Solving the Problem of URQC (unrewarded quality content)

Here on Steemit, we have a love/hate relationship with the whales. Most of us hope to attract their attention and upvotes, and to one day become one. But we also tend to blame the very existence of whales in our frustration that good content often goes unrewarded.

Whales are neither the cause nor the solution to the problem of URQC (unrewarded quality content). Gaining a one-time whale upvote or a temporary steem delegation will not make anyone wealthy in the long run and it won't solve the problem of URQC. That's because the solution to URQC ultimately relies on three things: time, diversity, and dissatisfaction.

It's not a sexy solution. People want to get rich quick. They want to pop a pill. They want a meteoric rise to the top. They don't want to hear that the answer involves patience (time), cooperation (diversity), and competition (dissatisfaction). But it does, and here's why.

Let's look at the problem of URQC through the lens of basic economic theory. At its heart, economics is the study of human action (a field of study called praxeology). Human beings act in order to achieve goals. Goals emerge from a state of discontent in the present moment. Murray Rothbard explained the role of time in our economic behavior in The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics:

“All action in the real world, furthermore, must take place through time; all action takes place in some present and is directed toward the future (immediate or remote) attainment of an end. If all of a person's desires could be instantaneously realized, there would be no reason for him to act at all. Furthermore, that a man acts implies that he believes action will make a difference; in other words, that he will prefer the state of affairs resulting from action to that from no action. Action therefore implies that man does not have omniscient knowledge of the future; for if he had such knowledge, no action of his would make any difference. Hence, action implies that we live in a world of an uncertain, or not fully certain, future. Accordingly, we may amend our analysis of action to say that a man chooses to employ means according to a technological plan in the present because he expects to arrive at his goals at some future time.” (emphasis added)

Time starts the process by defining the process: we want something better than what we have now. We have Steemians today producing quality content that languishes unnoticed and unrewarded. The goal is to change that dynamic in the future. All goals are future goals and the goal here is for any producer of quality content to be able to enter the Steemit environment and reap reward for the value their content brings to the platform.

But time also exists as the only vehicle through which we can move forward toward that goal. It's only through the passage of time that Steemit will be able to grow, and through growth, diversify, which is the next requirement.

An economy is scale-dependent. What that means is, the size of the economy matters. A smaller market is more susceptible to rent-seeking, fraud, and monopolies, but a smaller market also allows for a greater sense of community among its members. A gigantic market is more diverse but less intimate. It tends to self-regulate, reduce corruption, and keep members in line precisely because the market members are not all close friends.

Right now, Steemit is a collection of several cliques of intimate friends. That's great for community building, but not so great for objective critiques of its content. Friends upvote friends. It's human nature.

However, as diversity in Steemit increases, you will start to see these niches multiplying. Chaos theorists describe such niches as "patches," (for a better understanding of Patch Theory, read Stuart Kauffman's At Home in the Universe) and it's in these patches where good content starts to get noticed. Writers tend to hang out with the writers. Painters with painters. The cryptos and sports fanatics and quilters... you get the picture. That's how systems evolve and handle their growing complexity.

But what if you join the crafting niche while your skill set really isn't up to snuff? You have a choice. Your first option is to find other niches. Perhaps you started life as a quilter but later found your passion and skills better suited to poetry. Eventually, you'll find the content you're best suited to produce. A large, diverse market will help you do that, being comprised of these various patches that tend to reward good patch-focused content. Patches will begin to grow and split and overlap in new ways that diversify upvoting and payouts.

Communities on Steemit will multiply and morph, a network of intertwined patches of interest and expertise that begin to distribute the wealth of the platform more evenly than before. It's diversity in action and it allows us to move around and try new things.

As these bigger and more diverse communities grow, reaching their tipping points, splitting into sub-groups, top-earners will again emerge, but not as the whales did in Steemit's first month. Some people will simply earn a little or a lot more than others. Some will have more skill and talent than others. This will cause further shifting and splitting, et cetera. But what about the person who doesn't want to shift or split or find a different niche? That's when their second option becomes apparent: they can compete in the patch they're in.

If you really believe your calling is quilting or photography or teaching economics, but you're not getting the kind of recognition you want on Steemit, you really have two options: you can find another niche, or you can improve what you're posting.

It's praxeology all over again. You're dissatisfied with your Steemit standing now. You develop a goal. You act.

Any market will see this occur. When a producer is dissatisfied with their reward, that producer tries harder. He writes better. She edits longer. He learns new ways to format. She mixes more vibrant colors. And as this process churns along, content improves. People innovate. And the whole platform benefits. That's how markets work. That's how market forces solve URQC.

For a while now, though, we've seen attempts to unnaturally redistribute Steemit wealth by hosting what amount to popularity contests. This is actually a backward trend. Steemit started out as a popularity contest, but it will evolve into patches of specialty in which many can be rewarded. As that process plays out, those who are dissatisfied with their reward will compete and spur improvement and the cycle will play out again and again.

If we allow Steemit to devolve back into one popularity contest after another as the only way of redistributing Steemit wealth, we're trying to circumvent the market processes that lead to innovation and improvement in the first place. Keep that in mind the next time your friends pressure you to vote in yet another popularity contest on Steemit. It might strengthen your friendships, and that's okay. But popularity contests amplify the problem of URQC by focusing on the author rather than the content. To solve the problem of URQC, you need to let the processes of time, diversity, and dissatisfaction play themselves out.

You need to trust the decentralized, open markets you claim to support.

And check out @rawbinhutt's project Looking for Niche!