You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: OPEN LETTER TO STEEMIT INC., THE WITNESSES, AND THE WHALES
I was thinking of what change could benefit steemit as a whole, without limiting freedom. Maybe something like this:
--Take top 10 percent of posts in monetary award
- of those posts, take 50 percent of reward
--Take top 11-25 percent of posts in monetary award
- of those posts, take 25 percent of reward
- set aside reward for 3 months? 100 days?
--Segregated account needed?
- given to socially vested accounts
-- socially vested accounts
--minimum of 3 months on steemit
--involved in steemit
--post at least 1 time per week average
or
--upvote an average of 5 times per day
--minimum rep of 40?
--maximum rep?
--other criteria?
The distribution will not start until day 101 after implementation. One percent of total will be given per day.
This may not solve everything, but it does give back to steemit. I don't know how easy it would be to effect this change so lets hear from the developers/experts.
This does not address the comment upvote dilemma, but I'm sure it could be similiarly addressed if this idea is technically feasible.
kind of like a graduated income tax? combined with basic income?
It is a tax. And it could be considered communist-like if steemit was a country and we use the tax like most countries do.....wastefully or to line the pockets of the politicians. However, this tax would be used to encourage interaction and engagement with others within the system. You would not receive unless you meet certain criteria. That criteria would need to be determined. I have just listed suggestions.
The percentages may vary, like taking 25% of monetary rewards for the top 10% instead of taking 50%. However, it is a give-back program to incentivize interaction. It is not a charity. It would encourage those with less rewards to keep trying to engage others.
This would also serve as a defacto flagging system, since this would likely catch those persons that have whales upvoting them to the top of the earnings list.
Let me know you thoughts.
Opt in blockchain based taxes are an interesting idea.
I already posted this idea on another comment here,
but what if instead of having a "tax"
Would that be feasible?
I just reread the comment that started this thread.
He called it quadratic rewards.
Perhaps the easy solution is to revert from linear payout back to as he called it quadratic rewards.
It was the opposite.
The bigger the payout, the more each upvote added.
Really!?! Thanks for clarifying that.
I see you've been around since Aug 2016, so did you live through this change?
I'd like to see a return to the original model.
Writing a post was like buying a lottery ticket.
You'd probably only make a few cents, but there was a chance you'd make $10,000 dollars.
Big players would try and back quality pieces while they were small; to cash in on big curation rewards.
Nine of my first ten posts made less than 20c; but each new follower and formatting technique improved my chance of hitting the jackpot.
Now it feels like factory work.
You clock in, you do enough and you clock out.
Hey, @mattclarkeb the more I think about it the more I like the idea. It would be nice if we had something in between the two models maybe.
Wow interesting @mattclarke that would be fun!
I'vve thought of something that if people who don't post or comment their VP goes down. Then people like @ranchorelaxo with @haejin can't game the system. Because they are just an investor. Rancho isn't here for Steemit Community. He is here for himself. Why should he only benefit himself. Each week he don't contribute by making content % of his vote strength goes down.
If he was here for himself then he should delegate to a Bid-bot and make 500% more than he is currently doing, curating a chartist whos content is as valuable for as long as it takes him to make the post.
You need to wake up & come back to REALITY. He provides nothing worth what he is making. And TRUST ME. He would never SPEND money towards anyone else. Even if it made him money. He only SPENDS his MONEY, VOTES, anything on HIMSELF!!!
You need to re-read my comment!
You need to RE-READ MINE.
Interesting, thanks for adding your insight and input @celsius100!
Now you arent saying "they Never get 50% of the rewards" or "that they go to someone else", you are just saying the reward is delayed?
I could see some merit in that. Interesting to think about!!
Peace
That could be one option I hadn't thought about. Set aside an amount from the top earners each day. It will be theirs, but it could only be used with the steemit platform. Given away to others, as such. It could not be withdrawn.
I would suggest, though, that needy projects should be the ones to receive the donations. Those endorsed, by vote, from the steemit populace. That way, the rewards would not be easily given to accounts of friends and family or themselves (through anonymous accounts). Thanks for your input.
You'd have to rework flagging, because any system like that would create more of an incentive for the smaller pockets to start flagging each other to below any rep cutoffs you set.