You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Something Useful For Blockchain
Also, burning SBD is much more efficient than burning STEEM.
Agreed. Especially now, while the SBD print rate is 0. This is why I've continued to use /promoted even though it hasn't gained much traction.
I'm not actually sure if this is true.
So for this initiative to work, it needs the approval of the Steemit team, otherwise it is doomed.
In principle, authors can attract attention from the Steemit team in #club5050, #club75, #club100, etc... but use /promoted to attract attention from other curators. If a $0.02 promotion cost gets you an additional $0.50 and reaches a wider audience, it's still worthwhile.
It would definitely be more compelling with participation from Steemit, though. ;-)
Perhaps the promoted page would attract more attention if a competition were organized. For example, whoever gets to the top of this page by a certain date will receive 50 STEEM. But for this we need sponsors :-)
Still, in my opinion, the only way to the success of the blockchain is to earn money from the outside. As a country sells goods to another country, and when it has a positive external balance, then the standard of living in the country increases. Steemit needs to make money. Currently, the price of the STEEM token is based on the belief of investors that one day they will be able to sell it for a higher price. The price of all cryptocurrencies is based on this. But if Steemit could make money, then it would be the most unique cryptocurrency project. We even have a product - it's content. We just need to figure out how to sell it to someone. Content is tightly coupled with ads, but a new front-end is required to install ads.
Maybe there are other ways. Some merchant could order reviews of their goods or services by posting on Steemit. But for some reason, none of the entrepreneurs are interested in this. Also, the authors would be withdrawing the money instead of investing it in STEEM. A system is needed where all earned funds are converted to STEEM. But I have already been carried away into the realm of fiction :-)
So, it occurred to me last night that we can already use pinned posts in communities to provide visibility to promoted posts.
See STEM Saturday Post Promotion #9: Human brain size started shrinking when information storage technologies emerged
Good idea. It would be good if other communities joined this initiative. This can really incentivize authors to promote their posts.
I agree. I had actually hoped that other communities would follow my initial idea of promoting a community member's post each week. I had thought that it might spur a little healthy competition between communities. My goal is to lose control of what appears at the top of /promoted. ;-) Unfortunately, after 9 weeks, that didn't really happen.
Of course, with this latest idea, there is also the possibility that community owners could sell "Pinned" post placement directly. i.e. "Send STEEM/SBD to the admin to get your post pinned for X hours."
Or there could even be a hybrid model. Burn SBD during the reward window or send STEEM/SBD to the admin to rent a pinned post slot after payout time. Lots of possibilities. It's such a simple gateway into advertising that I'm surprised no one has thought of this before (or maybe someone has?).
I guess it will be up to authors and curators to figure out which (if any) model(s) make sense.
An interesting system occurred to me. I don't know who could implement it. It is possible to develop an automatic algorithm that would work like a lottery. This algorithm could add up the number of SBDs burned by members of the "promoted" page during a certain period of time, for example, 24 hours.
After that, the author, whose post at that moment was the highest, would receive a reward - 50% of the burned SBD. The more participants, the bigger the prize. I'm sure such a rivalry would result in the voluntary burning of significant amounts of SBD. Even bot lovers could participate in the competition.
Funding of rewards must be done with Steem.DAO. That is, someone needs to write a proposal. I am sure that it could be supported, because in this case, in essence, the blockchain "buys" itself a reduction in inflation. In the end, everyone wins.
The system has one weak point. In the blockchain, everyone can find out who sent how much SBD to @null. Then the last member can just send a little more SBD to @null. But this can be overcome by the fact that the period of time during which the winner will be determined should automatically change in a random order every time.
I've been thinking a lot about things like this - ways to gamify it. Unfortunately, I haven't come up with anything that would not require more time and funding than I have at my disposal. I definitely think that gamification would be a good direction, though.
Especially if a game could be created that delivers audience and not just rewards.
This is a very important sticking point. It will also be part of my answer to o1eh when it comes to why we don't have good FB writers, even influencers, here.
Maybe...
I get your point, and I have even thought about the same thing. In my own mind, I ruled it out over two challenges, though:
Also, as the largest stakeholder, I think Steemit really ought to maintain some discretion over what gets rewarded.
Therefore, instead of stopping curation - if I were running Steemit, I would set up some sort of long term incentive structure that links their curators' bonuses to the level and types of blockchain activity and also the future price of STEEM. (of course, for all I know, they may already have such a program)
( I would also start burning 100% of rewards from the steemitblog posts. ;-)
Yes, I also think that Steemit employs such paid curators. But maybe they are not only responsible for curating and could be entrusted with other tasks (besides holidays) for a while. I think that is already the case, because curating is already taken away from them quite a lot by the suggestions of sc03-sc09. I also worked in one of these teams for three months. It was very exhausting and it takes quite a lot of idealism, because no one would work for the "hourly wage" (in our western world). I hope that Steemit Inc. pays its "real" employees better... ;-)
Perhaps there would be more bot and delegation users (only those who can afford it, of course). But since Steemit doesn't really want that, this was part of its monitoring task: anyone who overshoots is not community-supportive, gets put on a list (ah, the "idle" employees could create this during their break...) and also has to expect no attention from the Steemit team in the future (after the break)... ;-)
Yes, of course. As in any other case, that would be: Exceptions prove the rule. This would then be a surprise for "the lucky user" - and Steemit could be sure that it would hit a committed user who is willing to produce good content independent of rewards.
Good idea. A break like this is perfect to think about this in detail and then publish a consistent "set of rules" and the roadmap that has been called for so often in a transparent way.
This programme definitely exists in rudimentary form. Too often, however, the Steemit team does not adhere to its own guidelines when voting, which it "demands" of the curatorial teams. Sometimes you think, "OK, they want to use up their votes, because nobody would had read that sh..." I can relate to that: Nobody can read everything. Well-paid curators should, though - or the thesis of people hired specifically for curating is disproven.... ;-)
Word... ;-)
Well, I actually also think that the proposed "absolute voting pause" is rather utopian.
But a step in the right direction might be the following: The Steemit team votes after five days at the earliest. If by then hardly any private curators have taken care of the post in question and there are no comments on the content, it could be that the article is crap or the author is shunned by the community because of other "offences". That could be checked.
I think this is worth considering for another reason, too. High-value curators could use curation rewards to train smaller curators about what to look for. In the past, I have even thought that whales could (maybe) make Steem more valuable to investors by announcing a certain percentage of their votes a day or two ahead of time and intentionally letting the smaller voters "pile on" to collect the curation rewards. Yeah, the whale would lose curation rewards, but hopefully that would be balanced by an increase in the value of their holdings, since it would encourage investment (or at least, HODLing).
So there's a feedback loop there. The whale learns from the smaller curators and the smaller curators also learn from the whale.
This would be a very "social" aspect for manual operation.
Unfortunately, the reality is different: upvu, for example, votes after exactly five minutes and leaves smaller "curation calculators" no chance at all. Then, of course, there are the smart users who sit directly in front of the whale via autovoter.
But fortunately we are not talking about Upvu and all those who take advantage of this "service"... ;-)
I would be very happy to perceive this feedback loop at some point.
However, that would bring us back to the beginning: for that to happen, many, many more users would have to recognise themselves as curators.
This - and also the new comments by o1eh - give me further ideas: Have you ever thought through what it would be like to increase the CR share to 75%? Curating would be more lucrative, not every user would constantly produce something (which nobody is interested in anyway) "at any price". Unfortunately, upvu and the bots would profit greatly from this, but it would also be a chance to balance the imbalance between readers (curators) and producers (including spammers, scammers, etc.).
Your opinion is important to me! Maybe we can manage to sort out our thoughts (pros/cons) and find an attentive reader in the Steemit team. Many good thoughts have already emerged and been reflected here - they should not be lost.
I have thought about it. I would support it because I agree with your reasoning and I think it would be better for authors, curators, and investors; but I think the impact would be modest. Also, there was HUGE opposition when they switched from 25% to 50% for curators. I'm sure that switching to 75% would be extremely controversial.
IMO, the biggest problem with rewards is not the percentage, but rather that there's no incentive for the curator to self-regulate their vote size. Downvotes were supposed to let others act as regulators, but that didn't work out.
So I have long thought that the most effective thing that could be done would be to take the rewards from the voter with the highest rshares on a post at payout time and throw them back into the rewards pool. This would create an incentive for voters to compete to be the second-highest voter. High value votes from a single account that are wildly different than the consensus would be automatically zeroed out and redistributed to other posts. So... in theory... the voter would want to try to guess what the highest value vote would be at payout time and place their own vote just below that value.
Someone could game this scheme by splitting their stake into multiple accounts, but there is a natural penalty built in if they do that, and the capability still exists to regulate those "cheaters" with downvotes.
Another thing I have thought about is to let authors set the curation percentage at posting time. New authors trying to build an audience could gain visibility by setting curation rewards higher. Established authors could set them lower.
Interestingly, the @null beneficiary creates a sort of a backdoor into this, so we already have it in an ad-hoc kind of way. But that brings the conversation full-circle back to needing web site changes to make the posts easy to find. ; -)
That is also a very interesting approach, which I - I think - already read about in your blog a long time ago, but hadn't quite understood how you meant it. Now I can understand this idea very well, thank you.
In general, I would like to thank you for this very interesting dialogue!