rant about curation initiatives
What I really enjoy about Steem: Every author has a say.
You can influence posting rewards and vote for witnesses.
If you write posts, which other people like, you can get more influence.
This allows for a potentially very decentralized platform.
When I first found Steemit, rewards were distributed in a 'curve': n² or n^2.
This meant, that if a post had 2x as many r_shares as another one ( or in other words: twice as much voting power allocated to it ), it would get 4x as much rewards.
This was designed to create a curation process, where writing good posts and voting for good posts gets rewarded; If authors accumulated their votes on one posts, they could increase their influence on the reward pool by magnitudes.
To me it meant, that in theory, one day an author could write a post that simply everyone on Steem likes and that post would get the majority of the posting rewards on that day.
To a lot of others it meant, that if they lent their posting keys away to an agent, who then curated for them ( and a lot of others ) they could increase their own share of the reward pool.
Sadly, a lot of these 'authors' got their initial share very early and apparently very easily ( by mining STEEM, being a witness early, knowing the right people, or some other ninja-moves ).
They never cared much for reading, but mainly for profits.
This is where curation initiatives were born:
By doing more 'behind the scenes' deals, some authors managed to get other authors to collude with them and vote for the same posts.
They formed 'guilds' and effectively a very small number of people decided over the majority of posting rewards on Steem. This led to even more collusion and other shady transfers ... I'll skip the rest ...
If you go back to my initial statement, you can see, why this really ... annoyed me.
I wasn't lucky enough to be just given a stake.
I had to post for my Steem Power and while I was rewarded quite handsomely for my mediocre writing and drawing skills, I feel like I had to work for it.
Naturally, this affects the way I feel this blockchain should work.
I am aware that perhaps that isn't he best way ...
Before I vote, I check, who the author is and what they do on Steem.
If they don't use their stake in a way that I like, I might not vote for them, regardless of their content.
The curation initiatives seem to prefer authors, who mostly cash out and keep their votes within a tight circle of authors, who also seem to be involved in the guilds. Either way, I always felt like these posting rewards were 'lost' to abuse.
Then, with HF 19, the way rewards are being distributed, changed;
There is no more curve.
This was meant to stop abuse of the reward distribution process.
... But HF19 makes absolutely no sense to me.
( More about that on my blog. )
...
However, linear rewards made accumulation of votes and collusion pointless.
A vote has the same influence on the reward pool now, regardless of what content it is for.
This did not stop curation initiatives, which is even more bizarre.
... some new ones have been created, too ...
Apparently, a lot of shares are in the hands of people, who either can't do math or don't care about their personal profits.
I would absolutely understand, if they were lending their voting power away simply to increase the value of Steem and its applications.
If the value of STEEM increased by some percent they would have a lot more to gain than what they could get from draining the rewards.
Curation initiatives were meant as an improvised tool to aid the redistribution of Steem Power, but I never bought into that.
Some of the Steem Power has been redistributed - I am an example for that.
I have some of it from consciously farming the curation initiatives.
From that experience, I know that it was mostly based on who you know ...
As someone who is mainly an author on Steem, I can't help but look at the wallets of the players involved in the curation circles.
I am sure they all had great intentions when it started ...
I honestly believe everyone can bring the most value to Steem, by just actively voting for what they like.
Most curation initiatives end up distributing mainly to their 'curators' and themselves and before you buy into their operations, I recommend you look at where the money is going at the end of the day.
To me it's an open invitation to abuse.
The results speak for themselves, but I felt like writing this rant anyways.
Also, I will never write curation initiatives again, unless to link to this post.
It's sad that not many people will understand what you just wrote. I think that's probably one of the clearest way you ever explained the issue.
Thanks. I'll keep trying.
I really appreciate the support.
Sadly I must agree to a very high degree. But at the same time it's a generalization. There are a lot of communities, systems, groups, curation initiatives, whatever you call them that are just looking to do good curation and offer support to minnows. Curie is the best known example. You do a very good job as well, and you have the power to make a difference, that's something not all of us have. Sometimes these initiatives are larger than just the curation part. Last year we started a community and part of it is the curation, but it's only and aspect. Our community vote goes to what we think is good content but we require nothing in return, as does curie, as do others.
Short, not all curation initiatives are the same, not all of them are about selfish profit.
That part of the post talking about curation is more subjective but still pretty much on point nonetheless the most important part of the post to me is the reflection on the non-linear reward curve.
IMHO the linear reward curve has been an improvement. What I find most strange is that reputation is nowhere found in all equations and discussions. The reasoning that a stake should be an incentive to make decisions that are good for the future of the platform doesn't seem to work well on steem because the stake allows for short term profit which is (again in my opinion) not good for the platform. In that regard steem is a complete mess, a stake doesn't influence the platform's development as this is completely centralized in steemit.inc. And at the same time a stake allows for selfishness and short term profit.
Content gets rewarded and that reward is based on the amount of money an account has. Short term that does not an incentive for good content and growth of the platform. A linear vs parabolic reward curve only hides the issue but by no means solves it.
Thank you.
I think a huge step in the right way would be to completely cut out selfvotes on the process of calculating curation rewards + vote bots not voting before 1h after a post has been done.
Of course this doesn't exactly address the problem you are talking about - but at least it is about the same topic ;)
As I have said countless times before:
removing selfvotes is not an option.
if that isn't already enough ( it is )
I repeat: Not an option.
I don't want to remove Selfupvotes - I want them cut out of the calculation of the curation rewards ;)
As I understand this it is the same.
How about not promoting selfvotes as a natural thing by putting a checkbox on the post form on steemit. -.-
Exactly what @theaustrianguy says.. While I think it is dangerous to mess too much with the benefits of being a large stakeholder, I truly think removing selfvotes on COMMENTS would be a good idea. I dont know about removing the ability to vote your own posts, it sounds a bit too much since I feel like there should be some more benefits than just curation rewards. But I might be wrong on this one.
Agreed, kill self voting.
This Could really help in My opinion.
It wouldn‘t prevent those who want to - as @felixxx mentioned - but it would be a clear Signal on what the Community considers to be moral.
If the Plattform and it’s members Clearly communicate against Self Voting the Flags will come, but not with an checkbox „upvote my Post“ while posting!
I also do not understand HF19, can anyone explain in simple words what it actually did?
Yes I can and I have ... on my blog.
Seems like anywhere groups of humans can gather to gain/abuse power and keep it in a small circle, that's what ends up happening. Steemit isn't so different from real life and the way business works that way.
A step in the right direction would be to limit the amount of upvotes depending on the views, that is to say you can't have more votes than views.
No, not an option.
It won't work if people use different apps like I have for this post for example ;) (busy.org)
Says it all!
There are so many recommendations people make for success here on Steemit. One I hear often is reciprocity. But in reality there is not so much of it here.
Many content creators who have the money mostly only care about their own content but don't take part so much in others' content.
Of course, they help others by upvoting comments of their readership, which is a good thing, but that's it.
But generally those with the most money mind their own business, even though there are exceptions.
When I look at the trending pages, some tags are teeming with articles written by the same author consuming the entire space, and there is simply no way of getting seen. On the one hand because most people only click on the trending page and almost never on the new page. And here, articles get lost quickly in the ocean of endless posts.
And those who are reigning the trending section in turn don't care again as long as they make progress..
Thank you!
I have tried to do the curation deal and i just cant seem to make it work. I make pennies if anything at all while others are making dollars on the same post.
This is one of the last postings tonight that I read before bed. I really agree with this paper. Because sometimes some people, especially when giving comments, he is lazy to read what we have written, which finally makes him commented originally. besides, related to the curator's tutor, I feel no optimizations to date for their performance. The curator has not been able to select the number of posts that come in because of the lack of curator in charge. Departing from here anyway, it's right steem now have curator line which to entrusted to hold bigger responsibilities: because a lot of good post missed but bad writing get high appreciation. Inila I say is not optimal performance curator.
Thank for sharing
Wow amazing article sometimes I felt the way rewards are being given am not comfortable with it but am proud and happy I joined the amazing community