RE: Curation rewards are extremely low, only bots are willing to work for pennies/hour
The comments explaining the purpose and mechanism of the 30 minute rule are largely correct.
However, I do think you make a good point that the aggregate effect of these rules may be to result in in curation rewards that are too low, leaving little incentive to buy SP or to participate in curation. (This was the reason for my objection to cutting curation rewards more than in half from 50% to <25%)
It may also perversely incentivize voting for unpopular content that is actually crap. If @charlieshrem's posts are good (and I personally think they are, but that's obviously subjective), I'm not sure there should be an inbuilt mechanism encouraging people to not vote for them, and to vote for some mediocre poem instead, just because the latter doesn't have any votes yet.
I think @svamiva's idea is really good, it will incentivize new authors to be upvoted because they can put a larger curation rewards and it will also force bots to actually check the post curation details before upvoting.
I also think that late upvoters are important and that the degree to which early curators earn should be more even.
Do you think you can discuss this with the dantheman, ned or the devs team, I really think @svamiva is onto something here? Also do you know if these changes can be made at the blockchain level or only interface level?
I wrote a post about this, hopefully I get input from the steemit devs.
https://steemit.com/curation/@snowflake/let-authors-decide-how-much-rewards-they-want-to-allocate-to-curators
Btw thanks for upvoting my latest posts :)
I think the best way would be really let the author decide, how much curation reward he wants to give to curators. Someone who wants to make his post more visible might choose 1% of total reward for author and 99% for curators, someone like @charlieshrem might want to choose 99% for author 1% for curators option.
That's a good step but there are other issues, like the degree to which early curators get all the rewards, and later curators get little to nothing. In a very real sense, later curators votes are just as important and valuable, because they determine the amount of the reward. Yet they are incentivized to go find some crappy smoothie recipe and vote on that instead. I like your idea better than the current system though.
I doubt that anyone of those who are on the trending curators list by the curation score uses this method, vote for some random crap and hope for the better. Of course, it is an issue, but actually there's just a few dozen whales who are really incentivized to do so. But that problem could be solved through implementation of "internal rshares market", so any whale could just have a smoothie on the beach and collect interest for delegating her voting power without bothering with curation.
It was hyperbole to illustrate a point. The algorithm favors unvoted content over voted content far in excess of the difference in quality or user preferences, or more to the point in large part regardless of the gap between current expected (relative) payout and (relative) quality. In fact top curators must use something in principle similar to the method I described, just a somewhat less extreme version of it.
Just try to imagine the opposite
Something highly subjective, isn't it ?
Even more subjective
From my personal experience I never suffered much because of need to choose between "low-quality/high expected payout" and "high quality/low expected payout" because of having enough "high quality/high expected payout" options ( and somehow restricted amount of voting power , I don't really want it to sunk below 80% , if I start to play in "casino" I think it would go below 50% )
Anyway, I was never able to figure out why rshares market idea is something to be ignored, is there something I don't know about ?
[lower reply]
Not the way I'm using it. I'm taking the actual rewards produced by voting as the objective consensus of the user base as to the 'quality' or 'value' of the post (of course each voters' individual decisions are subjective). It is factually the case that later votes contribute to that value but receive little to no curation rewards. This directly incentivizes voting that diverges from objective consensus value. Larger payouts occur only because people ignore (lack of) curation rewards and vote anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that the curation rewards system directly discourages this and imposes a value system that demonstrably differs from that revealed by actual voter behavior.
The team seems to prefer the curation guilds idea, which could be seen as a form of rshares market, just a somewhat different take on it. Both ideas do have their downsides, however. I don't have a link but there was a good post and discussion on the risks and downsides of curation guilds a while back. Most of the same arguments against that idea would apply to other forms of rshares markets as well.
well, yes, the system rewards those who discovered quality and value of some particular post earlier ( and I guess it's how it supposed to be by design ) but those who discovered it a bit later are probably to much penalized.
I think the "taxation" for early voting before 30 min shouldn't be paid to author but rather somehow distributed to later curators instead...but I guess you would say that alone is not enough ?
As for curation guilds I've seen a lot of discussions. For me the biggest downside is that it is sort of "bureaucratic machine", once established it's difficult to shut it off. If I don't have any long term plans, just want to curate some particular event ( like Steemfest for example) it would be nice to have an opportunity "to borrow" a few millions SP for a few weeks for this purpose on some sort of internal market. I guess guilds and rshares market could coexist, there's no need to stick for just one option.
A post is not truly curated until it has a good number of votes to signify its value
That's a brilliant idea.
Well, also on the long run I think that would work well, there might be some caveats.
Someone could decide, that instead for spending time trying to write one good quality post with 75% for author, instead one might just create 20 accounts and provide 100 crap posts every day with 10/90 author/curators ratio.
There might be another option as well, "your reputation = your author reward percentage "
So, 25% for a newbie, you and me should be happy with 55%, 66% for @timcliff and so on.