RE: No use buying BCH.
I look at Steemit right now, not as a "clone" of reddit, but more akin to Medium.com. I noticed Medium.com because of really good content shared through LinkedIn connections of mine.
Yet on Medium.com a user can acquire a large audience ONLY by providing top-quality content (articles & comments), which isn't directly rewarded monetary. On Steemit, the exact same principles apply, yet people misunderstand its potential thinking they can easily make it (ref: gain a large account value) by posting nonsense. The curation system - auto upvoting, self-upvoting - promotes that unintendedly.
I'd like to change that, but that takes an enormous amount of time so I (and everybody actively involved in creating top quality content) need to be reawrded properly due to large opportunity costs associated with investing time in other areas (e.g. regular work on a regular job).
The dynamics of Steem will make it a platform that will start to value good content more. Even beating the diverse ways of automation that are mainly there for getting as much out of the reward pool as possible.
But anywhere there is value to be gotten people will try to find the most easy way to get as much as possible out. As fast as they can. That is something that Steem and its community has to deal with too.
With the Smart Media Tokens that might be interesting when things are build in like reputation and amount of posts. The combination of that in the formula deciding who gets what as a potential payout might be able to counter bots, copy-paste posters and upvote fishers easier.
Much still possible to find better ways to spread out the value in the rewards pool. And that way rewarding good material with the most Steem.
Another idea, which can be implemented at the blink of an eye technically, is to reward discussions like this one - which currently only you and me and a handful of leechers might see - by putting them automatically on the trending pages.
This here is a high-quality discussion, on this page. To add value by other people to this page, people need to notice this discussion so they KNOW they can participate actively themselves. The quality of this discussion, right here, does not come forward from my amount of followers (I've been here for 10 days, 55 followers, and the followers follow my article posts, rarely my comment posts!) or even your followers (1609 followers right now, but how many are online and following this discussion actively? Right now there are 19 views, and we account for more than half of those).
In order to make that happen, articles could be trending based on the amount of comments. The problem with that of course is that that metric could be tricked by bots posting auto-horse shit to a discussion.
But I have "invented" a solution metric for just that! I thought of a metric called "user authority" as a basis to distinguish what's quality and what's not.
And that actually pretty simple to implement based on a user's followers (not who they follow but who follows them!).
I define it as follows:
User Authority = [ cumulative followers estimated account value ( $ ) + user estimated account value ] / steem market capitalization ( $ )
Using this metric, a page can be automatically put on the "trending pages" by the following rule:
Number of comments on page X User authority (per comment)
PS: this is completely different from simply looking at a user's own account value. It comes forward form "you are who you know, not what you own".
... I'm going to write an article on this I just decided! :-)
Just a quick one then, hahaha. ;-)
It might be a good idea to have something besides Reputation that could bubble up really well done posts while it sinks down the rubbish ones. And I see that you already thought out a mathematical formula how to solve that.
Have to go the future now. Always fun.
Have a great one!
It is great to see how you do think about things a level deeper. That is where great conversations like these begin.
On SteemIt dot com I think that is the part of the HOT section that you are describing. But I could be wrong, not sure. As I really need to dash... Behind on my agenda as it is.
Will be looking into your articles, there is enough food for thought already there. ;-)
Must run now, have a great day!
The problem of properly rewarding high-quality content can - or even should - be solved by the "whales": they could found a "manual high-quality curation fund", rewarding only top-quality posts. Such a fund could also be created by a big amount of people, or as an obligatory "sponsorship" where a small percentage of all rewards on the platform automatically is put into the fund.
On the one hand there is nothing wrong with a small minority of users owning the vast majority of steem capital. That represents real-life wealth distribution quite well. Yet what's different on steem as compared to "the real world" is that wealthy people and corporations in "the real world" are constantly on the look for hiring real talent. That's a primary principle driving the economy upwards.
Ah well, as I am already behind the computerscreen again... :-)
There are several ways to make quality posts get a stronger position. Better rewarded and so on. To make a difference.
The way a small group got a majority in Steem Power was because of the exponential reward system. Very crooked from my point of view. Much of the ever to be released Steem was handed out that way. That only changed a short while ago to linear, 1 SP = 1 Vote. It gave a positive boost to many.
And personally I do not subscribe to that economical paradigm you describe. But I am always open to an exchange of thoughts. For another time.
On a side note, I stopped using SteemIt chat a long time ago. But I send you an invite for our _Nederlandstalige_ group at Telegram there.
Have a great weekend.
Seriously? Did it work like that in the past on curation rewards?
So if I understand you correctly... suppose there was a post, which got rewarded $10,- and there were 4 curators for it: a) $5,- b) $2,- c) $2,- d) $1,- ...
then the rewards given out were distributed quadratically based on the proportion of adding to the pool
so:
5^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 1^2 = 25 + 4 + 4 + 1 = 30 "shares"
Is this correct @oaldamster?
Basicly it came down to: Steem Power x Steem Power = Vote Weight. With that the reward pool would bet devided. And because half of the Steem, ever to be issued, was handed out in about a year time, with this exponential voting system, there were a lot that considered this quite unfair. It was extremely biased towards account with very high amounts of SP. Making them even getting more SP faster and in big numbers.
Then some of the more wealthy Steem accounts decided to take action and push for 1 Steem Power - 1 Vote Weight. As linear was to be considered to be more fair, although not everybody seemed to understand their actions at the time. Looking back they did a good job.
Since then we have the linear voting weight system. Considered to be more fair. (The Curator - Poster division is about 20-80% of the potential payout, if I remember correctly.)
Will have a look into that another time, currently have other things on my schedule. Steem took me away from it for a bit too long. :-)
Have a good weekend!