Great post. Regarding what is right in terms of content creation...
It would seem that steemit has maintained a type of meritocracy upon which all content is seemingly permitted (within reason).
Therefore, the steemit staff has a "hands off" approach and sees this as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Being a meritocracy, the cream is designed to rise above everything based upon peer acceptance; quality content is therefore to be promoted, rewarded, and low quality content (rehashed content) gets no reward and is therefore of little consequence and is unlikely to prolong.
Regarding how to minimize selfish behavior...
Perhaps better enabling, incentivizing and rewarding whales to take smaller members under their wing per se could be an avenue of consideration.
How can you accomplish that? I'm not sure; it's well above my pay grade. What I do know, is that for steemit to continue well into the future, it requires users of all levels to participate, feel welcome, and contribute well into perpetuity, or there will be little content stability over the long haul.
A mechanism could be adopted to better promote a more liberal distribution of rewards one way or the other, so that newer members aren't swept under the carpet.
Wishing you the best, and thanks for your well thought out demonstration.
Initially, i thought of it as a platform based on meritocracy. Obviously, it is not...
It is, but merit is subjective and those with the most to lose have the most say.
Agree, no one can say which content is good, which content is bad. Inevitably, some content can be more popular and hence, more profitable.
BUT you gotta be kidding me when such post like this: https://steemit.com/news/@nkdk/scientists-have-created-nanorobots-that-can-travel-down-the-bloodstream-and-precisely-target-cancerous-tumors is
is worth SD563.
When we see posts like this, who in the right mind, will still feel incentivised to write original and quality science posts?
And who stands to lose the most if people don't feel incentivised to write original and quality science posts?, but is just links and report news? I rather read techcrunch.
You sure merit is the right word? More like random...
If Steemit is not successful then those with the largest stake will lose the most. I can't be responsible for the actions of every significant stakeholder, but I do try my best to personally vote for what I feel are high-quality posts, encourage and assist others in doing so, and downvote low-quality posts (including the above).
What may be difficult to accept is that a decentralized system has no authority that can step in and dictate that posts such as the above will never get upvoted. We can only hope that over time incentives cause a shift (though sometimes a slow shift) toward better outcomes.
I am doing #academiaspotlight and i have seen a lot of original and quality science posts getting as little as SD0.15.....
I am not sure why i can't reply your reply. Saw the downvote on that post. thanks for swift action. nothing against you. But again, this is just so much that you can do with your army of curators. When the number of users in steemit increases, is the number of curators sustainable or scalable just based on your account? This is not a question to you but something for us, especially the founders (if they want to prove that steemit is here to stay) to think about as the network grows.
Said well, serve you to be president of america
Write me in. ;)
Indeed, we need to make sure novel contribution is stable AND rewarded.Thanks for the feedback! I also hope to see the spread of whale power to the hands of other people, with 'vote delegation' or the pagerank style approach @dan had mentioned.
Spreading power should occur via spreading of investment. Otherwise you just create a situation where investment will flee because the power is being wielded by people who don't incur the costs of their decisions. I'm very much in favor of spreading investment though.