RE: Elimination of Curation Rewards
There is clearly a great deal of the author/curator earning metrics which, for me and I suspect many others, resides in algorithm land. Minute knowledge of the intricacies and resultant strategies adopted are to many, like me, anathema.
All I would observe is that it appears to be at the core of the 'Social Media vs Game Theory' tug-of-war.
Social Media cannot be deemed as 'Social' whilst there are posts with 350 votes and 25 views gaining $340 and there are others with 120 votes with 50 views gaining $1.12 - it just is a nonsense.
It might not be a nonsense if you own four bots with 4 different strategies. It might to the coding genius be considered an artform.
The ramifications, however, are harmful to the overall state of steemia. The ultimate destination on this journey is simply a game of thrones - the tech purity leads to a scenario where content is irrelevant. The whole thing ends up disappearing up its own arse like the Pink Panther with the vacuum cleaner.
The curation problem is a problem which can only be solved by curators. They know the game. They also know the positive effect that it can have and the negative effect it can have. Let them squabble over the way to do it for the enhancement of steemit. If they cannot - they all lose and the system focusses upon content.
Meantime, I just get on and do my thing - write and produce to the best of my ability, hoping that that rare commodity, common sense, emerges.
This scenario is unavoidable when Steemit members have such varying degrees of SteemPower.
IMO, the current Steemit "environment" almost perfectly mirrors reality -- "success" generally hinges on impressing a very small, well endowed, crowd. Furthermore, the system is set up to, in every way, make the game exponentially easier (more profitable) for those who're near the top position, just like how laws/ regulations in the "real-world" are set up to keep the wealthy comfortably outpacing their financial competition (think: tax-breaks/ loopholes), widening the gap more and more over time.
I don't see this as so much of a bad thing as I do another reflection of the human psyche. Game theory is seen everywhere because our psyche treats all "resource dimensions" (the physical, social, cyber, psychological, emotional, etc.) like a game. The goal is always to hoard as much "pleasure resource" as possible for oneself, without causing too much violent reaction (threat) from the competition.
There's always going to be some testing and prodding going on as to where the line is drawn, regarding how much shit the "lower-competition" is willing to put up with, at the cost of propping the "upper-echelons" into more and more excessive riches, before they stop supporting that system, which is, of course, designed and controlled by that elite class.
How much can I get away with? Hoard for myself? That's the nature of the game.
Before I write a word, Thank you for engaging with me in discussion. I thoroughly appreciate and respect your stance and I agree with you - in principle - there is leverage in this life and the game is to learn how to grapple your way up the castle walls to the parapet, at whatever your parapet may be.
My opinions do not carry any personal enmity towards anyone. I do bear some enmity towards the miners' belief that their leveraged value is justified to the tune of over 100,000 times that of another. The enmity is towards the belief, not the miner.
Where this falls down is in the nature of the walls. The parallels with real life end when you see the nature of those walls. Where in life do you see the odds stacked against you by over 100,000 multiple - you don't. You might say that you do ... look at Gates, LeeKaiChing, Mr Zara (name escapes me).
The getting away with stuff is exactly why the price of steem is where it is.
What would you surmise the price of steem might be if the steemit subscribers numbered 100,000? In order to get there, there has to be a few changes. In order to go live and get the 5, 10, 50, 100 million subscribers the system has to change or recognise itself as a hideous feudal system which exploits dreadfully, whilst it is quite happy to accuse Facebook, Twitter and Google for lesser crimes.
Out of rspect I have followed you and look forward to learning from you.
Very well said! This is an excellent characterization :)