Thank you @redhens! Given that we are drawing out of the same rewards pool, those that earn more are directly reducing what those are the bottom make. For example, if all the rewards were eliminated from the top 10 authors, about $100,000 would then be disrupted in a month to the remaining authors are a ratio equal to existing votes. Thus, I think it is important for each of us getting a high percentage of the total rewards to be accountable to everyone else about what we are contributing in exchange for what we are getting. The authors we allow to earn the most also limit everyone else's rewards the most.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Very true. But unless -- or until -- the playing field is levelled out more or the "rules" are changed, I can't fault people for making it work for them. As with anything, if we're relying on those at the top to equally share the wealth out of the goodness of their hearts, we'll probably be disappointed. Some may, but others will not.
I'd love to see a more even distribution of rewards, driven more by votes than by investment. But until then, I'll have to be happy with my small rewards and focus on enjoying Steemits other perks.
I do appreciate your work and the insight you provide into Steemit's inner workings though. I think it's a valuable reality check for new users to be aware of how people are making as much profit as they do, if only to keep our own expectations realistic.
I agree we need to balance the interests of authors earning fair rewards with investors earning a good return by holding Steem Power. If we go too far either way with the rewards skewed too much to authors while investors struggle to earn, the price of Steem is not likely to grow. If it is too easy for investors to get a return but great authors struggle to earn anything, we will never hit critical mass in terms of users = readers. I trust in looking at these needs we will find the best way forward for everyone involved to get a fair share of the rewards and maybe be at peace with what we are each receiving and giving today.
This is very lucid. There are many examples of real world investors being too greedy and eventually cutting their own throats because of it, Enron, Bernie Madoff, more beyond count.
The white paper supposed that ~90% of rewards going to ~30% of accounts was the correct ratio to best encourage growth of Steemit and price appreciation of Steem. However the lastest numbers I have seen indicate that ~99% of rewards inure to but ~1% of accounts, and this is orders of magnitude more skewed than they claim to have intended.
This data is from just prior to HF19. I don't think (but don't know) that the situation has changed much. Some of the names have changed, for example @mindhunter should be at the top of the chart in recent data, but the distribution of rewards is probably the same, or perhaps even more skewed, as the decrease in minnow votes by 400% has dramatically impacted curation.