It won't solve everything, but it will give more incentives to stakeholders to actually vote on good content instead of playing only with themselves.
Dtube did an experiment, where they gave back a share of the curation rewards to voters and it incentivized me a lot to vote higher/more often on dtube posts instead of normal ones.
I agree with that for sure. The current curation reward likely just isn't sufficient to facilitate actual curation. That said, we did have 50% in the past, and it DID result in much smaller rewards for content creators. So while it may solve a curation problem in part, it opens up a new issue.
Yeah I noticed, it was a (IMO) really good idea and certainly had to have incentivised voting on DTube's content.
Many people give the reasoning of authors investing more time into creating content, than curators, thus they receive the higher share. But it's not only about that.
Curators are also, most of the time, stakeholders. Meaning: it's not only the direct work done that is being rewarded, but the actual faith of holding a lot of money as Steem.
80$ vote-value doesn't sound much, but it requires 3,000,000 Steempower currently. Which was nearly 30 million dollars at high-time.
So I believe, by giving stakeholders a bigger share of the pie by default, more are incentivized to give back to others. Because without stakeholders taking the risk of having their investment lose a tremendous amount of value (as right now) - Steem would be worth much less.
"giving stakeholders a bigger share of the pie by default, more are incentivized to give back to others."
How do you feel about the proposition where stakeholders could choose to get maximum available rewards without doing anything or use their stake normally like now?
Wouldn't that separate those who just want maximum value from their investment and those who actually want to shape up this ecosystem with their stake to two different groups and let both do their thing?
Currently the first group is messing up the work of the second and making the system inefficient when it comes to actually rewarding good content.
Do you agree?
Why should those who do nothing, get the same as those who make the effort to curate content?
Good question, you do realize that at the moment those who do nothing (passive vote selling) are getting way more than those who actually curate? It's hurting the platform, yet this behavior continues.
I think I explained the situation well enough here: https://steemit.com/steem/@igster/re-therealwolf-re-justtryme90-re-therealwolf-re-justtryme90-re-kevinwong-lambos-beaches-and-mansions-20181122t170947977z But if that's not the case, I can try and make it more clearer
I do realize that, as I manage SteemSTEM and know quite well how little curators get (even less when you try to distribute the nothing received out to a team of people).
The proposition of letting people have passive income from the reward pool with out curating... I see the logic to it because it could clean up the trending pages and make bidbots less attractive.
I am largely just playing devils advocate with the questions. I would support any number of paths forward, I think at this point its more important that we collectively acknowledge the problem and attempt a solution, than to implement the perfect solution out the gate.
I understand.
Hopefully we could eventually at least try these two propositions together and see if these changes are enough to get this place working as intended again.
And for that to happen, we need to keep making noise about it. It will be harder and harder to oppose this change when majority of the users that are left want it and those who oppose it are the ones benefit from the current situation can't explain their stance logically. It will only drive people away and kill these people's "golden goose", and if the money is only thing they care about, they'll perhaps, finally, listen.
And I think we already have acknowledged the problem, these discussions have been going on for months, lately there's been some serious pushing to finally get something done to fix this issue and people have been coming up with ideas. Separating passive investors from active ones is the best one I've seen so far, in my opinion.
Now if only @ned would chip in.
"That said, we did have 50% in the past, and it DID result in much smaller rewards for content creators. "
We already have plenty of content creators, what we need is the best ones to be found and rewarded. For that we need actual curation to happen. Perhaps then we'd slowly start get people to visit Steem to see content and actually view it as a place where quality content can be found easily from Trending.
If Steem would work as intended, this ecosystem would be far larger, and content creators would be getting far more rewards than they are now or ever have before in here. However, we'll never reach that with the way this system is currently working, it's not working at all rather. We need curation to happen, or else every good author will leave anyways since they aren't being found and rewarded like they're supposed to.
Please consider long term effects, there's a lot of moving parts here and if we only consider the immediate effect to only one part of the ecosystem, we'll fail always in the long run.
I am not arguing against any of that, its just more than likely that the problem can not be addressed by one simple change :)
It probably won't fix the problem all together, but there are other propositions that could work well with it. I've mentioned one of them in my comments in this post as well.