How Does Steemcurator01 Support Affect Authors' Behavior?
In November 2021, I published a post in which I tried to analyze the impact of the club5050 on user behavior. In this post, I selected a few authors who received SC01 support on October 20, 2021, and analyzed how their Power Up and withdrawal changed before and after SC01's visit. The analysis showed that the share of Power Up was greatly increased. But it was a short period of time, so I decided to see what will be the behavior of these same authors.
In the new analysis, I used @the-gorilla's recommendation and removed two community accounts from the sample.
So, I took a ready-made sample of 12 authors, it's not representative, but it's the authors who supported SC01 at the end of October 2021. I analyzed how much money each author withdrew each month and how much Power Up did, calculated the Power Up percentage and summed it all up.
Unfortunately, I got too big a table, I could not insert it into the post, so you have to look at the ready-made charts.
The first graph shows how the percentage of Power Up changes in all 12 authors in the sample:
As you can see, people are trying to stay in clubs, so you can see a clear upward trend in Power Up.
Now let's look at the ratio of Power Up and withdrawal by month:
As we can see, the share of Power Up grew, becoming a real Pacman in November 2021. Then came December with its insane drop in STEEM prices. Many people panicked and started withdrawing money while they were still worth something. In January, the situation stabilized and the share of Power Up rose again.
I recently came across a comment from a user who criticized the clubs' initiative. He believed that this was a clever strategy that led to lower STEEM prices. instead, he proposed raising the price of STEEM by allowing it to be sold freely.
Shocking logic. For a person who knows the basic economy, it is clear that the price of anything is shaped by supply and demand. Since we cannot influence demand, the only way to increase prices is to reduce production.
Unfortunately, STEEM cannot be eaten, spread on bread or burned in a cauldron. Therefore, the demand for this cryptocurrency is purely speculative, ie people are ready to buy STEEM only when they are sure that they will be able to sell it more expensive later. How to convince people of this? You need to show the prospect of cryptocurrency. These can be new developments, new areas of use, etc. While this is not the case, we can only reduce the supply of STEEM in the market. Therefore, I fully support the initiative of the Steemit team.
Well, there are two sides to every coin...
Basically, I think the idea of binding more STEEM in the form of SP to the system through the clubs is good. The implementation would have to be evaluated and also one would have to actively turn another screw with the existing million stake: Abuse. Because still by delegation services and stinking self-voting (also in circles) much more STEEM are drawn from the system, than is bound by the clubs.
The problem is that here on the Steem both Defi and Social Media are served, but this is not separated from each other. By "interfering" with the whale on only one side, a healthy ecosystem can no longer emerge: The normal user forgets more and more about the social aspect: give and take. In the past, a PowerUp was NORMAL - one wanted to grow in order to be able to support others again. Of the users who blogged with joy and effort, no one pulled a single STEEM from the system: One WANTED to grow. Today most are waiting for a sc-vote, if they don't get that, their contribution is worthless to them, they don't care about anything else. Some come up with tricks and cheat at every opportunity (which is uncontrollable even by the best curators if they don't want to run Steemit full-time), some honest users leave annoyed. That's the way it is, unfortunately.
To explain this in more detail would require a longer paper. So I would just like to briefly take up your counter-arguments to the "shocking logic".
Correct. But with the clubs the opposite is done: With exaggerated votes (exaggerated, because the vast majority of articles are really not worth their money ("Hello, hello, I am a dolphin" - "Hello, hello, I have translated my ignored article with an automatic translator now again into three other languages"...)) more STEEM is produced now than ever before. This big "ninja stake" was not touched to vote before. Of course the Stinc. should be happy to do that, it's their stake after all and it motivates some users to stay active. But if it is about reducing the supply on the market, then this stake MUST also be used to destroy the STEEM overproduced by abuse with downvotes.
Yes, it can. At least it used to be possible. There is one account, @null. I don't know the algorithm and I don't know if it is still up to date. But in the past you could send STEEM and SBD to @null and then they disappeared. Really! They didn't show up in the wallet, burned cryptos. Burning is healthy for a strong system.
There were many projects that pushed sending STEEM to @null (funny enough, even a bid bot). Today, not a single cent goes there. Greed makes the dollar signs flash in the eyes, hardly anyone thinks anymore about a healthy, round system that everyone would benefit from growing together.
As I said, there are two sides to every coin. At the moment, too many people allow themselves to be blinded by the flashing side out of self-interest, without even looking at the other. Unfortunately, the most beautiful Pacman picture is irritating in this context.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to write such a great comment. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued support. I often notice your upvote below my posts. You are like steemcurator09 to me :)
I agree. Any solution has advantages and disadvantages. For example, clubs negatively affect charity accounts because they are forced to withdraw money. At the same time, SC01 always generously supports charity posts, which shows that the Steemit team are normal people.
Not so long ago, SC01 responded to requests for ending plagiarism and punished fraudsters. Tomorrow I will be curating content for the first time with the steemcurator06 account. One of the rules is not to give Downvote to anyone. I think the same rule applies to SC01.
At the same time, SC01 actively supports the fight against fraud by papi.mati and community moderators. I believe that the goal of the Steemit team is to return decentralization to the platform. That is, the community must fight the scammers themselves, and the Steemit team will help.
Unfortunately, the blogging community is now just an insect against the big elephant of the scam community. However, we need to keep working.
Bid bots remain a cancer of the community. They offer the authors such favorable conditions that it will never be possible to overcome them. Bid bots feed fraud the most.
The option with the @null account allows you to turn the inflation model of the Steemit economy into a deflationary one. To do this, it is enough that 10% of the amount from each transaction is sent to this account.
Maybe it can be done now. When was the last time someone tried to write a proposal? I think the proposal system is working, it's just that the Steemit team is waiting for the community to mature and initiate big changes.
In my opinion, Steemit is rising from its knees, reviving, but I can not say for sure, because I am still a newcomer. However, I see positive changes, new initiatives. Even the fruitless fight against windmills by papi.mati is extremely important. And it would be more effective if more users who are not indifferent to the state of this platform joined its Downwote Trail.
In general, I can write a lot on this topic, but little can be done.
Since when has the steemit team communicated and with whom?
Steemit does not respond to criticism
The Clubtags50-100 are not conducive, that is not gladly read by those who use them, self-criticism is not so easy, especially when it comes to money!
The steemcurator influences the opinion of most users through big votes many say that will be okay and only see the expected vote of the Steemcurator
Seit wann kommuniziert das steemit team und mit wem ?
Auf Kritik reagiert steemit nicht
Die Clubtags50-100 sind nicht förderlich , das wird von jenen die sie nutzen nicht gerne gelesen , Selbstkritik ist nicht so einfach erst recht nicht wenns um Geld geht !
Der steemcurator beeinflusst die Meinung der meisten User durch Bigvotes viele sagen sich das wird schon Ok sein und sehen dabei nur das zu erwartende Vote des Steemcurator
VgA
Sometimes SC01 answers questions, and lately they do it more often. For example, when @coding-gorilla consults about a new interface.
I agree with you that there are very few readers among us. Most authors publish a post and wait for the money. The trouble is that without a steemcurator, bloggers will leave the platform and only scammers and bid bots will remain. Unfortunately, very few users build their accounts and can support others.
I pick up two interesting topics in the comment thread. Lots to say, but I'll try to keep this as short as I can.
Topic 1: Is it good to incentivize powering up? There's a little more to it than this: "Since we cannot influence demand, the only way to increase prices is to reduce production. As @chriddi points out, beyond powering up, another way to influence supply is through use of the @null account. It used to be that there was a promoted posts category that could be accessed by sending to @null. Unfortunately, curators never supported it, so it never gained traction, and now it seems like it has entirely stopped working. I would love to see what would happen under the following circumstances:
Personally, I have my own (non-bid) voting bot set to vote at a higher percentage if @null is set as a beneficiary.
Also, it's an open question for me as to whether more powering up is necessarily better. I like to track it because I think it reflects the market confidence in the blockchain, but a thing to remember is that more powering up could mean more voting competition and lower curation rewards, which may discourage investment. By powering up, we are - in fact - also influencing demand. I'd love to see a statistical analysis on the relationship between powering up behavior and the price of the token, but I consider it an open question.
Topic 2: On the inevitability of bidbots. I agree with this point from @the-gorilla:
Personally, I'm not opposed to bidbots. I'm opposed to improper valuation of posts, no matter how it happens. So my problem with the current generation of bidbots isn't that they exist, it's that they do a really lousy job of valuing posts.
Instead of viewing it as an us vs. them dynamic, I'd love to see some entrepreneurial minded people come up with a generation-2 bidbot that does a better job at valuing posts and can outcompete generation-1.
I could say a lot more, but I've already missed my goal of keeping it short, so that'll be it for now. Thanks for the interesting post and the thought-provoking discussion.
I am happy that my post provoked such a wonderful discussion. Thank you for joining.
Topic 1. I really liked the idea that authors could promote your post by sending STEEM to @null account. This is one of those healthy ideas where there are no losers.
But who should implement it? Obviously, if we wait for Steemit Inc, this will never happen. I am convinced that their position is that the community itself should initiate change and implement it. Therefore, this change must be developed by community programmers. I wonder if there is anyone among us who is capable of this?
Topic 2. Some time ago, I had a discussion with @ the-gorilla about bid bots. No matter how you treat them, there is no denying the fact that their actions are destructive to the platform.
Then I told @the-gorilla that if we can't beat the bots, we need to lead them. We need to create a bid bot that would distribute voting depending on the quality of the post. Then the authors would compete for writing the best possible post.
But @the-gorilla rightly noted that this requires the creation of an algorithm, and any algorithm can be deceived. In addition, such a bid bot would be interesting only to those authors who have little SP, because for the quality they could get a big vote. All whales would continue to delegate their SP to upvu, which calmly gives a big vote for the two-word post.
Can I ask a question? If you don't against bid bots, why don't you delegate all your SP to upvu?
Well, it used to work, so whoever disabled it would have to reenable it. I'm not sure if that's Steemit at the API level or the witnesses at the blockchain level or both.
Absent that, it would be easy enough to jury rig a "poor man's version" by just creating a community or specifying a tag like #clubsteemburner and giving the community/tag curation support. Club members could set @null as a beneficiary, which is easy enough to verify with a mouse-over, or they could transfer to @null and copy/paste a screenshot of the transfer into a comment. The crucial thing is to have curation support for the initiative.
True enough, but I don't see that as an obstacle. Google built their whole business on top of their PageRank algorithm. The whole job of steem curation is basically just that - ranking the posts and comments by perceived value. Adding the "bid" component is basically like selling advertising. Sure, an algorithm can be gamed, but the important questions are whether it's better or worse than what we have now, and can it be improved when the inevitable flaws are revealed?
In the end, just like Google's search algorithm and Facebook's news feed, I'm convinced that for Steemit to grow to scale, curation needs to be a symbiotic combination of human and machine.
I do have the beginnings of an idea for a generation-2 type of bidbot that might flip around the incentive structure, but I need to think more about it before discussing it publicly.
I guess two main reasons: First is that I think the current version of bid bots are dragging down the price of Steem because they are so spectacularly bad at ranking/valuating our posts; and two is that I run my own (non-bid) bot on behalf of myself and some people who I know personally. It's far from perfect, but I think it does a better job than the bid bots at valuing posts. In fact, I think the combination of [me + the bot] does a better job than I would do by myself. So yeah, it doesn't pay as well as delegating to a bidbot, but it's not terrible, and I believe that it's putting a tiny amount of upward pressure on the price of Steem.
Ecency (Hive) has the opportunity to promote your post for 1 - 3 days, spending points on it. I like your idea to do something similar here, only the payment would be to send STEEM to the @null account. I wonder if @the-gorilla (@coding-gorilla) could implement this feature in its new interface.
I was an active editor of Wikipedia for some time. I really like how automation there serves to help people, and does not spoil the encyclopedia itself. In Wikipedia, bots only help people, generate checklists, or tag articles. The final decision rests with the human.
I am sure that Steemit will never exist without bots. But now the bots are destroying it. Therefore, your idea of the next generation bid bot sounds like an acceptable consensus.
In order to be able to give a big vote, this bot can not vote for everyone. He should vote only for the best articles. The number of delegated SP can only be one of the auxiliary ranking factors.
It should work something like this. The authors pay, say, 5 STEEM per month and take part in a contest for a large bot vote. If their post is of sufficient quality, the bot will vote by a large vote for it.
A regular small fee will allow you to constantly increase the power of such a bot and eventually depend less on delegation.
It would be desirable to agree on a strategy for creating such a bot in advance with the Steemit team, so that people do not lose potential support for SC01 when using this new bot.
Before they switched chains, SteemPeak also had a way to promote posts, and they would insert the promoted posts into people's feeds. The higher the promotion amount, the more feeds it would get stuffed into.
I don't remember if that worked by sending to @null, or if they had a different payment mechanism. I'm thinking that they took a percentage and burned the rest, but I don't remember for sure. At any rate, I'm confident that it would be possible for @the-gorilla (@coding-gorilla). It's probably not something that would get included in a proof of concept, though, I guess.
It will be interesting to hear his opinion.
@remlaps, @o1eh - it would definitely be possible technically. The downside being that at the moment, the API that I'm working with doesn't provide the ability to retrieve posts by beneficiary. So I'd have to loop through all active posts looking for @null, in order to display the promoted posts differently. Which would probably be very bad performance-wise.
It might be possible using Steem's own API but I don't know.
An alternative would be to perhaps include or insist upon the use of a #promoted or #null tag and retrieve posts with this tag instead - then checking that a beneficiary's been set.
Either way, a method for users to promote posts could be implemented which would require promotion on how to promote posts 🙂
I've answered a different question.
Yes, it would be possible to allow people to promote posts 🙂
Just to revisit some points, since it's been a long conversation. The original implementation of /promoted was done for people who transferred STEEM or SBD to the @null wallet. For performance, I guess it would be much faster to follow that model and check that wallet's incoming transfers instead of looping through every post to look for posts with beneficiary settings.
OTOH, the beneficiary never changes, so that's the kind of thing that you could capture once, the first time you look at the post, and never check again.
Finally, on the point about using a tag to signal promotion, the nice thing about this signaling method is that people could start immediately after curation support is available and the UIs could follow along when ready. In this case, the beneficiary method would probably be more convenient than the "transfer to wallet" method because curators can validate the setting with a simple mouseover (after the payout goes above 0.00).
A quick-start idea that just occurred to me is to set up an account to do a recurring automated post (burning a large percentage of rewards) to publish a list of posts that have been promoted via either/both of the above methods. If I can find some time during the next couple weekends, maybe I'll give that a try and just see what happens.
cc: @o1eh
As people get support, they become happy and try to be more connected to the system. ☺️
As a club100 member, I am connected to club100 to achieve my goals. 🙏 you have done a good test analysis. 👏I hope the steem price will increase even more and the number of active members will increase. 🙏Maybe steem developers can add and develop new earning systems to steemite and increase the steem price. 🙂
I assure you, there is a big problem with new developments on this platform.
Thank you for reading my post. I also hope for an increase in the price of STEEM. But not just for my own earnings. Rising prices will attract investors, new users and programmers, and this will breathe new life into the platform.
Si la iniciativa de los club por ahora es la mejor, si no se hubiera implementado seguramente fuera bajado a 0.1$ el precio cuando hubo la caída fuerte hace poco y en cambio se a podido mantener en parte por los encendidos de todos los usuarios.
Gran trabajo mostrando todo ese desarrollo, esta bueno que los usuarios se mantengan encendiendo en igual proporción al retiro.
I agree with you, if there were no clubs, the fall in prices would be greater.
Thank you for reading my post. I think when the price goes up, thanks to the clubs it will increase more than last time.
Interesting article, but I must object at least in some terms. Centralization continues, and support for quality content is dying. How to require Power Up to a user who does not receive support from large support accounts? I haven't withdrawn steem from the Platform for two months, and the number of votes I receive is insufficient compared to other users who always have a guaranteed vote from SC01, and therefore withdraw their steem. There is no balance in the clubs.
The quality of the platform is going, and interest and corruption continue to rule. I have not seen a solid proposal that attracts investors. Take a look at other blockchains that have grown exponentially in recent months, while Steemit has stalled above 30 cents.
More incentives need to be created, and curatorship needs to be balanced. Good Post are ignored, communities are slowing their growth while others decide to shut down.
Really strong initiatives are needed!
I agree with you that quality posts should be more supported. But who should support them? This leads to the Steemit team having to do it. But this is not the case.
This platform was conceived as decentralized. It was planned that users would support each other. Unfortunately, most people withdrew their money. Therefore, the Steemit team was forced to create steemcurators.
If we all built our accounts, in 1-2 years we would not have to rely on SC01, we would read posts and support those we like. And the authors of the best posts would earn the most.
Another important problem is fraud. Fraudsters get big money for low-quality posts. This money should go to bloggers who work hard to create quality content. It was the fraudsters who drove out the bloggers.
Unfortunately, the most supported users of Sc01 are only limited to farming your contents; the Diary Game is only good for that: There is no effort or dedication. If you check the activity of those who receive the support, you will notice that they publish and then leave, without leaving a feedback to other users. Do you think that a user who does not have quality in his posts can support quality posts? That, at least in my opinion, is false.
So, the clubs have become a ride to indifference. Nobody is for anybody. And then they come with the nerve to say:
"I'm triple dolphin..."
How can they not be if Sc01's support for them is exaggerated and unfair!
I value your thought, I wish everyone had your same projections:
Unfortunately, it won't be like that, not while the curator continues to reach the "same cheeky always".