Some Thoughts on Steemit
View this post on Hive: Some Thoughts on Steemit
7 years ago in #steemit by valued-customer (67)
$131.87
- Past Payouts $131.87, 0.00 TRX
- - Author $99.43, 0.00 TRX
- - Curators $32.44, 0.00 TRX
a social media platform marketed with claims that content creators and curators are paid for their contributions, but largely failing to actually perform as claimed,
.
yeah...it's pretty bad
.
.
In the ten months that I've been steeming I've only made 25 thousand dollars. I'm powering down now and withdrawing about five thousand a month.
.
Investment? ...only my time.
.
It's SO unfair...I was expecting SO much MOAH.
.
and further more..
.
everyone knows that Rome was built in a day.
I DEMAND instant gratification.
what do you MEAN that I have to work for it?
that's SO unfair.
I love this. :)
Clearly YMMV. However, you have been favored recently by the value of Steem more than doubling. This appreciation in the value of Steem is largely driven by accelerated adoption in the last month. In the event that Steemit either fails to continue to grow, or begins to decline, in the face of competition, your satisfaction might vary from your present assessment.
I clearly spoke in terms of the distribution of rewards, and provided a simple and powerful datum that exemplified the concentration in very few accounts.
Neither did I demand anything, particularly instant gratification, or decry work. You may recall I work for a living, and do not much consider finance at all, as my needs are simple, and met through my work.
I point out several factors which affect Steemit now, are debated by hundreds of Steemers who find them unsatisfactory, and discuss the implications for Steemit. Rather than address these points, you chose to imply that I was complaining unreasonably about my own personal financial rewards - which I did not even address.
It is not whether or not Steemit is unfair that even matters. It is that many Steemers now consider it unfair, and people do strongly favor fairness. However, they aren't wrong, as the rewards for work producing and curating content is almost exclusively directed to a handful of Steemers.
I have often agreed with you on other issues, but would appreciate it if you would respond to what I actually did say, rather than to make reply that insinuates I made statements I did not. Perhaps you differ as to expectations of what will happen to Steem in a competitive market, and saying that, and why you do, would help inform my, and other's, understanding of the issues.
Powering down and cashing out is an action I predict those anticipating Steemit faltering in a competitive market will undertake, and you state you are doing exactly that. I will note two things: 1) actions speak louder than words, and 2) it is cliche that folks talk a thing up when selling out of it, and there's even a term for that.
Relevant comment could clarify what you believe regarding those points I made, and not leave us with but your actions to interpret. Also, I personally would prefer that substantive and relevant comment, rather than insinuation I said things I didn't, comprise our conversation. It has heretofore, which is why I have come to expect it from you.
There are hordes of folks we could follow if we want to hear SJWs intent on slander and innuendo, and you and I don't follow them for reasons. I followed you because your opinions were based on fact and reason, and generally stated that way, because that's what I value.
Your comment is complete idiocy. It is incredibly obvious to me that rather than listen and address his issues, you'd prefer to try and degrade his character like a child. I suspect the reason behind this is because you are one of the plutocrats benefiting from the current system and don't want the truth to get out. You actually can't address his arguments, because they aren't flawed.
There is something called the Pareto distribution that explains the phenomenon that a few usually make most of the profits as well as doing the most work.
I see this as being true in most places. Employees tend to work this way, its usually about 25% of the total number of employees who do 40% of the work for a company.
I also see this with video games as well, you tend to see a handful of hardcore gamers that literally base their lives around the game and accomplish most of the games content in a very short amount of time and are always hungry for more. These players tend to amass lots of in game wealth.
If you look at the players in overwatch, the best players in ranked play make up something like 10% of the overall playerbase, these people play more than everyone else.
I dont believe there is a way to solve this, some people simply are better than everyone else in ways that compliment a medium. Either it be work or play, there is little hope for equality of outcome in a natural environment sadly.
Almost Darwinian in description. I tend to agree.
Oddly, I seem to be the guy on the job doing all the work... LOL Now I know why.
This is not the Pareto distribution, because that would imply they were actually doing something of value. In the Pareto distribution, only a few need to be productive, and the rest can live off of their production.
This is a class system, rather than a Pareto distribution. Think of the top earners as a mix of hard working people AND parasites. You will find that some people in any society earned their way, and many others scammed. Those that scammed are parasitic, and they manipulate the social system so that the actual producers are working for their benefit. Class systems develop strictly because parasites wish to control wealth. People who actually earn their wealth do not involve themselves in control schemes, because they have no such need. Eventually, the parasites rise to the top and control everything. This is how any master/slave system forms, and it never lasts because the producers eventually recognize the game and usurp the system.
The Steemit plutocrats are just like typical aristocrats. They don't do anything of value. They just funnel the wealth through the system like parasites.
It is better to recognize that the Pareto distribution is a way to describe the # of productive people in a system vs the number of parasites. In Steemit, without actual statistics it appears like we have 90% contributors, and 10% parasites. The reason so many contributors aren't getting any wealth is because this is not a merit based system any longer. The Pareto distribution only applies to merit based systems.
Edit: multiple times to resolve very poorly written parts ... ugh
instant follow. i need to re-read this.
Thanks! I haven't time (working lately) to have at your blog, but I saw 'shipping container retreat' and had to plunk down a follow back. I am highly interested in maximizing the value proposition of recycling (I live in a trailer made from wholly recycled materials), so I really am going to have a look. When I get time. Soon.
This is a great article explaining the changes that Steemit needs to make. You hit the main points of the power of downvoting and the huge gap between the whales and the minnows. As you mentioned, Steemit is the only player in its space so it's that much more imperative that we gather together as a group and spread the positive news about Steemit and the inportance of reinvesting in steem power and the company as a whole. That way we'll keep growing and make it more of a community that just a tool
i totally agree! yesterday i saw someone's post criticizing a heavyweight downvoting their content merely to eliminate the payout on a couple of other posts because of some personal animus and then that post being downvoted onto oblivion. a system that allows that kind of inequality won't survive the potential influx of new participants. downvotes shouldn't be weighted the same as upvotes, them should become disconnected to steempower and count as one for one
Some other thoughts I've had are that downvotes should cost the voter proportionally the same amount, or numerically the same amount. I don't think either will happen, but changes like this would still enable stopping spam and plagiarism, while making downvoting just for personal reasons less palatable for those doing it.
I reckon downvotes just aren't necessary except for spam and the like, and those can be handled by groups of spamcops.
Good article. I agree that the voting system could indeed be more equitable, something it seems will be addressed in HF19. As to earnings, it seems to me that most of the big earners are the ones longest on the platform and producing consistent quality content, which is fair enough. As @kafkanarchy pointed out in his article today, he was earning only pennies when he began a year ago. I'm sure a year from now, if you keep going as you are, you'll be up there with the big boys.
Thanks for your substantive comment, and kind words. I expect I'll have to reiterate in every reply that I am not personally concerned with emuneration. I don't care much about money, and reckon I'll manage well enough to die old.
What I am discussing is that the concentration of wealth isn't self-correcting, which is why HF19, and that dramatic divergence is seemingly based more on gaming the platform to milk rewards than divergence in quality of content based on superior ability and experience.
It isn't mathematically sound to claim the divergence in rewards reflects divergence in ability. Many Steemers discuss this, from all wealth perspectives, and find it unfair. The perception of fairness is actually a lot more important than actual unfairness, because people will act, not based on reality, but rather their perceptions.
There are other pertinent factors, such as time in, which significantly affects following, and thus exposure, but following is also a commonly gamed feature, although not one I address.
All that being said, everybody finds more money welcome. I'm no different, just not very motivated thereby.
I wouldn't claim that 'divergence in rewards reflects the divergence in ability'. What I meant to suggest was not that all ‘able’ posts were well rewarded, but rather that, for the most part, the well-rewarded posts were ‘able’.
I guess it’s like life, you can have all the ability in the world but remain unnoticed and unrewarded.
I don’t know or understand HF19 well enough to debate it but got the idea that it would reduce the influence of the whales and increases that of the minnows. As you said, it is the perception of fairness which is important, as it is upon this that people act.
You are right. Quality alone isn't what makes a thing popular, nor all that adds value. Neither is value the only criteria that determines rewards, as the reach of the author plays a huge part, as well as other factors.
Some of these aren't problems I have tried to solve, or think can be solved.
But, in the final analysis, you are right. It is perceptions that inform belief, and belief impels our acts.
This is the crux, and I replied to your well thought out post in Jerry Banfield's thread concerning this sort of exploitation.
The concept that we should recognize and reward Quality posts is a morally good idea imo.
The premise that we can identify and properly evaluate Quality is flawed.
Quality is subjective, not objective. If we want to try and define Quality objectively, we're immediately treading on a slippery slope of conformity, which is precisely what a block chain media outlet should never be. The very idea of sucking up to whale's should be a clear indicator of this phenomenon.
I think if we're going to try and build an algorithm to represent Quality in a universal way, then we had better make it very scalable on many factors that are not easily exploitable in unison, nor heavily weighted individually. For instance, if we want to say that high VP should be to some degree related to high SP, then we take a tiny % of that and apply it to our Quality algorithm, rather than holistically represent it in this manner. It also needs to be on a logarithmic curve with a soft cap, much like many RPG XP systems. This is becoming verbal diarrhea, so I'll try to express it in a simple example formula:
Quality = %TotalActiveMembers * log(#Comments/(%TotalViews) * (UpVoteValuation/DownVoteValuation);
Where UpVoteValuation & DownVoteValuation = Sum(Vote * (log(SP)) * (log(Reputation)) )i to n; where i to n is individual votes
*** This is a very rough example, but I think you get the idea
Despite my personal vow to let my VP recharge, I was unable to not toss a vote for your substantive and EXTREMELY informative comment.
Thanks!
Although I don't write code, I expect I could if I set my hand to try. I used to write websites on notepad.
Before XHTML and Javascript required me to actually crack a book to figger out how to do it anymore =p
But I think I follow the example you gave, and i reckon it would be a good way to consider both SP and rep in weighting VP, in principle. Depending on the language (none of which I am familiar with) the syntax may vary, however, the essence of the formula seems sound.
Calibrae, a fork of Steemit I have had a look at, briefly, seems to be doing exactly that, and some other things, like eliminating SBD, changing the powerdown method and timeline, etc...
So, clearly your thoughts on the matter aren't so beyond the pale that others aren't thinking the very same thing. Also, your simple formula indicates that making such a change isn't very difficult.
So, again, Thanks!
Thanks for the vote but please don't feel the need to do so on my behalf. I'm not here for the money just like you (though it is always nice ofc). I'm here for the censorship free platform, and Steemit is still perfectly capable of this role. Your thoughts on this matter and reply means much more to me, so thanks for spending your time on this matter.
Calibrae, I don't remember exactly where, but I know it was you who mentioned Calibrae before and I intend to follow its progress on Github.
I wasn't even thinking of a language when I delivered that example. It is strictly a math formula at this point, and as I said it was rough, so likely not even a good formula to use. It is merely an example of the degree of complexity that would be required to represent Quality.
I'm sure you could get back into programming if you wanted, you've clearly got a rational mind and that's really all you need. The hardest part is getting started, but here is a really simple way to get off the ground:
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/codingground.htm
It is browser based IDE for a ton of diff languages. It avoids the messy starting setup for beginners, allows you to just dive right in. If you have any questions about code at any point, feel free to send them my way I'd be happy to help :).
Thanks! I shall have to consider that undertaking should opportunity arise. I am presently utterly overwhelmed with matters of pressing urgency.
Hello, I realy like your post, you have been followed and you can do the same here @valhalla-hash
The hard fork HF19 will lower the power of whales somewhat. Perhaps enough to take away your concerns on this point.
I believe it is intended to, but @aggroed has pointed out that he thinks it will not. He makes a convincing case, but even if he is wrong and the problem is mitigated, it won't be gone.
Why make a system that is even prone to the problem at all? It is seemingly far less difficult to make a simpler system that precludes the problem (I am not a coder, so am making assumptions that simpler is easier, which may or may not be correct in regards specifically to Solidity, or whatever language Steemit is coded in).
I am a simple man, with simple needs, and know that complexity invites failure. This is not only my assumption, but is one of the pillars of science, as Occam's Razor. While I have not speculated as to why Steemit is designed this way, I am certain there are reasons.
I don't think those reasons justify the increase in possibility of failure they endow the platform with when there are simpler, and fairer, ways to do things, and that's why I am posting.
I would like to note here for the record that this is based on a reply to my comment, the thread is here.
I'll reply once I have time to consider.
You are quite correct, although I did edit the post in order to address the issue separately, rather than just repost my comment. I also added to the comment a bit. I made a separate post because IIRC your comment was made 6 months ago, and that conversation isn't going to generate much interest in most folks. I only found the post because it was linked to me, and I'd like to participate in a conversation not limited to those notified I responded to their old comments.
I'll note I was sufficiently impressed with your comment to follow you, as well.
I look forward to the quality of discourse and consideration you will certainly bring to bear. I can only learn by being schooled, after all.
Indeed! Im not criticising you for making this post btw, just linking things up. But a quick look would have shown you both my comment and the root post were made about a month ago.
Thanks for the follow.
Ah! well, I have tasted a bit of comeuppance, and prepare for more. I answered a couple comments in older posts, and suppose I confused the ages. Even so, a month is a long time, and the reasons I stated would still apply.
I really enjoy being forced into a moderate corner. This is why I start with relatively extreme positions. As I said, I can't learn if I ain't schooled.