Just wanted to jump in and point out vote sellers will receive terrible curation rewards are compared to people who vote great content at the correct timing. No one buys votes before they themselves upvote. 50/50 simply evens the playing field of a person did choose to want to curate.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Well yeah...
But that doesnt really matter. No amount of curation will force a passive income whale to curate actively when there is an equally good passive return option available that requires no effort.
They might get bad curation but manual curators are ineffective as is so not much would change. Kevin shared his curation roi a while back and he is very bad at it by his own admition. And that was at a time when he was trying and wasnt circle jerking.
This was never about saving steem or the trending page. This is about some large accounts with good intentions developing a jealousy of vote sellers..
For that very reason, cuting authors rewards by 25% after the DAO is the best path to take.
Reduces vote selling profits and sends those profits into the fund to improve Steem. It puts vote sellers and curator earnings on equal grounds.
Look, after Kpine stopped curating you Acid and Blocktrades are the only whales on Steem left that are worth a damn. Dont get pulled into the Kevin and Traf rhetoric due of increased gains because that could really hurt us. Look at the alternatives.
Would like to see vote selling services try to compensate for that extra 25% taken out. I mean, they could, but the profitability should be affected.
Maybe promotional cost will finally be what it is...a cost.
Look at smokie.io - their trending page destroys ours and they use 50/50 - I believe you are pushing your personal ideals too hard here. You say things like no amount and always, but that's not how life works. I would curate twice as much if it was actually competitive vote selling. if you'd like to come on my show and debate this that is fine but you have yet to even lay out an arguement. Simply saying people will still vote sell is not enough, at 50/50 - people can earn MORE curating then selling votes. Whales can passivly delegate to projects like curie who actually do good curation, as apose to a bidbot where they will get crap curation. Keep in mind; good curators can earn a lot more then what they originally put in, that is the goal to find good content first and be rewarded.
I'm not claiming to be right, I am open for whatever is best.
Lol. I wont look at Smoke.io since i cant take seriously a platform that is based around a drug. Just like i wouldnt take seriously a platform called Beer.io.
Of course im pushing my ideals here. Thats what opinions are based on. I have ideals that inform my opinions and i share them. Just like with every single other person that has something to say.
I know you would. Thats my point. Most people most of the time will continue to acting generally the same way.
Which is why im actually almost completely positive that the passive income whales wont start curating.
They signed up to make money, not spend time digging through hundreds of pages of content.
Person A continuously acts in a certain way because they are a certain way.
Youre assuming that if you change something that in no way requires them to change their behavior, that they will change their behavior.
Im saying they will not change their behavior.
What is more likely???
I hope you are open to whatever is best because you seem to sorely underestimating human greed.
If you respect my opinion at all, I would take a look at all communities, humans are humans.
Now, I am saying investors would delegate to curation projects, passively, because it would make them more money + help the platform at the same time. That is what I am saying. You say people will continue to sell votes even if that isn't the most profitable route, and that is untrue. Also, vote selling comes with risk, if you sell your vote to a person who spams BS and that gets downvoted, you lose what little curation rewards you would have gotten + get a bad rep. It is hard to find an argument that says 50/50 would not improve curation.
Im saying that it will still be the most profitable route.
Vote selling services will adjust their rates. They are businesses. Ofc they will adjust easily to this. Look at my first comment explaining it. This will make vote selling worse due to making it cheaper to get high value votes.
I have no agenda here to push. Im not a big earner or a big curator. I only care about the platform and this would hurt it greatly.
How would vote selling services make it cheaper? That is up to the person selling the vote. If a person is willing to sell a vote for cheap, then they are better off curating because they would make more money.
They wont be selling it cheap. They would be selling it for a lower amount of liquid funds but for more SP.
Whatever they would get from vote selling would offset the loss of being ineffective curators from selling votes.
They still get curation plus whatever they get from folks paying for votes meaning that their behavior would not change.
On the other hand, due to vote buyers having to pay less for the same $ amount on their post the demand might actually increase.
Vote selling services like MB and SS just adjust their rates. They just need to keep the return for vote buyer at 10-14% like it is now. That literally requires 5 minutes of work.
The fact is, since we moved away from 50/50 a long time ago, Steems website rank has steadily fallen, and the trending has got steadily worse. How can you argue this is not a direct effect of vote selling because the rewards are 25/75. It is just a broken incentive system. That is my arguement.
Im not arguing that. Im a firm believer that bots negatively affect Steemit website rank.
My point is that 50/50 isnt the solution. Its exactly the opposite.
Im arguing against 50/50 because it will make the trending page even worse and vote selling a bigger problem.