I highly disagre with 50/50.
I create content, og high quality. Sometimes it get a whale, sometimes it doesn't . It hard work, and I create the content. It would not be worth anything without voters true. But that's not the case for curation, to "make money".
I also go through all the "new" posts each day pretty much, and I curate. Why? Because I want Steemit to succeed. Not for the payouts from curation, because that is essentially 0 from my SP position.
If people want Steemit to succeed, they need to devote themselves more to help it succeed. People who create the content create the quality or lack of quality on the platform. 50/50 is not good.
Take care. Peace.
I think there's a line somewhere. Top posts are overpaid (public opinion) and curation, as it exists today, offers nothing for new users. The author may take a dip in the amount they receive, but if it is balanced by more eyeballs, more votes as well as more users it will find a balance I would think.
Where else can you write $1000 article without giving up copyright? Way overpaid.
Upvoted because I agree in a sense. Disagree because there are no guarantees here. Maybe you make $1000 one day and then the next day you put in just as much effort but don't get the votes. Risk carries added reward.
Still rewards seem sufficient and reducing them by 1/3 to double curation rewards is a good tradeoff.
way late response, but I agree. It makes more sense to look into having authors be the one wanting to invest and new users playing a freemium version.
Where else can you upvote something and make $10?
Do you understand that you are just getting back a portion of the dilution you are paying for with your own investment? That's where 100% of the rewards come from. Someone who has enough SP to earn $10 from a vote is paying for a very, very significant amount of the rewards going out.
I don't think I've ever thought of it that way, but I do understand that's how it's intended to work.
So basically by wanting to change the split to 50/50, the goal behind it is to make investors experience even less dilution?
[replying from below]
My primary goal (and I have stated this all along) would be to significantly increase (by 2x) rewards for the type of activity and engagement that is most relevant to the largest share of the user base. That is voting. A smaller number comment and far, far smaller number create highly-valued long-form blog posts. By giving far more people a path to earn, even if it is only token amounts (though doubling it is certainly nice), it increases the competitive gameplay element and gets more people engaged. No one realistically expects the bulk of the userbase, with modest SP, to ever make a living from curation, but the rewards still matter.
Already we see, in this thread for example, people discussing voting strategies as gameplay, including the idea of "covering the board" as one might do in roulette. The people discussing this are not professionals making a living from curation; they are being competitive and having fun. They report earnings of 1-5 SP/day. That is engagement. Other users of course, will never be that competitive or strategic but will still like to see rewards trickling into their wallet the same way one might collect diamonds or gems or some other in-game reward (except in this case it can be turned into actual money!)
The cost of this 2x increase is a 1/3 decrease in content rewards. I see that as a modest reduction that is better spent sprinkling rewards on a much larger number of active voters than a relatively small number of posters.
Increasing curation rewards does effectively reduce dilution and thereby increase the fundamental value of SP, but that is not my primary goal in supporting it. The goal of reducing dilution could also be achieved by simply eliminating curation rewards altogether, something that has been proposed multiple times and which I have always strongly opposed for the above stated reasons.
The reason I brought up the question of dilution, is to illustrate that "upvote and earn $10" is flawed logic. The correct logic is "invest $100000 into a system that will rapidly dilute your investment (in fact by paying a huge chunk of it to a small number of very successful bloggers), upvote, and earn $10". Do you see the difference?
(I don't know if $100000 is the number that produces a $10 curation reward for an upvote, that was a made up number, in fact my guess is it may be higher.)
@smooth
Just had a question about this. If long-form blog posts are in fact highly-valued (and you're not the only whale who has mentioned this), why are so many of the trending posts not those types of posts? And the ones that are - why are they such a relatively poor quality?
Is the gamification of the system just not adequate to actually reward quality content in that regard? It appears to me that curating is almost purely driven by potential earnings based on nothing more than guessing the next trend and following whale votes for certain users. Should writers like myself just expect that this is in fact how it will always be? Because there really doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to my post rewards, no matter the form, tag, or writing style.
@smooth Totally understood, and I can get behind that being the rationale of wanting curation to "earn" more per post. It undoubtably makes powering up SP more appealing to those entering the system, regardless of their method of curation (which I think is where I focused too hard in our conversations).
I could be on board with trying 50/50, just like I'm on board for trying the 5 votes/day system. I still have some reservations in how it would be perceived by the community, as it's initial appearance is seemingly in favor of investors more than content creators, but in the end it might actually benefit content creators to have more investors actively curating.
@ats-david
I guess quality is the in the eye of the beholder and I'm not sure what posts you are talking about. There are always exceptions (makeup lesson -- which happened exactly once), but mostly what I see recurring there are @dollarvigilante, @charlieshrem, @heiditravels, @dantheman, @sterlinluxan, @barrycooper, etc. I consider their quality all fine (maybe you disagree?), but most people are never going to be them, write like them, or have their following