RE: Dr. The Leaping Koala_ my journey on Steemit # 2_ My first Curation attempt...
Image to reset the theme:
" Making upvotable as weekly posts or even monthly."
This would reduce Jerry's payouts and reduce the amount of authors he can get exposure for, as well as how many rewards he can hand out to authors.
"Asking for only a certain number of posts to be submitted to each upvotable episode."
Who goes through the block-chain, counting the number of entries and determining which ones are allowed and which are not? Is this another thing Jerry has to hypothetically pay to outsource? Note that he already pays substantial amounts for transcription, formatting, and other work that allows him to post as often as he does.
His last post he paid $159 to a transcriptor/formatter/video editor. I don't think he even turned a profit on it, which may be true of more of his posts than you think. On our witness posts, he gives me the half of the listed payout in SBD, and he only keeps the SP, but he also pays at least one more guy to help format and video those posts. After he pays me and him, and eat the curation share, his share is far less than the statistics show.
If I were Jerry's business partner/lawyer, I would advise him to take none of these pieces of advice.
For advice to be followed, it must generally appear to the receiver to be in their own self-interest.
Hi @lexiconical, Welcome back to the discussion.
These are all interesting information. I am getting to know more about what is going on. I had no idea that Jerry is paying to make his posts happen. Very interesting.
I honestly feel very sorry for him now. Haha.
I really wasn't trying to attack him in person, but it seems he comes to the forefront whenever there is something wrong about steemit. At least, to me he is more noticeable than others.
You convinced me not to write or suggest anything to Jerry.
Let things work the way they are is maybe a better choice.
I have this problem of wanting to help everyone even if I am not asked. Or trying to make people support each other believing it will create a better society.
I am not saying that to try and look like a martyr (I am trying to get over that complex behavior anyway). I want to benefit as well, but I think if a lot of people benefit at the same time, then our benefit will increase with time. Also, I believe that there is no harm in benefiting other people, only good comes out of it.
Having said that, I would still love to hear the rest of your devil's advocate argument against mine. I am learning so much stuff I wasn't aware of about steemit.
I hope I will become a wiser person with what I am learning. But that takes time, so I hope to find many other issues I could discuss with you in this learning journey ;D
Thank you very much again :D
"You convinced me not to write or suggest anything to Jerry. Let things work the way they are is maybe a better choice."
This is what we'd call a "false dichotomy". There are ways to try to affect change, without starting at Jerry.
Any complaints you might have about Jerry are really just symptoms of some other problem. Considering he uses his platform to make some of these issues known, and he's very honest, I think removing him would simply lead to what would likely be a a more malevolent actor.
"Having said that, I would still love to hear the rest of your devil's advocate argument against mine. I am learning so much stuff I wasn't aware of about steemit."
If there are any particular areas I haven't addressed yet, let me know and I'll try to hit them.
Even when I'm playing devil's advocate, I'm not suggesting that nothing should change. I actually think we need to change the curation system, a lot. I'm even in favor of rather radical voting changes.
Here's an example I'm toying with writing about. I'd like to make every vote also reward the voter for the same amount it rewards whoever you vote on. This would likely, but needn't by definition, come with a roughly 50% reduction to the power of those votes to keep the inflation rate similar.
This solves a ton of "problems" - rewarding active users with stake, "self-voting", making voting easier mentally/reducing inertia to not vote, spam, vote-trading, sock-puppets, abuse like Craig Graint, the strategy of the former two highest paid authors on Steemit who earned mostly on one-liners....the list of positive benefits goes on.
Of course, it needs to come with a big change to curation too as I think that's already not rewarding enough.