I mention couple times in the post what assumptions were made here. We are looking at "most common/best case scenarios" to get these numbers as to show the potential that can be achieved. Its clear that the ceiling values will be hard to reach, but at least now we know where the ceiling might be.
If you take a look at Kevins post according to his recent numbers his ROI was about 3,5%.. Improvement can be made and this analysis was made to show that.
(this of course isnt possible, but an improvement can be made)
What @kevinwong completely miss on the other hand is that it's normal for businesses to go years without making any ROI. The fact that you even can make an ROI instantly is amazing here and a new paradigm shift. My 6 years making videos on YouTube I didn't have a single year where I made real cash out revenue. I 100% always invested back the value. Value flipping to generate more abundance. That is what should be the focus. Never ever "ROI", how do you calculate ROI on a comment, helping a person? You simply can't
I'm missing the point? Everyone makes ROI right away here. The point is to have a ROI maximisation behaviour align with content and curation under the right incentives. Anyway, I've already said what I said. Getting more depressing everytime revisiting this problem again and again. 99% Steemit Inc will wake up to this problem after their trance with SMTs. I hope lol.
Completely agree. Thats exactly what we intended to show with this post.
Maximizing curator profit by supporting quality (or perceived as quality) creators based on curator/curation team consensus.
Same way you can find quality posts and creators on Steemit you can find them on Dtube/dlive/dsound as well. Doesnt change much imo, in your curation philosophy (from what ive seen so far you do)
it's feeding off a dysfunctional game.