As someone in favor of the comment reward pool I would appreciate a source of this claim:
if the code is constantly being changed to appease the relentless complaints from users who haven’t taken the time to understand the platform or who do not have a vision for the future.
Although I agree the 38% is way too high, maybe the golden ratio idea isn't the best one for now. My personal opinion would be 10-20%.
Does it make it a 38% cut of curation rewards though? As you stated here:
that reduce curation rewards by another 38% and other suggestions from users who want to eliminate curation rewards entirely are completely reckless.
I don't think so since if I recall correctly it was 38% of both rewards, posts and curation. If my math isn't too outdated, that makes it 1/4th of the curation rewards which is 25%. So 25% of 38% is 9% from curation rewards. Isn't this true?
I find it a bit funny that everyone keeps referring to abit's voting on comments lately as a "look guys we do actually upvote comments". As much as I myself appreciated seeing some of those votes, 1% for a long time has still just been 1% and a big reason to the low incentives of contributions in the comment section, (during the price decline, not to forget). After all one of the big incentives of Steemit and how it differs from everything else is that it can provide support for users writing content by earning steem, comments should be viewed the same way so they also can evolve in general quality much like the posts have from the beginning of the platform. I believe its something that will help user growth a lot.
Upvoted for discussion!
Well, it's not really a "claim." It's more like a rhetorical jab. I've been known to make those without warning.
Based on the wording of the proposal, the 38% comment pool will come from the allocated rewards for current posting and curating. This leaves us with the 75/25 split between posting and curating which is drawn from the remaining 62% of the pool. So, the rewards would be:
46.5% for blog posts
38% for comments
15.5% for curation
The 15.5% is a 38% reduction from the current 25% of curation rewards. But keep in mind these two points:
So, curation rewards will likely be reduced even more than the 38%. That will likely give curators much less than 7.5% of the total rewards pool. This is a very troubling figure for those who invest into STEEM Power. Without a need for holding STEEM in the form of SP for rewards, there's no reason to purchase and hold STEEM. This will likely negatively affect STEEM prices.
The main driver for growth is the price. ( july spike was a perfect example) If you want to increase the price you need to give influence back to the 99%. What happens when users have more influence? Comment gets rewarded a lot more, this is just the consequences of a working system there is no need to create incentives for it.
I don't really agree with this. The July spike brought in crypto-heads mostly because of the price yes, just cause their interests are aligned with profits and price doesn't mean that's what is the main driver for growth of normal users.
The July spike brought in a lot of influential people that would have never come without high payouts. And these people brought many of their followers with them. Hype is very important for these small projects to get off the ground. If you take monero for example, do you really think the only fact that one darknet market implemented monero is the only reason the price went from a dollar to 12 dollar? It's all the hype that was created around it, and now monero has a lot more credibility and visibility in the crypto space. The same hype brought ethereum in the spotlight. Another thing is that on steem the user base can't grow without the price increasing as rewards would keep going down for everyone until nobody want to use the site anymore.
What do you think is the main driver for growth?