You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Revisiting 50/50 curation
It's not equal at all. The creator earns cumulatively, they will always be making more than any one Curator from the same content. Even at 25%/75%, cumulatively they could still earn more than any one Curator. The point that many don't seem to get is that without the incentive to curate why would anybody vote for anyone other than themselves. That's why a 50/50 split works well on Smoke, and that's why we should at least try it before chucking it as a loss, because the incentive has doubled to curate, while the author has only lost a potential third, yet right now, a third of nothing is not much but imagine if more people curate now, that third could very well not come into play at all.
Posted using Partiko Android
The proposition is indeed to make the splitequal. You are correct in that the curator is at the disadvantage when it comes to time placement of vote as well as SP contributing. Which I have pointed out that for lower holding accounts in many cases will result in nothing (dust vote) doubled is still nothing.
I do it because I appreciate the words and occasionally the video I consumed. I will use you as an example. I have voted many times for your comments as they enrich me watching you dissect the structures you focus on. In many of those votes, I was the sole voter of your comment (as usually the structure you are deconstructing is not found to be appreciated by the creator of it). Under that circumstance, I would indeed get 50% of the reward. I am already gifted by reading your mind at work. Further gifted by receiving currently 25% of my vote back. In no way do I believe I should get a higher cut for the quality you created.
It's equal in the sense that you equal to what I get, but it's not equal in the sense that you will earn as much as I do because the author can accumulate more than one vote but the curator only gets that 50%, more or less. Think about it like this: more incentive to curate means more comments will be voted. It doesn't mean less comments. The same thing for posts.
Posted using Partiko Android
yes, this is the thing and then with the competition and the way curation works, the smaller accounts will curate for higher percentage than the larger who will have to be very lucky to get 50% back as they would either need to be the only voter or have a much larger come in on top which isn't likely.
Then, because less large accounts need to post to earn and instead just curate, there is more space for producers.
Then, because the large votes are less likely to stack ontop of each other unless the content is good, there will be less curators front running the same authors on auto (I think) and then there will be eyes on a wider amount of content as people will look for what they like instead of looking for what increases their curation. (this last one isn't expressed well but it is late and I am very tired)
The only way is to experiment. The resounding sentiment the community echoed when @dan was around and right after he left steem was more frequent HF with only one or 2 changes. That has yet to manifest even slightly. I haven't seen anyone in community say that for almost a couple years now, everyone woke up and realized that Stinc was deaf. More frequent HFs with only one or two changes, and with no multiple changes to the same mechanism. We need the data, and without a well set-up experiment we won't learn anything definitively.
Posted using Partiko Android
I completely agree. These batch hardforks make it impossible to know definitively what is doing what.