Majority of top 20 witnesses not in favour of changing the reward curve.
If you haven't seen it there was a survey under witnesses here about changing the current reward structure.
I was happy to see most witnesses are not in favour to change the current linear reward curve to n^1.3.
Currently I'm against changing anything about the current reward model. Linear is fair and is understandable for most users.
It's also more than sufficient to carry us to the next phase of the Steem Blockchain which will be SMT's.
SMT's will be used to try out different economic models and I'm convinced that different projects and communities will benefit from different economic models so making changes to the one we currently have makes little sense.
Changing the economics could potentially do more harm than good and derail projects that have based their current business model around these economics.
This is the reply I left on the post. Normally I am not very outspoken but I feel very strongly about this.
I am part of witness @blockbrothers.
Please consider us for your witness vote if you think we deserve it here:
Vote for @blockbrothers via SteemConnect
Set blockbrothers as your proxy via SteemConnect
We are the creators of Steemify a notification app for your Steemit account for iOS.
Get it Here:
As SMTs will require a hard fork, are you saying that you are already in favor of the code that has neither been released nor tested? That you have already given it your stamp of approval?
As opposed to previous changes to the economic incentives that derailed good projects or did “harm” to users and the ecosystem in general?
I'm in favour of sticking to the roadmap as laid out by Steem inc.
After HF 20 and the implementation of the RC system all focus can be on SMT's/hivemind/communities.
I have faith in the team and I believe they can deliver this product.
The new RC system should give everyone this confidence imho that they can deliver.
I have lived under all economic incentives since July 2016. I prefer linear others prefer n^2. But it doesn't matter now anymore.
The blockchain has changed. Besides users trying to get rewarded for content back in the day we also have businesses here that are trying to get a foothold on the blockchain and have build a business model build around this model.
With linear you know what you can get. Both for users and businesses. It creates stability. (And if you are very good you can get more).
Trying to change the economics on a token that caters both pretty well right now makes no sense. And it makes even less sense when you know SMT's are coming.
SMT's will give any community or App the possibility to implement whatever reward model they please.
Call me old fashioned, but the way it was when I got here was incredible.
50/50 curation, n2 rewards, 104 week powerdowns.
All of these were chosen carefully and in conjunction with each other, to attract the best people and incentivise the best behaviors.
I agree that changing now would be a bad idea; but we finger-painted over a masterpiece.
This is because - say what you want about him as a person - @dan understood economics. And he did so on a level most people aren't able to grasp. I wholeheartedly agree that the original model should never have been tampered with in the first place.
Stuff was never really given a whole lot of opportunities to work itself out there at the start. A hardfork was made, there was no moon. And another hardfork was made, still no moon. And then another one, and so on.
Until things stagnated to what we have now.
All these calls for discounted downvoting; we already had that. Under quadratic rewards you could halve a post's payout by downvoting with 1/4 of the vote weight.
People upvoted posts they thought would do well, instead of posts they wanted to do well.
We've gone from punters to jockeys.
Dan has publicly said he wants to make a new steem like blockchain ran on EOS echo system so honestly I don’t understand why people aren’t concerned.
Why would that make me concerned?
Eh just the guy who’s holding more steem then anyone else and who had the love and respect of half this platform. Could do some damage don’t ya think?
If @dan creates a better Steemit, I'll just go there. What's the problem? Consumers go for the best product.
It won’t be using steem tokens
He’s made that clear. So steem tokens would crash
That’s gonna leave a bad taste in a lot of people’s head.
Anyone with thousands of more invested in steem power won’t he happy when it’s penny a token. That’s all I’m saying
Back then, you think there wasn't a "top-tier" circle going on too? We were all there, mate. We all witnessed it firsthand. The same people, the same content. Recycled over and over again until an elitist class were created in the easiest manner possible for a select few lucky individuals. And some of the "top trending" posts at the time defied belief given the questionable subject matter. My humble opinion, of course. There's a lot more simmering within this pot. If "quality" content is the main motivation for this reward change, I believe it's a simple case of the emperor's clothes. That's my own personal recollection of the n2 reward curve. How will todays rewards structure be any better or worse than before?
Sure we had all that. Nobody's claiming we didn't. Long term, those guys would need to cash out to lock in any gains.
That cashing out meant selling steem to newcomers like myself; each new hodler chipping away at the cabal's dominance of the pool.
I had an $80 post when I was a penniless noob with a month's experience and 25 followers. Whales were actively looking for great new authors; to upvote them for those fat curation rewards.
Now I'm an orca with 3500 followers and haven't seen that kind of payout in over a year.
Which one is going to attract and retain the best contributors?
You're an orca. And as far as I'm concerned, deservedly so. I don't remember seeing your name amongst the "trending groups" back in the beginning. My guess is you got to where you are by hard graft and investment, whilst believing in the platform enough to keep it safely stashed in your wallet. Awesome! I've led a similar path so far.
But my only point is, confined to the context of quality, I reckon the same phenomena may reoccur once more if the current model is changed back to n2. In the past we had "in-crowd upvoting", today we got "bidbots". The outcomes of both are not too far off each other from what I've witnessed up until now. I mean in terms of climbing up the trending page via some form of skewed bias. Organic equality-based trending was a difficult feature to implement or even quantify within the history of Steemit.
But hey, these are all simply speculative opinions, right? Let's see how this and everything else plays out, man. :)
Long term I can see the current arrangement yielding similar results, but its the ugly road, through a swamp.
We should definitely stay on it now; let SMTs give us a playground to trial all sorts of concepts.
The 104 week was a huge turn off to new people. It made it sound like a ponzi (though it wasn’t nor is)
That's a good thing. We don't want dumb money exerting influence here.
I agree with you 100%
But it seems many on here don’t care and just want new money in no matter what quality to pump price.
Ohh thanks for info .
Linear is the way to go!
Common sense appears to be prevailing exyle - this 50/50 idea being thrown around is simply irrational.
Seriously - they want to attract more high quality bloggers to STEEM by... paying them less.
SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android
How can we know for sure that the high quality bloggers will get paid less under 50/50? Serious question.
As a higher curation reward will attract more users to actually curate, it could potentially lead to bigger pieces of the (author payout) pie going to more and more deserving authors, who're mostly looked-over right now in favor of gaming the stagnation (predictability of curation reward potential) caused by so highly incentivizing self-upvotes.
Then there's the other part of the equation. Even if the "best content creators" may currently be getting paid more in Steem terms right now than they would under 50/50, making Steem more attractive to a broader audience of "content consumers" brings with it a good chance of increasing the price of Steem in dollar terms. So you end up with a case of instead of making 50 Steem per post @ $0.80 per Steem, you're making 38 Steem per post @ $5 per Steem.
Because, let's face it, we don't care so much about how much Steem we get paid to blog, we care about how much we can buy with what we make ($). Getting a million Steem per post is meaningless if Steem is @ $0.
I will leave it to those prosecuting to the case for 50/50 to prove that authors won't be adversely effected under this model.
Though I can tell you the members of the communities I am involved in most likely will be adversely effected - they were getting 75% of their post rewards and under the proposed system they are getting 50% of the post rewards - seems pretty clear to me.
I agree though - the price will shoot up for a short time - long enough to let a few of the whales sell down some of their stake - but still make the same rewards on the other side.
Some will do really well out of this proposal - and I can assure you, it won't be the working man.
SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android
You were right in calling it a "model". The thing about models, or, in this case, "economic models", is that we can't really know how they'll work in the "real world" until we test it.
I say, test the fucker (please pardon my French), because, as I see it, this system is not running very smoothly where the dials are set at the moment. We may be pleasantly surprised, or not. Whatever the case, there is logic to setting a higher curation reward over author rewards, namely that there are far, far more content consumers than there are content creators. Why shouldn't you appeal the economic model to the majority?
The one concession this Knight will make is that curating would be much more fun under a 50/50 model.
Why such an extreme change though? Wouldn't 60/40 be a better mix.
Again, all this will be solved with SMTs - so I think this is where we need to focus our energies.
SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android
"Changing the economics could potentially do more harm than good and derail projects that have based their current business model around these economics."
I kinda agree with this. It's like a poor country always changing their tax policy. You won't see any foreign investments there if there is no consistency.
Posted using Partiko Android
The country analogy isn't so suitable considering that most countries aren't 2 years old like Steem is, nor are they software. A better analogy would be something like a windows operating system in its initial stages, trying to iron out all the bugs before attempting to present it to a broader market for investment (profit) potential.
Steem is still trying to find itself; hence, the "beta" tag right under the Steemit logo. This is the "early adopter", if not "angel investing", period of this software, which means, whether we realize it or not, that we're really investing in the Steem witnesses and their competency (or lack thereof) to put forward an attractive product in the future.
I agree with keeping things as they are and I've given @blockbrothers a witness vote.
Thanks so much for the support!
I guess I agree with you. Why would they change the current reward structure. I guess this current reward structure is pretty okay. Any change in it may cause damage than the good side. I wish they will just let it be as this
Posted using Partiko Android
I agree changing the current economic model it is not a priotity in the current state of the Steem blockchain. SMT will provide way to try new things and experiment.
Posted using Partiko Android
I think reward distribution system needs to be corrected. Whales and bot users are able to get huge benefits while hard working users are not getting enough rewards for their work. This is not fair. If it is not possible for the community to amend reward distribution system than witnesses and Stinc make sure that the good content creators may at least get upvote worth 2-3 stu. This will be an encouragement for them and keep them motivated. Otherwise, this platform will collapse under its own pressure.
Good content creators will eventually get the rewards they deserve. I think over time, more people find them, follow them and give them regular upvotes. Some of the whales are annoying but they are a necessary evil because they hold so much steem. If the system is changed and they leave, guess what happens to the price of steem?
Exactly it goes to 10 cents
If or when that happens.
Honestly I don’t see this ending well. I hope I’m wrong but I took much of my steem off the table temporarily.
The fact that Dan has publicly said he’s going to do a new Steem like platform on EOS was when I said that’s it I’m gonna invest time but not risk $$$
I'm not sure he's still thinking of that. EOS has Trybe but that doesn't look like it will compete directly with steemit. If it does, it might force steemit to make more improvements. I've been using EOS and I think it might take them a year to sort out a good way for the average person to use it. Having to buy ram and stake cpu isn't something most new people will want.
Posted using Partiko Android
I hear ya
But the fact it’s the guy
The mighty Dan who’s doing it should be worrisome to us. Him moving his steem lone will crush price
There are many steemit like platforms viz. weku, scorum etc. which works like steemit. So, Dan's idea will not destroy this platform. Ultimately, the best one will rule the blockchain based social media.