I think this a great post to repeat my point I left on @steemship's latest. :)
I'll take this point about [lopsided voting influence] to say that it essentially shows our need for [Delegated Curation Guilds (DCGs)].
The reason there are in essence only one or two of these so far (Smooth and CURIE) is this:
Whales that are not voting a lot may be doing so as a means of abstaining from rewards and giving minnows a chance to grow influence.
Whales that are voting a lot may be doing so as a means of projects like CURIE to give minnows a chance to grow influence.
Both parties are seeking the same goals of gamifying / growing the platform.
It just happens that the difference in means creates a strong cognitive dissonance between the two groups.
DCGs are potentially a solution to the cognitive dissonance by allowing both types of whales to continue doing (abstaining from voting, voting actively, or “hiring” curators) what they were doing while bringing the available voting power into the market in either a profit seeking or altruistic manner.
Sure, but "bad whales" and a trending page that looks set in stone are great demotivators and two initiatives are not enough as of now, in my opinion.
IMHO there's not so much cognitive dissonance but communication failure..
I am curious how it counteracts the problem also.... We've seen 100+ votes and $5. It's how we make a difference, not do we want to make a difference
this is at 135 and 20$ :)
I see people with under 100 at 200$. Stll, for me comments are also important. A lot fo comments means something...
And yes, this is just another nail in the coffin that nobody acknowledges.
Maybe if we shout loud enough for long enough...if not, oh well, our throat get horse and problem solved too right? :)
maybe the upcoming update will set more balance into voting power distribution..
mainly the entire problem is created by the fact that the minnow votes are not valued. I feel the same as you actually. I sometimes get 300+ votes and a payout of like say, $76 and a shitload of comments. I am thinking to myself, "How the fuck can this be?" And I have quite a reach and a large amount of followers too. I am frustrated that my influence does not carry more weight with regards to the payout. And this is caused by the fact that the minnows are not valued, not heard and do not feel loved. This is a huge problem. If bots are ruining the chances that minnows are not feeling valued, it's time to reduce the bots or have some kind of rules regarding the bots.......we cannot place robots and people in the same category! Humans deserve more value!
I've often heard that the reason minnows' vote weight is not more is because people would abuse the system by having their bots upvote their posts.
it's at $32.53 now
Comments I love also.... A good discussion thread and I feel rewarded..... I just don't care for the discrepancy... In theory lol
What do you think about giving minnows a fix rate voting power like 2$ every vote. Considering the no. of minnows like me in the community, a hundred votes could mean something and can make a difference. We wont be needing the whales votes anymore.
Isn't it amazing?
@stellabelle Thank you for taking the time to answer! I know this is one of your concerns but for me, there isn't primarily a MONEY concern. But it becomes one when I see the trending and what crazy amount other people do. that's what fucks us up!
Is this post worth 77$? is it worth 700$? It's hard for me to say but what IS fucked is that if ned upvoted [ which I frankly don't understand why comment and not upvote unless your comment is negative ] it would have been at 200$+.
THAT'S what mindfucks.
That being said, the idea of the council wouldn't be to give people more "money per upvote" but to give them a voice. A voice is more important in the long run.
"it's time to reduce the bots or have some kind of rules regarding the bots" <-- this is also difficult to do, because once you start with rules, you\re gonna have more rules and more bans, and etc. The bots don't belong to SteemitHQ, not can they ban them. We need solutions that take in account that bots WILL exist and upvote. But I must agree that the human curation is >>> autos.
And I also agree that bots are ruining big time for everybody, maybe not for the authors who get 1000$+ every time they say "hey".
I"'ve often heard that the reason minnows' vote weight is not more is because people would abuse the system by having their bots upvote their posts." -- I invite you to read this, that's the main reason why the votes have the power they have (+ Steemt marketcap )
How does a bad whales looks like @razvanelulmarine and what do they usually do?
I appreciate your motives. I honestly do, but there are people screaming suggestions and would love a simple comment acknowledging they've been heard.
I absolutely hate every whale vote I have had, has never been followed with a whale comment. People want to participate.... I want to participate. It's just hard at times
@ned and friends - there is that saying that you cannot please all of the people all of the time. No matter what you do, there will be a group of people who will complain.
The problem that I see with having councils is a select few will have a more powerful voice and growing influence.
I would instead propose having PAID moderators. Perhaps there's a way to have these people sign in under a user name which is associated to a @null account while they're on the clock, that way they can be perceived as unbiased.
Create a steem.chat channel where they would moderate as well and be the first line of defense against SPAM notices, disputes, or newbie questions. Put that link in a prominent space within the header!
Pay their active username in SBD or STEEM or a mix. Have an application process so you have a link to their body of work to review how they comment and respond to people. This gives you insight into how community-oriented they are because if you don't open the hiring pool to everyone you risk being accused of cronyism.
Once paid moderators are off the clock, they can sign into their active username and engage in the community like normal, but when they're working, they need to have guidelines and principles - a set job description.
This is something STEEMIT can do and not lay all the responsibility on the whales.
And honestly, to hire curators might be a good idea as well! It allows them to delegate while they are freed up to pursue their own creative passions.
I've previously read @stellabelle's frustration at how whales are often sought because they're not seen as people anymore - but dollar signs. That's pretty sad. So if "humanizing" whales means you're on mahogany row delegating "troops" for the greater good, then go for it. Every business that I know of has some kind of hierarchy. It sets boundaries - which is a good thing.
The bottom line is: you're going to have a steady flow of minnows so there will always be a learning curve within the platform. Have people in place who are responsible for mentoring them. I'm sure there are a few whales here that started off as minnows. Why should the burden be entirely on them? That doesn't sound fair either.
I dunno about the solution but I loved your comment and the attitude. we need more of this!
Whales are not gods.
I like the idea of letting the whales do what they are currently doing and bring the voting power in the market. The question is, whos going to take that voting power, how are they distributed and what are the criteria?
I know you possessed a very great mind and I also know that you and dan are doing everything for the good future of the community, but you also have to take care of us minnows who are contributing good quality contents to the platform by giving us the chance to be heard and be notice. And this goes also to every whales in the community.