When payout goes 50-50
Then I'm out
Would even prefer for 98-2, as content adds value.
But I'm just plankton
Yep, Whales (also known as legend accounts) have me for breakfast, lunch or dinner. So why even bother posting about this subject? Well because I think I am not alone in this and also some more well known Steemians might move house. ,Dolphins_, you might call them, somewhere at Hero and Super-Hero level. The ones that I enjoy their publications of. Many of them who landed here just like me in early 2016.
No, I stay away from the trending page, just like I dislike watching adverts. It is a bot thing you know and those voting to get a part of the 25% for curation. It is part of the game, one can choose to stay away from. But to change the potential payout split from 75-25 to 50-50 is going to hit everbody who publishes at Steem. This is mainly an investors thing, as I have come to understand. Because they have put some of their own skin in the game, as a Steem Power investment.
Sure I can understand it, but what does add potential value to that investment? Without publishers that gain attraction Steem would lose attention and the value would drop. And I do not see Steem succeed on investments only. So, we are all in this together, it is a co-operation on a blockchain. But without fresh attention attracting content it would lose its core reason for excisting. Then it would just be some Legend level Steemians bot controlled self upvoting accounts.
Dividend on Steem Power {SP}
The holders of SP, investors, already get a slice of the newly created Steem. Even if they would not be curating this would add up quite nicely. The bigger the amount of SP, the higher the chunck of the 25% curation reward of the post payout. Adding to the Steem Power already in wallet. And so forth and so on. What I want to point out here is that investors/curators already get rewarded nicely for doing so. Yes, I know it sucks when Steem started to drop in value, but that also influences the publishers.
Some publishers also have a lot of Steem Power too. And every Steem held as SP generates more Steem Power. But, they already share 25% of their post payout with those who curated it. And thanks to a kind of dividend on SP they get some compensation for that. Less than with a 98-2 deal probably, but we are all in the same boat here, so 75-25% might be an okay deal. Where as I see 50-50 as just a good deal for huge SP holding accounts. It will be bad for the whole Steem platform.
Does it matter?
Well, I could review my witness votes. And maybe you could do so too. This might be some witnesses though who signal that the payment per block and the dividend on held Steem Power is too low for them. Meaning that they have to cut into their own flesh to keep things going. That is actually something I could understand. Just like a different Power Down cycle, maybe a more dynamic one.
Maybe with changes like 50% after the first week, 25% after the second and so on. Or different values, and with a limit on the first 7 weeks. Still adding up to 13 weeks in total. And maybe part of the newly created Steem need to be going to the witnesses and the stand by ones. Kind of how Teleos is doing it. It maybe worth looking at how other DPOS {Delegated Proof Of Stake} blockchain handle it. If it is good, copy it, if it is bad, forget it.
Tweak and keep
And I would be okay with a higher reward for Witnesses. Or even going for a different inflation rate setup, going to 12% for instance and then drop by half a percent a year. Where a bigger chuck of Steem goes towards the Witnesses and the stand by ones. Maybe raising the virtual dividend on holding SP to 16% a year, relative to the reservation for this. There are some numbers that can be tweaked like that, I think.
The market price for Steem is probably not even going to change that much if these tweaks have been done. Yet it could help the co-operation on a blockchain move forward in a healthy and steady way. But drasticly changing the payout percentages from 75-25 to 50-50 is a huge cut for the income of the publishers. They who create content add value to Steem. Investors can earn dividend on their SP and then some more by curating. Especially by deploying upvote-bots. Going 50-50 will have lot of Steemians move house, me included.
Have a great one!
Steem could go to 12 USA$, I once thought.
Digital drawing cc-by-sa @oaldamster
I see it more as: earning a lower percentage per unit (post) with the hopes of earning more in bulk (incoming votes). A proven money making strategy. Quite common.
Imagine if this place had hundreds of millions of members. The content creator could get by on a 10% cut. They would have tens of thousands of votes pour in and those voters would all be wanting a curation reward, if that's what's being offered, so splitting 90% among thousands provides more incentive to vote than if the creator was taking 50% and offering thousands of voters a share of the other 50%.
I've noticed many only think of themselves and what they'll lose. 50% does look like less than 75% on paper. When more people have an incentive to vote, more votes trickle in, meaning the content producer would receive a higher reward.
Nobody wants to vote these days. When they delegate or sell votes, they're being paid to look away. Remove the incentive of looking away, more will look, more will vote. Right?
Agreed, I even imagine content creators having a slidebar to set the content-curation-reward however they like!
The 'content creators market' will figure the best ratio out by try and error! Some take more % from less votes, others take less % from more votes to get better or worse results!
Creators could have 'sales'. Offer posts giving away 90%, advertise ahead of time. Watch em line up post day. It could be the shittiest post and everyone would still be there to vote. Black Friday post sale!
I'm all in favour of trying stuff, but I doubt this will play out as you think. I predict most of the larger players will simply adjust their money-making algorithms and still look away; maybe the extra revenue for bidbots will make more people delegate to them, or voting more for the big earners will become prevalent.
Manual curation is just a drag for larger accounts, apparently, and they will do what is needed to avoid it and still make some money.
As long as content is seen as a pesky diversion from the real purpose of Steemit by the bigger players, you can set any percentage, and tie the reward curve into a bow tie and draw polka dots on it, but little will change because of culture, short-term thinking, and distribution.
I hope I'm wrong.
I can't see how purchasing votes makes money under a 50/50 model. I left some numbers down here in my response to @oaldamster.
I don't have an issue with auto-bot curation where high SP accounts vote while looking away. That means the content creator earns, they still get the views from those willing to look, plus new views because the high value SP account is acting as promoter pushing work up to be seen. A creator has to earn that trust, so they are technically earning for all the right reasons, just receiving one less actual view, but potentially gaining more views because of that one less view.
Maybe bidbots would reach another price point, or send part of their increased curation rewards to the vote buyers, or whatever. I'm convinced they'll find a way to make content-agnostic curation and reward-earning work, because that is what the majority of the larger chunks of active stake seem to want.
Will it be a matter of trust, or a matter of prior agreement on how to achieve maximum ROI by selecting the right circles, or other wrong reasons, I wonder.
Anyway, as with all things economic, there are no models that predict well; the only thing we can and should do is try it, see what happens, and roll back if things get worse. All else is just an exchange of opinions that will never lead to knowledge of what the change will do or not.
Another experiment could be to do away with curation rewards completely, so that only those who don't vote because of rewards but just because they like content get to distribute the reward pool. Most voters don't get any appreciable curation rewards anyway, and it would be a little like the whale experiment.
Experiment away, I say, one change at a time, and roll back if things don't turn out well.
And, of course, you're a fascist for not agreeing with me.
Shitty part about trying it with a rollback option is those who want to see it fail will do everything in their power to make it fail.
Everything is stake-based here; if a stake majority can and does make it fail, at least we know where we stand and then there's nothing we can do anyway to go against their perceived interests. Still worth an experiment in my book.
BTW I must admit that I have become cynical to the point that I don't trust anything that gets a top-21 witness majority to be in the best interest of content providers. I think that, with just a few exceptions, their interests lie elsewhere.
That's the best part. I can hope for the best, talk about how I see it unfolding which is simple, like I said: take a lower percentage with the hopes more votes trickle in, meaning I'd earn more (I mean, shit, there are a lot of people who stopped voting for me just so they can get paid to look away. Bring them back and I'd be rockin' again. Seriously, I would be, so would others if we got our support back that we lost due to vote selling and delegation). If it doesn't work I just blame them. And if all else fails, fuck it, I'll just sell votes and stop being an asshole trying to make money the hard way. If it all comes down to money, I'm not screwed either way. I want my blog to succeed though, as well as the platform. Again, if it doesn't, I'll just make money writing posts blaming them. Fuck it.
Or...
Earning the same percentage as creator vs. curator and everyone potentially earning much more due to better incentives for buyers and holders of STEEM and SP.
This is a staking platform. It’s how the entire system functions. Increasing stake vs. liquid STEEM increases price pressure. Higher prices means more money paid out to posts.
This element should not be ignored...it’s essentially the main reason that I support the change. SP needs more/better utility and staking needs to be better incentivized. We can’t continue giving away a majority of the rewards to those who do not invest and then cash out their blogging profits, especially if we all want a better ecosystem with higher STEEM prices.
Those people who are assuming the most risks ought to be the ones rewarded, particularly when their own money is locked up so that “pay-me-now” bloggers can constantly draw money/value out of the system.
There are plenty of other arguments to be made about 50/50, but investment/incentive is the primary one for me.
There is a platform that actually made the choice to only Stake rewards 100%. And I actually do like it lot.
Fact is though that Steem has not been created, marketed to be like how you describe it: "Stake and get rewarded!"
Liquid Steem and SBD are to be used to get things moving in and out. A rotating economy, where Stake holders are actually rewarded with dividend. No need to do shit for that, just buy some Steem Power and let it grow. Make it grow even more by curating. Delegate it, get more SP while you do. Have other members pay you for 'curating', by deploying a bidding bot. And your SP will grow even faster.
Steem publishers put time and energy in. If nobody would do so this platform would be just a bunch of investors watching their SP grow every 3 seconds.
Members who publish already take a 50/50 deal. That is a 50% SP and 50% liquid Steem. Or they can choose to go full Stake at 100% SP. After that they have to be patient if they need to cash in. Or even want too, it is their earned Steem. Going below 500 SP? It has its price, but it is their free choice to do so. And they should still be rewarded for their effort, if it is appreciated.
Without them there would be no usefull platform. If everybody only would stake the price of Steem would not even move, that is my guess. Or it would just die out.
There has to be movement. And publishers on Steem are important, as they add value to the blockchain. Investments in itself are doing nothing.
Whether the 50/50% payout for publishers and curators should be done, I'm still letting that sink in. But your reasoning made me move more towards no.
I'm already set up to earn back much of what I lose through posting IF curation reward is 50%, when I curate. I do see it as a balancing act. I have the SP, I made the choice to powerup, I deserve the benefits.
I can see it creating a positive feedback loop with more people wanting to be in my position, earning, powering up, being able to give more and more, meaning others can earn more. Yes. This isn't rocket science.
I agree with what you're saying here and would also like to point out how it's unwise for this vote purchasing trend to continue. Vote sellers are not powering up the money they receive. In many cases, hundreds if not thousands of people are contributing to someone's daily income. The vote seller receives tokens, sells them, makes money, drives the value down. One can almost see the results of this looking at a simple price chart. A slow and steady decline. Something is draining the power out of this token. It's obvious to me what it is.
Well said
Agree completely.
Most plankton earn $0.02 on a post which works out at $0.015 when paid out. It will take aeons before they even grow to become minnows. If you change the reward to 50-50 it makes it that much harder, if not impossible.
Which witnesses are pushing for 50-50? Can you list them so we can go and unvote them?
So far I do not know which witnesses. As far as I came to understand it is a suggestion. To have a conversation about it. And I still think it is a bad idea...
50/50 would encourage all stakeholders to vote more for other posts. Combined with a measure to disincentivize splitting SP between multiple accounts it would reintroduce the primary platform goal of not voting as much for yourself. That's the logic.
Yes, I did get the assumption, yet I apparantly look at it from a different angle.
And yet you think that
So I wonder how much you really understand.
That was just wordplay... 😕
Are you serious...!?
Oh my bad 😅 though still, what it implies is not reasonable, word play or not.
Well, okay, I can live with that. 😁
nee joh
eerst proberen
en dan kijken hoe het werkt
ik vermoed wel dat niks zal veranderen
voor sommige is dit een spel
dus ze gaan ook hun voting behavior veranderen
het is altijd zo
you can change the system
but if its all the same person/people on board
they will just find a way around it
but ... remember - opgeven is geen optie
doorgaan!
#NL van tijd tot tijd zal er wel een en ander veranderen. Maar het is nog steeds dezelfde structuur van Legend level naar Newbies. Dus ik vermoed ook dat er weinig wezenlijks veranderd.
Ach, ja, hier weg kan ik toch niet, het is als in het liedje Hotel California... "You may check out any time you like, but you can never leave." ;-)