Revisiting 50/50 curation

Distribution of Steem is important and while people are still trying to earn, the end goal is to have Steem underpin and stabilize the platform so that SMTs are able to have a strong foundation to build upon. Due to the way the start was however, the distribution is going to take a little longer than expected unless, something changes.

@theycallmedan has brought up the 50/50 curation conversation again as he believes distribution of Steem is important. This is something that has come around a few times over the years and will likely come around a few more before they eventually decide to run the experiment again. I have written about this a few times before but I am going to take some excerpts from this post six months ago as there is no point rewriting it:

One thing that has been discussed for about as long as I can remember here (my first day) is 50% curation rewards, linear/superlinear voting and incentivized flagging. Here is a post by @kevinwong covering these three things with continued conversation in the comments section. Go have a read if you dare and see what engagement and people who care about the platform actually look like.

Honestly, I am far too limited technically to look at the mechanics of the linear/super linear or the incentivizing of downvotes aspects but, the 50/50 curation I do have some experience with. Recently I signed up to smoke.io (Steem clone) that has 50% curation. I didn't start with nothing though, I have held smoke for over a year now and traded here and there and have enough smoke to be a little Orca. What this means is that as far as the platform goes, my vote is pretty decent.

Now as you know, I spend a great deal of time on Steem which means, I don't really have time to post over on Smoke but, I do have time to go over have a read and throw some votes. The 50% return means that I am able to never post but still increase my returns at a rate similar to those I vote on but, not at the same percentage of growth. What I mean by this is that if I have 50k smoke and my vote is worth 10 smoke, getting 50% equals 5 smoke.

This is not an enormous amount but, for someone that only has 50 Smoke currently, it is 10% return for them. If we could both sell immediately, we would both sell at the same price and value, the rich getting richer is not the case once you take away the starting point. If we look at this over the space of 100 votes, I would get 500 smoke, they would get 500 smoke and we would both be able to power up and have that additional 500 smoke vested draw on the pool.

Over 1000 Votes, I would have grown by 5000 Smoke Power to 55k they would be a Smoke Dolphin with 5000 smoke power. Percentage wise I would have gained 10%, they who started at 50 smoke would have grown 10,000%. But again, if we both sell our gains, we have the same amount. Now, I might support 10 creators and each will have 500 instead but, they will still all have the same potential to draw from the pool as my own increase. Unless they sell.

To continue...

Now, what I would like to add to this 6 months on is that I have hardly posted on smoke.io but, I have been voting consistently daily for a little over 6 months now. What effect has it had? I have grown about 30% in stake in that time. But, what about the people who have been posting and engaging from their zero point? Well, some of them have become orcas. Yes, from zero to 50k in 6 months. They have of course been the ones who have engaged and kept in line with the niche topic but, that shows the distribution process at work in a small community. Would it be the same here?

I think so - but it is hard to say until it is tested in the wild.

As @theycallmedan has also mentioned recently and I have spoken about before too is, SMTs will be the earner for income, Steem the power that stabilizes the foundation for it. Steem needs to go wide enough but, it also needs to go to people who aren't just going to sell it at the first opportunity and instead use it to keep distributing the pool outward. To incentivize the distribution part, there has to be the incentive to vote and, that just isn't there at the moment as there is too much 'cost' to distribute. People want to be able to grow as well as distribute but it is too much "one or the other" at the moment.

If there was more incentive to actively curate, there would be more curators curating rather than selling votes which means, even if the return is less for content creators, there is more active voting stake adding value to posts to balance. On top of this, there is more incentive to power up meaning that the demand for Steem increases and the price should follow meaning that while less is being taken away, the value of it is higher.

One of the arguments of content creators on the platform is that 50% curation is costing them but this isn't actually true. I always wonder, what if you didn't know? What if when you entered into the platform for the first time someone like @blocktrades voted on your post at 50 dollars, would you be happy? Damn straight. The feeling of loss really comes when the payout value says they voted 100 dollars but took 50 back, doesn't it?

There was no loss, there was 50 dollars gain but come payout time, that number is smaller than it was just a moment ago and the person that took it from you has so much already. Do you ever question what these accounts have done to have those amounts? Do you know what they do in the real world, should it matter? If this was hidden from view, no one would see it as a loss.

Ever wonder how much a YouTube creator makes, *and how much YouTube makes on the work of that creator? Then think that most content creators aren't earning as they aren't monetized at all yet, YouTube is still earning on them through advertising they run across the platform. On Steem, a curator *can't earn unless someone is curated meaning, the contributor has to make something for the curator to get anything.

Everyone on Steem is monetized, whether a witness, contributor, curator or just a holder. And, every holder earns something, even if inactive as there is a small interest payment. Yes, it is relative to the stake but this is a dPOS platform so, stake matters and if you aren't willing to power up something to support the content you consume, are you really in a position to criticize distribution?

It might make people feel justified when they talk about the broken distribution mechanism when they don't get voted upon but, there is also the whole dPOSA I spoke of not long back, the proof of social ability. And for those who have engaged well within the community and consistently added value, got themselves seen, helped others, produced in-demand content and done it all well enough that they have got attention in an attention economy, they have found that it is possible to earn. There are others who have bought and powered up alongside this too because, they see the benefits of investment too.

The problem with misaligned incentives is that no one is really happy with the situation. The benefit on Steem is that the community itself has a fair amount of pull in deciding whether or not something gets implemented or not by talking to their witnesses or, voting on witnesses of a like mind. What I find interesting is that even though it isn't working well enough, most people still want to hold onto the status quo because, change might risk their current earnings. Better the devil you know..?

I am hoping that the conversation will be revisited and trialed for a couple months to see how the community adjusts to it. It could be set on a timer that if the witnesses decide it isn't working, they don't accept the change and it will automatically revert to the previous percentages or, move to a secondary point to trial, based on the new information gathered.

Anyway, something to think about more seriously than dismissing because it doesn't seem like it would work. You can also read the other posts linked here to get a broader picture and some more arguments for and against.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]