RE: Change Curation Reward System On Steem Blockchain / DISCUSSION
I do not fully agree that the system now encourages people to vote for quality. It encourages to vote early, that is the only certainty.
The current system encourages users to vote early on the articles they think will have the biggest curation rewards. One of the main factors that can be used to predict which articles will return the most is the quality of the article (there are other factors, but quality is taken into consideration by a lot of stake holders).
In a system where everyone gets 50 percent of their vote, large stakeholders have no incentive to think about why or how they are voting since the return is the same no matter how they vote. This means they will not vote based on quality. In addition, this will make curation unfair for small stakeholders. In the current system, if the smaller users vote before large stakeholders, they will likely get a larger percentage of their vote back than 50 percent. If a set curation rate of 50 percent is utilized, there will be no incentive for good curation for either group.
I also just do not want to ignore the fact 1 million users signed up, and we got about 1k left.
I don't think a lot of them left because the curation rewards system was unfair. I will say 1 million accounts != 1 million users. Most of the users probably left because the price went down, or left with the Hive crew. Some may have left indirectly because of the curation system, but this idea will not fix the curation system in any way. It will amplify the problems.
Thanks for the response.
You absolutely raise some valid points. At the moment, curation is also done based on the expectation of a high payout and likely established users or users that have a proven consistent payout benefit from this. Probably because they have a good quality post. The only fact is that this model is clearly not working as it is anticipated.
A flatter curve will not solve all the problems, but as I see it will definitely improve the distribution.
The thing is, we do not have to think like investors, or primarily for investors. We need to think about mass adoption so think about what is good for actually 95% of the people. We need a massive amount of users, so think what is best for them, investors will follow the money, and that is mostly where all the users are.
How I see the recruiting and retaining process:
Thanks again, I really like these discussions