You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Majority of top 20 witnesses not in favour of changing the reward curve.
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.