Empathy is good, solutions are better. I've heard this same for a while, "working on solutions," Your content providers hesitate to speak for fear of absolute loss of any possible future earnings. Steem Power (SP) holders vote using bots is not curation. They don't read the content. So if you can get on that list, you make bucks, if not sorry. An investment of $10,000 doesn't get me any voting SP to speak of. Excellent content providers come and leave, feeling betrayed by your message. I cannot find a good reason to get a content provider to stay here, and I've tried.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think there can be solutions for the curation issue.
One is to eliminate curation rewards altogether.
Another is to ratelimit votes, and decrease this rate as the number of votes in a period, that is, if a whale has huge voting power, the more their bots vote, the slower their voting gets, diminishing the ability of their bot to win them the voting rewards. This ratelimiting could also throw captchas in that bots can't solve, and when this happens repeatedly, some kind of report can be filed on the blockchain to indicate the user is abusing the voting system, and steadily decrease the votes per time period the more they continue to violate this.
None of that solves the true problem which is attention scarcity. So now less votes happen or there is no incentive for people to vote? The curation reward should remain and just decentralize curation. Whale power can be distributed to minnows who can vote with whale power for a couple days out of the week.
'attention scarcity'. Unfortunately that sounds like the talk of toddlers, I mean, attention has to be won with meritorious behaviour, you don't win an entitlement to it by being born. I don't mean to be so abrasive in saying this, but when the pool of attention is so big, and right at the moment, the system is completely wide open, unsegregated, unsegmented. A solution that might help with the non-monetary element of attention, is having groups. But as far as the money and vote rewards goes, the pool of available rewards is limited by the size of the sum of all members' SP.
To do things any other way makes no economic sense. This is also why this platform makes such a strong appeal to anarcho-capitalists, who unlike these modern liberals or the anarcho-socialist types, believe that society should be regulated by economics and logic, and not the illogical and economically ignorant idea that anyone acquires a share of a scarce resource without doing the work that gets people to pay. Besides the injustice of it, the rewards spread so thin that the incentive towards meritorious behaviour is lost.
That doesn't make any sense. How would rewards be tabulated?
I agree, what's yours?
As I already said I think posts need to be broadcasted anonymously to the world with absolutely zero details about them, number of votes, dollar amount and author should be hidden from the public and only visible to the author. Only then people will actually upvote the content. Curators don't need any other info but content, everything else is a distraction and have a negative influence.
Once the voting system is unbiased it allows for a fair distribution which means more diversified. Currently what is happening is basically whales creating a second generation of whales. It's like you have the 300 biggest whales giving all their vote to the other 300 whales that will soon be bigger than themselves, whales needs to stop voting for the same stuff everyday. The solution is encrypt author and post details . ( they can be available a few hours before payout for example but should not influence during voting process)
As soon as reputation went in the votes to low reps disappeared.
How do you do that on a blockchain? What about transparency?
That's false. From an economic perspective, curators should upvote if they value the post more than its predicted payout (and should downvote otherwise, assuming we didn't have downvotes/flagging tied together). Everything else is just irrational behavior and human bias noise.
Edit: Just for clarity, I'll add that these would be equivalent if content visibility were the same for all blogs, but it just can't be if its ranked in any way. And it needs to be ranked.
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing... inactive whales get a lower share, wealth gets redistributed.
It's really just a visibility problem combined with low bot competition. As competition grows, bots will become smarter and there will be more author diversity.
Wealth distribution, visibility and content quality are all major problems that will most likely all get sorted out over time. I think the only issue is that it might be too slow of a process for us to scale effectively and make this less of a gambling site and more content quality based. There are some ways we can make this faster, I don't see "encrypting" information as being helpful (quite the contrary actually) or even implementable.
I hope my answers/comments were clear enough, if not I invite you to come discuss those on rocket.chat. I'm quite surprised by the amount of support your comment received so I hope I didn't misinterpret your views.