself, using the nascent foundation and DAO that is being created to fund development. Since there is no extant mechanism to provide investors ROI other than capital gains, which have been shown to be beyond the understanding of many substantial stakeholders, I proposed creating a dividend stream from delegations and direct provision of funds underwriting development via the DAO.
Since the potential rewards for posts and comments are unlimited, and based on the stake of the voters, rewards have largely inured to rentiers through self votes and the aforementioned mechanisms, rather than to creators of content. Were rewards limited to a range typical of that availed to actual creators, incentive to game rewards and extract those funds intended to create capital gains would be eliminated, while creators would not be negatively impacted by the change. As an example of how this could be effected via simple algorithmic mechanism, I used the income proposals of Huey Long, a Great Depression era Louisiana populist assassinated because his proposals threatened the banksters profiteering from the economic hardship suffered by most people at the time. He said that no one needed more than thrice the median income, nor suffer less than 3% of it from their livelihood, and the circumstances of the day made that a very attractive proposition.
In comment to @kevinwong I provided examples using data posted by @arcange of how that would achieve the goal of eliminating financial incentive to extract rewards necessary to market Steem. @arcange's data also shows how little incentive profiteers are leaving on the table to attract creators to the platform, and make it pretty obvious why Steem underperforms the broader market as a result.
The fact is that given the blatant incentive to extract rent via selfvotes etc., there is very little incentive to invest as capital gains are unlikely to result from Steem as long as potential investors observe the rampant profiteering ongoing. Curation rewards aren't actually incentive to curate at all, but merely increase the ROI that can be achieved by profiteering. Very few people receive much in the way of curation rewards, and simply ignore them when they upvote for other rewards (social metrics other than financial, which are actually far more valuable than money). Only by ignoring content quality and maximizing mere financial concerns can curation rewards be a substantial incentive to upvote content, and doing that completely obviates the purpose of curation, which is to prefer quality content over lesser product.
Curation rewards are directly counterproductive as presently effected, and simply increasing them only exacerbates that problem - but rentiers want to make the problem worse, because that's their business model.
We need to change the business model from profiteering to investing. I reckon my proposal would do that, without decreasing the profit potential from powering up stake. It would seem to be a win win, but change threatens the status quo, and the status quo is falsely considered beneficial by rentiers. Long ago I posted voluminously on how capital gains were a far more potentially rewarding mechanism (during the BTC moon) than rewards pool rape, but few competent investors are on Steem to begin with, so these posts produce little effect.
Until these truths are grasped by substantial stakeholders, which is probably only possible by experiencing the results of not knowing them (and the destruction of Steem as that learning experience) there seems to be little chance actual investment will be encouraged or extractive profiteering discouraged. Time will tell. Frankly, it already has, as investors continue to not flock here.
Thanks!
I need to read some more of your older posts. I also need to sleep so may return for a re-read tomorrow.
However, one thought: what if Steem and its economic model is not isomorphic to a stock but is rather closer to being an interest-bearing bond? Bonds also have their markets and pricing mechanisms - some investors do use them for capital growth but most will invest for the income.
I still agree that the business model - or the economic model - is not optimal and seriously needs a V2, but that the profiteering mechanisms can be dealt with by making the rewards-generating activities more flexible and responsive with positive and negative feedbacks.
I also agree that 50/50 curation rewards will just make the economic system worse. As always - or at least in the almost 2 years here - nobody wants to consider the actual economic code within Steem and so people just latch on to whichever is the easiest parameter to mess up, like the SBD debt ceiling being a recent example.
Well thought out and elaborate run down on the issue and how you see a better way forward. I'm not an investor, but I tend to agree, especially with the last 4 paragraphs ;) Do we want better curation for content being evaluated, or simply more curation rewards to get more rewards regardless of content. increasing curation rewards just gets more of the latter, with a negligible increase of the former. Thanks for the valuable feedback.
When HF20 was announced it sounded great. Instant accounts, no waiting, people would flock.
The reality was that the biggest stake holders could create the instant accounts but the ones created by STEEM Inc were still subject to the long wait.
People don’t want to wait today, it must be instant or it’s no good.
Yes we can create these instant accounts but then they have zero RC’s. It was all a big fuckup, and so we now have to ‘bribe’ people on with loans of SP for a while.
Otherwise they have to pay. Pay? People don’t want to pay.., and if that’s the choice they don’t bother.
All this does little to promote the blogging aspect of STEEM.
Yes, no wait, but also not willing to pay to not wait. And even the waiting doesn't guarantee an account... as many ppl dont get accounts from Steemit by registering.
Are you sure about this, and are they really manually vetted?
I would think that an account named @nomadeurope would have a better chance than one named @bot56 on application.
I have faith in STEEM as you can see by my stake, but things go at snails pace, which is frustrating.
There I took the time to click like. I demand 50% of your pay!
:P
Just my opinion...I have always disliked the notion that you get paid anything for clicking the like button. The only pay should be for work. The act of opening and commenting on a post by a live human being should be what is compensated with shit comments dealt with a down vote and no compensation. Curation trails, auto voting, bot voting will lead to...the mess we have today. Getting hundreds of votes and only 3 or 4 people actually opening your post is...ridiculous.
Yeah, the reward mechanism skews things in favor of automation and a lack of proof of brain interactivity.
I fully agree, I would not touch the curation split. People comes to Steem for being rewarded for content or for upvoting content. If you are an investor then choose your way, curation or posting.
That’s not the problem of steem, the problem came from our past combined with a pure lack of marketing plan, that’s all.
Resteemed, I want to read more opinions about.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Yup. Market Steem, which was ignored for 3 years... way to go Steemit inc. with those millions... well used :/
Get people, get investors. All that takes marketing to spread the word... not tipping the system to favor ways to passively get rewarded.
I was getting angry reading the opening words, because I have heard them spoken by many top level players in this game. Glad you were being sarcastic. It is troubling because that still seems to be a very popular idea by those who believe they can get more money by causing policy chances to further exploit the system.
hehe :P I'm glad you have a good barometer to detect when something isn't right ;) The focus on money and making changes that won't help the platform... sigh...
I was disappointed that you had to expose the sarcasm - wasn't it obvious?
;-)
Can you turn Kure into its own economic system using SCOT? Just a thought...
Eventually, in the works... not sure if I should go for SCOT or wait for SMTs...
Unless SMTs have evolved in any way, recall the paper on them, the options on upvoting and curation were very limiting - some of them downright dangerous! lol - all the flaws but none of the cures. If you know how to write code using SCOT, I'd go for that. You can then experiment if your micro-economic system actually works as intended.
DAU, DAU & again, DAU
Focus on the user; all else will follow. @krnel
Steem is a social network.
Where is the network effect?
More users; more active users, more investors.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Indeed. Market the site, get people to know about it, get users, and investors will also get the word ;)
You said something which people don't want to say and listen also. But yeah, we need lots of reformation. What we are doing here and what we are getting is not equal. We, may be you also have to take action to get any change.
The system is not 'best' for investors. And I don't want to talk about the the 'price'. Sitting here tight to see the change. :)
We should get an AI to distrubute the coin according to PoB!
I think we should use PoP - Proof of Poll - to fix steem. After all 30 votes for the downvote arrow in 3 hours by 75 people participating in the poll or in the comments was Proof that it was an overwhelmingly successful poll.
I imagine that this is an issue for those seeking to optimize their earnings or live off of them as well. But for many in the middle I wonder if it matters at all. In my view, I get more than just rewards via tokens from my efforts of posting and curation; that is what keeps me going.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I've been reading all these % curation posts and I gotta say they're pretty interesting. Dont know which road will be taken but I certainly look forward to see which new system will be gamed.
Posted using Partiko Android
Hi @krnel!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.981 which ranks you at #76 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 11 places in the last three days (old rank 65).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 319 contributions, your post is ranked at #28.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
I have given up as far as saying "NO" to bid bots
I still think there is value in Steemit's future, but I don't think that content creators are going to be making big money here unless they have big networks AND play the curation game.
Screw it, I'll be clawing for every steemnickel and steemcent I can make, because I do believe that STEEM is going up in value...but I don't believe that any writing that I am going to do here is going to be rewarded on it's value alone.
The opportunity costs of wasting the last two plus years seems to be finally lighting a fire.
What happened to blocktrades' dao?
Nobody want to fight the authors for even more rewards?
The judgement calls continue on par with the course, imo.
You are on point hope they don't keep up with this fork couse it will be game over for content creators and steem itself
Yes, that's what some people advocate for, while they or others also advocate for what I specify above as why it's needed.
Take a look at @valued-customer's response about increasing rewards to get people to curate more. Do we simply want curation to earn more and profit, or curation to evaluate and qualify cotnent as being better than others?
The word "curation" has been purposefully obfuscated so that it actually means two different things. Wish we would stop abusing it.
Curation as "agnostic upvote" is not the same as Curation as "selective upvote". Whatever the white paper says, it isn't gospel.
The mathematical structure of the curation rewards and especially during the now 15-minute revers auction is interesting in itself and, I think, would have some merit being extended in some ways to the whole voting period. (An aside)
That mathematical structure means that income-generating quality-independent upvotes will always - always - make more money than selective upvotes for the simple reason that it takes time to do the latter - time longer than 0.2 minutes from posting.
So... increasing the curation rewards percentage will just increase the curation-game as income generator even further. I'd love it! It's easy money! But... it will not be good for the economy - at all.
As an afterthought, I think manual curators need to play the same curation-rewards game and thereby increase their own income and those of their favourite bloggers. It's easy now to optimise voting; if you have a batch of bloggers you like just auto-upvote them. Then add manual upvotes to either new authors or top-up your followed authors with comment-upvotes.
The more time-intensive manual curation work does not have to be less rewarding! Honestly.
Glad you also have the eyes to see it won't help actuall ymak curaiton better for the platofrnm. It will only be about making more money in the end, which is clear when money is what's being increased... more curators who don't care about content... wonderful solution for Steem. As long as "investors" get more... :/
Curation will be the new mining on Steem.
I find the mathematics and game theory interesting, which is also why I don't want to see the game go down the drain.