RE: Content-Type Value and Reward Discussion
I think the incentive to vote for posts which people know will become valuable is strong like Curie posts, Steemsports posts, etc. When we add to that the incentive to be rewarded via your vote beyond curation rewards (as Steemsports does), it creates a very interesting motivation to keep voting on those types of posts. Should something be done about it on the blockchain level? Maybe. At the same time, the community might respond and stop voting on those posts if they feel the rewards aren't being distributed in a manner they like. They could also encourage others to vote as they do.
The interesting thing about the economics of this whole thing is there are people who really are paying for it all. Investors are buying tens of thousands of dollars of STEEM and SBD every week (see the exchange transfer reports I've been creating). The question we might ask is, are the people paying for the value here okay with it? If so, what voice should those have who are not paying for value and why?
You've hit the proverbial nail right on the head. These are the people who are paying for the 'free' rewards. Most of them are speculators buying both up for the usual reasons, but some of those buying STEEM are essentially buying influence by withdrawing their STEEM & powering-up. I myself fall into the latter category, to a modest extent.
What's interesting about these questions is that they're hard to answer in a cut-and-dried way. Presumably, the buyers who aren't okay with the content will sell and push the price down. But holders, mostso speculators, can sell for a variety of reasons unrelated to Steemit's content or growth. How many times have punters dumped one altcoin simply to chase after another? :)
On the creation/curation side, everyone theoretically should curate with an eye towards growing the value of STEEM. (This is prolly the reason behind the popularity content. An altcoin pump is a lot like the altcoin winning a popularity contest!) But again, the tie is indirect because a) value is subjective b) there's no transmission mechanism specifying what the holders consider valuable content. We're expected to guess.
This indirectness certainly makes for an interesting social experiment!
Except when most people want $$$, and most people decide... then you get most people:
Which demonstrates what I'm talking about. Content creators vs. useless eater. Workers vs. Freeloaders. Some people just want to get free money without doing anything but pick a team or do some clicks. I don't want Steemit to cater to these people, even if they come in in droves and make up the majority of the platform. That is a dead platform of leeches siphoning everything while the people who work to create content try to keep it afloat and get less potential rewards overall as more of these other posts are rewarded.
I agree to some extent, but ask you to consider this free-loading like Bitcoin mining. The difference is that more people can get involved. As people learn that the tokens have value they will start to use them as currency.
Bootstrapping a currency that is widely accepted is the single biggest product that Steem can produce (in terms of ROI). Rewarding content producers and creating censorship free discussion helps bring people into the currency.
If Steem had facebook's user base the Steem token would be a global currency larger than most countries and it would trade at market caps well in excess of facebook.
Yeah, I get that, and recall it from the "master plan" for world domination. More people get involved, but to what extent. People also use Facebook as a chat replacement to what used to be popular like AOL, ICQ, MSNMessenger, and skype still is. That feature allows people to interconnect on anything, regardless of any content on the platform. If bootstrapping goes with the popularity of some content for the sake of popularity alone, when does it change to a more quality focus instead of a quantity focus?
But "people who work to create content" don't create the exchange value of STEEM or SBD. Investors do. By your logic, I could argue all the content creators are "free loaders" also, right?
My point is, it's not so black and white. Value is subjective. "I don't want Steemit to..." is just your opinion among many. Your opinion (or mine, or anyone's) is not law. That said, we should keep expressing our opinions and working to influence others of our reason and logic, especially if we want to support the long-term value of Steemit.
But they do. Imagine Steemit, the "whatever" platform, with no content. Where is the value? What is the backing that gives Steemit any real world value then? Nothing. Just like any other shitcoin. I have talked about how Steemit actually has real world value because of the content creators: STEEM Has Real Value - STEEM is the Most Valuable Cryptocurrency, People Just Don't Know it Yet
A cryptocurrency with no investors is also worth nothing. Again, it's not black and white. I agree, the content creates value which then interests investors and users.
From your post:
Yes... but I also think the investors play a larger role than the content creators. If they aren't propping up the price of STEEM or SBD, then changes will be made.
Also:
While I agree with your perspectives on the importance of truth and morality and great content here, I also recognize how difficult defining universals within the context of humanity is. My impression of your post here seemed to contradict what you said early in that some things really could be more "deserving" than others, but I see that as subjective.
As an example, some think it's "true" that pornography is immoral and bad. Others argue it's not immoral if there are no real victims and it's done voluntarily. If we then try to demonstrate the "truths" here, we run into problems of understanding how much of our culture influences our systems for measuring good and bad. Maybe the bad parts of pornography actually come from twisted perspectives in our culture about the human body and human sexuality?
Either way, I commend your efforts to call others to a higher level of valuable content here. I also want to caution against telling others what they value is objectively not valuable. If they value it, then clearly it is valuable to them, even if, over the long term, it's not beneficial.