No we dont. The proposal you guys are making is a really bad idea. Its bad from so many points of view that its hard to even start to point out the least bad effect this would cause.
There is only 1 fix to this. And that fix includes banning certain behavior. That will never happen.
I dont know if youre making this proposal with good intentions in mind but everything points to you guys using your position as whales to increase your ROI.
Youre using your position you gained by throwing around a few $ through curating to push a profit maximization change for yourself. I mean just look at the positive comments from the people that would be most screwed by this.
This is a tragically bad idea that would change absolutely nothing for the better except increase the current curators profit.
You dont want to adjust to the system. You want the system to adjust to you.
Its even more tragically bad since in principle its just "trickle down" in disguise....
You had dtube move towards 50% curation few months ago and it changed almost nothing in curator behavior. You still had dtube and Kpine supporting most of the quality content creators.
What youre essentially doing is cutting everyone else earning potential, wrecking bots, alienating passive investors that couldnt care less about curating (that by the way will always be passive), assuming large accounts have some kind of glorified talent in recognizing quality content, trying to grab more power for yourself (your right of course)...
You assume STEEM is just a content monetization platform when in reality its a token distribution platform.
The change to content placement STEEM could actually benefit from, which ofc doesnt require a such a radical change, is a STEEMIT UI design change, a bot upvote filter.
You disguise your proposal as a "lets fix trending", "lets make quality content win"..... and you know who will make good content win?
We will!
Me and Kevin! So give us more money.
If you want to do something for the platform, focus on marketing. I just hope this never passes or STEEM will literally go down the toilet.
You're the guy who once tried to tell me you were earning a 10% profit by spending 15 STEEM and getting 15.023 STEEM in return. I thought I'd start there.
You're claiming these folks have an ulterior motive, so I'd like to point to that link again. I have reason to believe, based on the things you said there, you have an ulterior motive. You're here to defend your approach where you purchase votes and hope to squeak out tiny profits. That comes first to you, and your content doesn't matter, it's just there.
By the sounds of what you're saying here, you don't want curators to come along and vote for your work. By the sounds of what you're saying here, you'd rather earn your .023 STEEM by pulling 14 meaningless dollars out of the reward pool with purchased votes, instead of pressing the vote button ONCE to earn MORE than .023 STEEM by utilizing your own SP as a tool to earn curation rewards.
A bot upvote filter would be like sweeping your kind under the rug at this point. If you're removing $14 out of the reward pool just so you can make .023 STEEM, you're wasting resources. That action of wasting resources should be downvoted and that $14 returned to the reward pool.
I have reason to believe you'd prefer things stay the same so you can continue exploiting the reward pool, so you can scrape pennies off the floor. The platform you want sounds like this to me:
I have a two dollar coin. If you would like to earn the two dollar coin, you must first give me a 10 dollar bill, then scrub my toilet. Then you can have your two dollar coin.
You contradict yourself quite often. Your actions speak louder than your words. You don't want to see people with SP earning more, yet you pay people with SP 15 STEEM so you can earn .023 STEEM. I think your head is screwed on backwards. You wrote a post, pressed many buttons and paid people 15 STEEM so you could earn .023 STEEM. Why not powerup that STEEM in your wallet, press the vote button once, help someone, and earn more than .023 STEEM?
@steemmatt applauds you:
But to me you sound more like an ass kissing yes man here to apply spin and defend a few vote dealers and their goddamn Monkey Posts.
Anyway...
Have a good day. Was good to see you again.
Yep, that whole comment loses all integrity with the booster vote.
He didn't boost the original comment, I did for visibility, @lordbutterfly then asked me if I boosted it, I said yes. That will say he did no effort in pushing it to the top
You've actually done a fine job of demonstrating why actual curation is important. You bought this top slot and disguised it as popular opinion because you and possibly a loud minority agrees. No different than if this post was about Coke and someone wrote in to speak about their bad experience with Coke while Pepsi paid for top positioning. It's shady. It would be hard to take the Coke hater's views seriously.
I downvoted for the simple fact, the top slot only required $4 but I saw $12 next to the comment. Since the point of the purchase was to place it at the top, $8 was a waste of resources, so I returned a portion of that to the pool, giving others an opportunity to earn it. There's no point in wasting $8 and if people want to treat it like it's worthless, it will become worthless.
It's all transparent so there is no secrecy here. It's not shady since it's transparent. Anyone can go look who buys a vote or promotion. I did this because I felt strongly that it should have more visibility. Now since this boost of comment was something that was possible when I went to the promotion page I thought it would be no big deal.
It was done for visibility. Did it work? Yes it got more visibility and feedback. And I appreciate it. And yes I looked at it with some margins. A bigger numbers creates a bigger response. I wouldn't call it a waste since I think conversations on important nuanced topics as governance has value for the whole Blockchain ecosystem.
I also would call it a popular opinion since I would say if someone puts lots of capital behind something that shows a level of care for the platform. Since it shows some form of investment. I would call important conversations more valuable than any other thing. But I understand people have different points of views about governance and how they want things to be. You need a range of various people to create a balanced network.
I didn't comment because there was money beside the post. I've been visiting and reading this blog since it came out. It could have been down at the bottom, I would have said the same damn thing.
Part of what you're calling 'feedback' was you telling another member how to ask questions properly.
You feel strongly about it, you see value in it, but not everyone sees the world as you do. That goes for me as well. I see the world as I do, and I think it's shady. Just because I can see an employee helping themselves to cash out of the register, that doesn't make it okay.
I could spend $1 million dollars to buy a billboard slot and claim my hockey team is the best in the world. So what if their record is 0 wins and 20 losses? Because I spent money to say something, that makes it true? Because I spent money, that means I love my favorite hockey team even more?
Sounds more like the money is clouding your judgement.
Sometimes I think you're another one here with their head screwed on backwards. And I mean that in a nice way. I just don't know what other words to use to best describe what I see. Sometimes it feels like opposite day here and everyone is just acting weird on purpose because those are the rules.
P.S. I don't have time to sit here and talk in circles tonight.
Exactly we are all different and view at things with slight differences (or big differences). But my base view is that I think money has a larger importance in how it shapes reality. I think money creates reality as you can shape people's life with it in any way you like.
And some of us are too different that it is as you say, it would only be talk in circles and never get anywhere. I enjoy reading a lot of your stuff, it's extremely well written and I would even call it poetry sometimes, but I also know that I would not look at stuff the same way sometimes, but I can at the same time 100% agree with you.
Some people are very hard to read. I like to test reality and sometimes even confuse people. I like to play roles sometimes. Experiment around. And if you find someone else that maybe do the same you may get max confusion. Haha. Well we are on something called Earth with unlimited ignorance. So there is lots of stuff you can do here and spend time with!
But circles are the best shape to talk in.
Thank you, folks, be sure to tip your waitress, I'll be here all.... Eternity.
Posted using Partiko Android
It's not super transparent, because there are plenty of new users who have no idea what upvote bots are. There was a bot that tried to post about that, but it got killed. This is an odd war.
I'm just watching. I care, but I can't say I know what's right, and also everyone is really emotional about social media, so that's kinda scary.
Posted using Partiko Android
@nonameslefttouse - would just like to clarify a bit of a potentially misleading reference. While I do generally appreciate when people speak their minds without fear to try to spark change, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm giving them a standing ovation in agreement with their message.
Fair enough @steemmatt. I read it like, "Yeah! Stick it to the man!" I'll take the blame for that.
This place is getting better though. People are feeling more free to be open. No flag wars, no trolling. Even I'm being given a chance to speak and I know I can be a bit abrasive at times, nobody is shooting me down for being me, so that's cool, because I truly mean no harm, I just can't seem to mince my fucking words well enough some days.
Thanks man. In hindsight, it was a pretty dumb spot for me to make that comment, especially seeing how the dialogue blew up afterwards.
In the tone of a high school yearbook signature, "Don't ever change".
I like mince in pies and politics. But your words seem fine, even without the deliciousness that mince adds to meat.
God I can't wait for mincemeat pie season.
Posted using Partiko Android
Wow, this post had some funny points, but @nonameslefttouse your comment is even better! Seriously so many people simply get not enough returns for their bought bid botds, and they still keep doing it :S They'd easily earn more by getting curated once in a while. And it would be even better if there will be more curators or stronger curators.
For example I like that another platform allows self voting posts, but self voting comments is simply a waste (you get 1/4th the value), would it be so hard to implement that? And after 5 posts per day for the self vote value to drop drastically? You're not banning it this way, but you're making it less desirable :)
You mean buying votes from bidbots as adjust to the system? They've been saying change the culture for months, don't see much result tho, just as the dtube 50/50 curation. DTube's 50/50 curation was a failed marketing too, few were really aware of that.
Nothing is wrong. This Blockchain is an open system. People have a range of different ways they can use proof-of-brain to earn more Tokens. People will be people. Nothing is wrong with people.
The phrase "Proof of Brain" in an ecosystem ruled by bots is Orwellian Doublespeak on a level which is almost comical. Almost a perfect poster child for George Carlin's skit on Euphemisms.
Brains are important!
Thats the point of view you have and thats fine. But.. if you were being really honest, though i dont agree in the slightest, you would say its "ruled by people using tools".
Id say that youre actually closer to Doublespeak then @phoneinf is. Obscuring the nature of what is actually going on.
I replied to steemmatt here https://steemit.com/steem/@trafalgar/re-steemmatt-re-trafalgar-help-fix-steem-s-economy-20181028t014608624z
It addresses the same points you raised
Great. I see your points but responding wouldnt really add much to my overall argument. Basically id just repeat what i wrote above and in a few other comments and go in circles of repeating the same thing over again.
You seem a bit too "composed" in your comments for my liking so i think ill have more fun with Nonames. He seems a bit more fun... hehe. :D
At the end of the day, thats what its all about.
But thx for the reply.
You have some major balls, but this is the type of voice that opens eyes instead of kisses asses.
This post has received a 30.69 % upvote from @boomerang.
Oh the irony
The problem is that Kevin and Traf will make more money?
Responding with a 1 line comment to 300 word comment is a bit waste of time. The original comment goes very much in depth in how he looks at things.
His argument has a fundamental flaw: that big investors are not supposed to look out for themselves. That large stakeholders should not have a huge say in a "Staked" economy.
Hence the question. And there is nothing wrong with answering that question.
No he is not saying that.
He lays out his views in a long detailed way. Responding with a 1 line comment to something nuanced is disrespectful as the original commenter invested lots of time to create his thoughts down on paper. If someone writes a deep comment there should be an appropriate detailed response that use quotes from the original comment and explains things with some depth and consideration.
It's easy to try to pick small things from a long comment and try to lead things down to 1 specific path. That is easy to do. Life is more nuanced. So it needs to be handled with some care. And not lead stuff off topic. Since it shows that even if you would get a long depth comment back in return you would probably respond with a short one again. Which shows low care levels in expression. It tries to bring down a conversation to something overly short and too simplistic.
Some person investing a lot of time and energy to develop something proper won't take an overly short response serious as it will be a waste of time.
Oooo. This is what someone was talking about when they said you were trying to control how people comment.
Guilty. Sometimes I only have a few words to respond with. It's sometimes frustrated me that people go on for pages when I have something to say about their premise that would lead the conversation in another direction.
I wonder if we'll ever get past the gap between how we expect to be able to converse and what social media is capable of conveying.
Posted using Partiko Android
Why would you say that? I actually claim thats its completely understandable and expected.
The thing is that when everyone else is paying the price, its important to speak up even if it means that Kevin might decide never to "gift " you again.
Seems it's better we all stay in the ditch than give people an incentive to reignite their curating fuck-o-meter which has a little downside of making whales richer.
I'm trying to see your angle here but all I see is prejudice.
Voting for someone's post doesn't mean you are gifting him or her anything.
You are one real prejudiced mf haha
Prejudice? Im not seeing any here. Re-ignite whose curation?
Freedoms? Fyrsts? Cmon.
Im not sure how you arent seeing this, but they want to cut everyones potential payouts by 25%. This means slower growth for smaller accounts and faster growth for large accounts. A gap will widen drastically. Also this essentially kills bots so you cant even empower yourself but are rather dependent even more on a few whales that want to curate.
Hehe. Its not about Kevin and Traf making more money. Its about what will happen just so Kevin and Traf could make more money.
And you believe Kevin and Traf have MORE to lose if their intentions are "not good" and these proposed changes bring forth behaviors that will make Steem more worthless?
This change wont bring any change of behavior. It will change the way the behavior is exhibited but it will stay the same. As it did always.
This change is incredibly dangerous because its essentially a aggressive move by the curator whales against the community in an attempt to grab more power for themselves which they can do, because "curation" has always been seen as a major strength of the platform and the 5-10$ they drop on your post has a huge impact on an individual. (wow someone gave me 10$ for something i wrote) Therefor you assume these guys can do no wrong.
Problem is that we moved away from the "gift" economy which is a extremely small part of the larger picture.
Not one thing that is written in this post can you hang your hat on and say: Yes this change will lead to improvement in this "area".
Not one thing would change for the better, unless you are a curator large account like Kevins and Trafs, then you would get a higher ROI.
Instead of creating a fairer distribution across the board, creating a middle class, they want to empower themselves to a higher degree.
They are essentially saying that by increasing their returns you will be better off.
That is wrong on so many levels.
Curator behavior would not change and everyone else would take a huge cut.
You would be essentially increasing community dependency greatly on just a few large stake holders that already have a great effect on the gift economy.
This is ludicrous on so many levels.
Steem was never envisioned as a gift economy. It was and is based on directing rewards to those who contribute value.
Gifting can be done using the transfer function. That's not ever been the idea of the reward pool and voting.
Though I will say it wouldn't necessarily be an altogether bad idea to design a system around. But it isn't Steem.
Kevin and Traf like ^1.3 or ^1.2 superlinear (which they call 'mild' but I disagree) but very few others do. It isn't likely to happen, so perhaps consider the rest of the proposal without it as a more realistic take.
I might have expressed myself wrongly there, but STEEM being a "gift economy" is the idea being held by quite a few people which was the point i was trying to make.
The whole problem around all and any discussions that take this direction, i think stems from one single thing..
People have a different view of what value is.
On one side you have people trying to tell you what should and should not be considered value, what should be considered more or less valuable, and on the other hand you have people (and i consider myself in that camp) that say: "What ever you decide."
Well if they contribute good content AND make money, I don't mind. If they're making money at the net expense of Steem, that's bad.