You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Benefits of Pure Linear Reward Distribution
Thanks for expressing your opinions.
I haven't read it thoroughly, but the first feeling is that you provided only factors but no formula, with so many factors it's complicated and hard to balance among each factor, among those factors, some can be gamed easily, some are hard to add into calculation.
Looking forward to more discussions though.
I don't have a formula. The suggestion was for discussion; and if it is found to be feasible, then perhaps an adequate and fair formula can be found through discussion. I would have no idea where to start to develop a formula for this. Many others would be more suitable for that task than I.
I simply believe the weight of a vote should not only be attained by long past participation, but for recent and continual participation.
This way, a whale cannot simply sit idle and draw large curation rewards with only a bot. I'm not implying any do, but this should help eliminate the possibility of it. This should also give higher rewards to those actively involved in Steemit who 1) continue with higher-quality posts (those with more votes), 2) maintain a higher following (generally through higher-quality posts), and 3) actually open and (hopefully) read an article
Posting and curation are the two sides of the game. Authors earn author rewards by contributing contents, curators earn curation rewards by contributing money and time/efforts. IMHO it's no need to bias too much to authors, for example to give authors extra curation rewards. If people value their work, people will vote more on their contents so they can earn more author rewards, or delegate more SP to them so they can earn more curation rewards. Then they'll have more stake, so can earn more curation rewards.
I believe the author should be rewarded much more than someone who reads the content and votes upon it. The author may have spent hours or days composing the piece, weeks or months living through it, and years with the memory.
At most, the curator spends 15 minutes to half an hour reading or watching a video. Worse, *the curator may not even have seen the piece *- especially if a bot does the voting!
I'm not saying curators have no value. I'm saying too many people are putting too much value on bots voting for unseen content, when to vote and whether or not a whale will vote after him or her. I'm saying too much ado is made over the payout for the curators and the voters, and not enough support is for the author and the content. If it weren't for the author's content, nothing would be available on which to vote.
No, I don't have an algorithm for supporting the voting suggestion in my earlier post, but I believe my suggestion supports organic growth and use - upon what seems the Steemit founders, @ned and @dantheman, originally envisioned. Does anyone think the founders designed Steemit with sybill attacks and bots in mind as the top earners? I don't. I believe that why Steemit has had to change the algorithm (at least once) - to protect against them - and to protect the author!
I am FOR the author. I am FOR organic curation. I am FOR the way Steemit was originally designed.
I am NOT against bots. I AM against bots consistently taking the top curation payout over organic curators. I AM against organic curators casting a vote on a post simply because it is at the "sweet spot" for voting. Perhaps a randomized "sweet spot" will give bots and organic voters even footing on this issue.
As far as people simply "delegating" more SP" to the author: Earning Steem and SP is difficult enough, especially for minnows. Many are attempting to claw out a few here and there; therefore, giving it away can be arduous.
Please understand, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, or anyone. Please don't take what I say personally. I'm just beginning to believe many are voting not on good content, but what can be gleaned from the reward pool.
I believe if your following statement were true:
I believe a lot of good content is shoved aside in search of payout *< not saying all content with high payout is crap> *, and my suggestion may be one of hundreds which may conglomerate to bring Steemit to a *sweet spot * between people, bots, and greed *< for we are all greedy by nature > *.
Upvoted for the thoughtful reply. Although I don't agree with some of them. I'm not fighting with you as well :)
Quantity of pure readers is more than voters, which is more than people who comment, which is more than bloggers.
Generally, I think well-designed incentive mechanisms are better than no incentive at all, which is better than bad-designed incentive mechanisms. That said, incentives should be aligned. Rewarding little to curators means no incentive, which encourages doing nothing, or worse, vote buying, although vote buying is not always a bad thing. Over-rewarding is usually counter productive as well. Anyway, capital will find its way out.