You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Revisiting 50/50 curation
What about the fruits of my labour?
You compare your already compensated consumption to that of the creator of that which is consumed?
What about the fruits of my labour?
You compare your already compensated consumption to that of the creator of that which is consumed?
This is not a closed ecosystem, people are investing into it with the work they do in other domains.
Not sure how that answered my question.
I would go further to point out that if the answer to the question I asked is yes, it reveals ones opinion of what one is consuming. Is it not already huge that one can earn up to 25% compensation for enjoying a product, it needs to be equal to the creator of said product or, no thank you?
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.
I guess I didn't understand your question then :)
Why isn't 25% (or even 10%, 5%) enough? Is the content you vote on something that contributes to your life in some way, or is it something that is a burden you must go through to earn some tokens? A burden heavy enough that it should require the author to further incentivize you to click that upvote button to make it worth your time?
you think this is worth 300 SBD?
https://steemit.com/mindset/@chbartist/what-happens-when-your-mind-is-wired-up-the-wrong-way
You know why those little accounts vote on it, encourage it? curation. they don't give a shit about the content.
Most of the content on this platform doesn't deserve much at all but, with no curators, none of them are going to get any at all unless they buy the vote. Distribution has to happen and for that to translate into vote value on posts, those it is distributed to need to power up and vote also. But without enough incentive to power up, they aren't going to and instead they are going to keep selling and, the amount of curators:content creators keeps worsening.
So maybe we start them off with not having dust votes? That would be an alternative path we could take.
I will say that under the current system it is worth that, as the author in question paid out of pocket to get it that high, and a good chance the votes he paid for he actually saw a loss (rewarding those who are here for investment returns solely, and delegate to the vote bots). Which is the basis for increased curation POV, to give higher returns to investors.
I don't understand the mindset that thinks if you increase the revenue side of the vote bots it won't create more delegations as their slice of the pie gets bigger on the back end.
I don't see this as being about distribution, as it benefits lower SP accounts very minimally to nothing.
If people are of the nature to take the time and curate, guessing they already are. I don't see this mass exodus from the delegation renting for large stakeholders to suddenly sink a large time investment into curation if this comes to pass. They just get more cookies for what they already are doing.
No, he didn't. One of the fastest growing accounts on the platform if i remember.
It even benefits them more in curation as they will see higher returns there too. Have you looked at the earnings of where the distribution of Steem goes?
Very little of the voted blog content on Steem can't be found anywhere else and likely, better. The future of the platform isn't in blogging and voting alone - it is in the securing of the infrastructure to empower niche tokens to be the earning mechanisms. The content producers can earn undiluted tokens through the SMT, investors provide stability and Resource credits. there is a long-term process here, most are yet to understand it.
We are going in circles here and not seeing a meeting of minds.
Bottom line, the fastest way to growth here when one comes with zero to a little skin in the game rests for the most part in the author side. Curation, unless they jump on high payout posts as you used as an example, will pay them little to nothing as a dust vote is a dust vote. Nothing doubled is nothing. Currently to break the .02 vote threshold (if that is where dust ends) it requires 800 SP.
I recently looked into the author in question, and he is definitely using a lot of bots. Many of them seem to allow their bidding to go over the even point where those who bid take a loss. His use of them consistently ensures he is taking losses hoping ot make up for it from the visibility.
(Why isn't 25% (or even 10%, 5%) enough?) How about i vote sell, self vote or mine a different crypto / invest elsewhere to make my ROI and pay the author of the post directly in liquid steem for the reading enjoyment? Like in real life:)
Forgive me if i didn't fully understand what you wrote. that's how i read it.
The point I was making was why isn't 25% enough. In other venues we receive nothing as a reward for consuming others work. Why is there a push here for the creator/author to give up more of their reward for the consumers of their product?
There are many posts weekly I curate that involved many hours of research on the part of the author. I don't understand the mindset that I should be rewarded even higher than I am now at their expense for benefiting from their work.
There has been much talk about lack of quality content here (although I find more than I have the ability to upvote) and paying the quality content producers less seems a sure way to not only discourage more from coming, but be the reason some who are already here leave.
The creator of the product deserves more than an equal share than their audience, imo.
EDIT: I agree authors should get more $. just not sure about the way to. Guess my push is because i have bought more steem then i should have, It complicates my voting decisions. i have an account with 2000 SP which i use to upvote comments on my post, i really don't care if i get zip from it, to me that's easy, give it all to the authors:) What is the other platform that you mentioned? Might look at how they do it, including how much $ people have actually put in themselves. Might help me understand something i'm just not getting.
The other website that was mentioned was called smoke. Here is the information I found on it.
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/smoke/
I'm not sure how it is an investment at this point as there does not seem to be any exchanges carrying it. According to a post I did maybe 2 months ago, to get a token listed on Binance costs around 2 million I think it was. The market cap valuation seems to be $907,458.00, not even half that cost. Not sure how one puts money in, maybe they buy direct from the site?
Sorry you feel you put to much money in at this point here. It has been a long downward spiral for crypto in general, and Steem has been hit harder than many. I believe it has to do with some of the dysfunction we see from Steemit that has added to that. I am optimistic that since the layoff at Steemit, more activity from programmers and stakeholders of means has increased which will usher in more apps and programs that will help not only offset some of the bad rap from this site, but increase activity and demand for Steem itself. Here is a site I think breaks this down fairly. I would ask you pay attention to the high marks it gives to the app side possibilities.
https://cryptobriefing.com/steem-digital-asset-report-token-review/
Regardless of what happens with the 50/50, and this site itself I believe in the chain. It has demonstrated a real use application, more have followed
https://www.stateofthedapps.com/rankings
Notice we have 4 of the top 10, and it was 5 until Drugwars pulled their bait and switch which will see them topple in the coming weeks from that number one spot.
Sorry for rambling. I hope that whatever you decide to do with your stake leads you to an outcome you are thankful for.
If you want to look at it from a consumption stand point, One consumes content, the other consumes a stake weighted vote from the pool. To have that stake takes the creation of stake also. People have created stake right? It has taken time, effort, investment, risk... Should people not read and consume it all themselves?