Agree. That number is way too high.
In the past month only 1% of rewards were paid to commenters
I've always been happy with payouts on comments as it is (at 1% apparently), even at the current price of STEEM. I remember receiving nearly $1,000 on some comments prior to 7/4. Were comments also receiving 1% prior to 7/4 and if so, won't we have that too look forward to as/if the price of STEEM climbs?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, which is likely, but I agree with pfunk that 38% is way too high.
Would a change to 38% mean that his current $4.28 earnings (on the comment above) on 9 upvotes be around $163 under the proposed change? That seems exorbitant for an opinion, not that I wouldn't mind those kind of payouts on comments again. ;)
But, what happens when the price of STEEM increases? Will comments be receiving $10,000?
Why would anyone blog?
I would setup a comment factory (some would argue I'm already running one). ;)
I believe we'll need a solution for scaling reward levels with price increases
We have one. It attracts more users to compete for those rewards.
Even with more users competing (I suppose you mean more posts or comments?) we will go back to over the top rewards. The outsized lottery effect going into $10,000 a post is arguably a good or bad thing - I'd personally advocate to not see it again. Consider all the adjustable variables - for instance, target votes per day - that can be adjusted to expand or shrink distribution.
Would it make sense to cap the rewards and distribute the excess yearly for example? So making good posts consistently in the low tide would be encouraged as well.
At 38%, even at current rewards, abusive comment spam would increase dramatically. It also creates an avenue of pool rewards abuse. Something like 5 to 10% at the most would be way more reasonable.
That would be way too low in my opinion. There could be 100x as many comments as posts and even if only 10% of them are worth rewarding that's still 10 times as many comments than posts with a much smaller reward pool.
Some posts are long enough already. Not everyone will want to read 100s of comments to curate them. Furthermore, unless it gets an upgrade, the Steemit UI isn't very efficient when it comes to posts with a lot of comments. I know my browser locks up if I view some previous @steemitblog posts, because of the many comments.
That's true. But isn't that a different issue? The site loads incredibly slow anyway and that's not because there's money to be made...
Besides you don't need to read the comments to curate. I would hope there would be no curation reward for upvoting comments.
5% sounds very reasonable.
Without a separate pool, there is already spam. Whether we want to call it "abuse" or not, plenty of users already upvote their own comments with trails, and larger stakeholders have often voted themselves - or every comment on a post. This new comment rewards pool would simply create another way for different types of abusers to abuse.
Something like 0% would be reasonable. There's really no reason for a separate pool. As I pointed out already - this very post demonstrates that engagement and comment payouts is just fine. If we want more engagement on regular posts, maybe we should work on attracting and retaining more users? That's the real issue here, not the lack of a comment rewards pool.
I can't speak for the voters putting comments over $1 but I am upvoting more comments in this post because they are important to reward for expressing their opinions about the future of Steem. I regularly upvote good comments elsewhere but not nearly as much as posts. And I often treat comment voting as a ranking mechanism rather than a reward one.
Yeah, same here.
What I'm really trying to figure out is why so many people believe that comment rewards are necessary for engagement. Go to every major social media platform and you'll find thousands, or millions of users commenting and upvoting other comments all the time...for no rewards. So, what is it that's creating the engagement on those platforms that we are allegedly "missing" here on Steemit (which I don't even believe is true)?
The answer: Users.
What is the purpose for creating a separate rewards pool for comments?
If the purpose is to increase engagement, it won't work. You need active users to do that. Without active users willing to engage, you're likely just going to be encouraging and rewarding spam, or otherwise meaningless engagement.
If the purpose is to just have a separate rewards pool, then what functional purpose does that serve? Why is it a necessary change for the blockchain?
What is the actual problem that would be fixed by this hard fork? The post says this:
You can't engage more people in discussion if you're lacking the "more people" part of the equation. Step one would be: Get more people interested in Steemit. If, after more people are here and active, the engagement is too low (which, again, I don't believe is true), then try to find ways to increase/improve it.
No it doesn't mean that, because voting behavior will change. Most likely there will be a lot more voting on comments and more comments being rewarded so the $163 would be split up a lot more ways. Also probably more comments (both good and bad).
You can not evaluate actions taken under one set of rules as if they would occur unchanged under a different set of rules.
Very True, I tend to only vote on the comments made to my posts, in hopes to gain readers, if there was no limit or a different limit to voting on comments I would vote on many more comments, being some of them to me add value to the original post.
I THInk there will be so many comments payouts will drop. On top comments but rise on mediocre comments