Steemit Roadmap 2018: Community Input Requested

in roadmap2018 •  last year

The Steemit dev team is hard at work wrapping up several of the remaining 2017 roadmap items. We still have some major releases that we are planning to deliver before the end of the year, including a highly secure mobile wallet app for Apple and Android, and an updated notifications system for steemit.com!

Early 2018

We also have some important developments on the horizon for 2018, including an improved account signup process along with hardfork 20 (“Velocity”), as well as Smart Media Tokens (SMTs).

Roadmap: Community Input

We are in the process of putting together our 2018 roadmap, and plan to share our vision of 2018 with all of you once the roadmap is complete. As part of our 2018 roadmap, we would like to get input from all of you. In the comments below, or with posts using the #roadmap2018 tag, we would like you to answer the question:

What would you like Steemit to make a priority for 2018?

We promise to review and consider all of the input from the community regarding the roadmap, but please understand that we will not be able to implement all of the requests. The team has limited resources, and it is important that we focus on the items that will add the most value to the platform.

Even though all of the requests may not make it into the 2018 roadmap, that doesn’t mean we won’t bear them in mind and implement them eventually. In addition, these suggestions could prove a valuable resource for 3rd party developers and entrepreneurs looking to build businesses on Steem.

We hope that the #roadmap2018 discussion will spark a lot of great ideas about where the future development of our platform, and community will lead!

Steem on,

Team Steemit

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

It's as good as time as any to list what I thing Steem needs ASAP:

  • User/platform configurable rewards distribution: The hardcoded 75%/25% Author/Curators split is something I'd like to see customizable. This ratio should be configurable within the comment_options operation and support between 0/100 and 100/0 ratios. Each Steem powered website could either set this ratio at the platform level or surface the choice to the end user via the interface. Different types of content deserve different types of rewards and by allowing this option to be configurable, it opens Steem up to different opportunities.
  • Reimagining Bandwidth and Account Creation: Account creation sucks right now, and while I know HF20 is set to address some of these problems, we very much need a way to create free accounts for people. Free accounts would also imply that the bandwidth system will need adjusting as will the requirements on account creation. This is the biggest hurdle towards adoption in my opinion, I can't really market chainBB to the wider world yet simply because most of them probably won't go through the trouble of creating a Steem blockchain account. I don't have a silver bullet solution for this but it needs to be a top priority.
  • A more advanced account/key structure: The account management via keys right now has a lot of blemishes. I believe we need to reimagine the levels of account security and go above and beyond posting and active. A dynamic key system where I could create a key pair and grant it permission to specific operations would be ideal. I want to be able to create a specific key for my price feed and failover, which doesn't have access to transfer my funds out. I'd like to be able to assign a specific key on the powerbot accounts specifically for delegation operations. The more fine control we have over this system, the better types of apps can be built upon Steem. SteemConnect could do amazing things with a key system like this.
  • Rethinking content storage: Steem at this rate is going to grow unfathomably large, with a lot of garbage in the blockchain. It's going to need some method of pruning/sharding/subchains/sidechains/something to reduce/divide it's overall footprint. I'm identifying it as a problem, but I don't have a great solution. I just know it'll be an issue in the future if Steem has any sort of monumental growth to it.
  • Standardization around content and it's meta: We need standard practices for how different frontends interact with data on the blockchain. Currently each frontend has no respect towards the custom data other platforms are setting within a post. It would go a long ways to have a set of best practices, guidelines and set methods to respect the data between all the platforms being built on the blockchain.
  • Beneficiaries Payouts: Currently beneficiary rewards only pay out in SP. These rewards should pay out in whatever method the author of the post chooses (50/50 SBD/SP or 100% SP).

I'm sure I could list more - but I'll stop here :)

·

User/platform configurable rewards distribution: The hardcoded 75%/25% Author/Curators split is something I'd like to see customizable. This ratio should be configurable within the comment_options operation and support between 0/100 and 100/0 ratios. Each Steem powered website could either set this ratio at the platform level or surface the choice to the end user via the interface. Different types of content deserve different types of rewards and by allowing this option to be configurable, it opens Steem up to different opportunities.

I am strongly in favor of this idea.

One concern that I have though would be that this could create a 'starvation' problem, where curators start only going after the posts with a higher and higher curation percentage, and ignoring posts with lower percentages (even if the quality of the content is high). Authors will be forced to increase their curation percentage in order to get noticed/considered, until it reaches a point where 80-90% curation percentage is needed if you want to get votes. Do you see this becoming a problem?

·
·

I think a type of free market would evolve around the different percentages, but I don't think it would go to that far of an extreme throughout the entire community. Some bots may focus on higher % ratios and that's fine, but I imagine real people are going to reward content they appreciate regardless of the ratio.

Curation focused users would be encouraged to vote on high % curation reward posts (that they believe will be successful), but those posts would likely only be in situations where the author cared more about visibility than rewards.

After thinking about this for the last couple months - I'm leaning towards not just letting the basic user set this ratio while posting. Someone could of course make a utility to set the ratio to whatever they want - but the platforms themselves should be the ones determining these percents to simplify the process, and that's what most users will end up using.

Steemit.com for example could present it as an option while writing a post:

  • Default (25% / 75%)
  • Reduced Visibility (0% / 100%)
  • More Visibility (50% / 50%)
  • Highest Visibility (75% / 25%)

This could be a slider or whatever, potentially not even revealing the % ratio (to reduce cognitive load). Maybe they don't even give the user an option, but they change steemit.com so that comments are at 0/100% and posts at 50/50%, because that's what's best for steemit. I'm not sure what the exact numbers would be, just brainstorming.

Overall I don't think we'd end up in a situation where all posts required 80-90% curation rewards to get visibility. The way the websites are built would follow the market, and since most people use these websites, there's a bit of a safety net.

Also - once content has been silo'd (either through communities or chainBB forums) - the overall visibility from monetary gains is a lot less important.

·
·
·

Steemit.com for example could present it as an option while writing a post:
Default (25% / 75%)
Reduced Visibility (0% / 100%)
More Visibility (50% / 50%)
Highest Visibility (75% / 25%)

I think it would be better to have a slider like SP voting slider from 1% to 100%.

The wider the spectrum the better imo. Someone who wants to keep say 95% of the rewards for himself should be able to do so as well.
The market for curation will become a lot more interesting with a wide spectrum. ( 1 to 100)

·
·
·
·

I think it'd be up to the frontend (whether steemit, busy, chainbb, etc) to decide if they want to give the users a choice. There's definitely benefit for some users - but it'd probably confuse others.

A good first step is even making it possible :D

·
·
·

Your idea in combination with mine... would be an interesting solution.

·
·

until it reaches a point where 80-90% curation percentage is needed if you want to get votes

I don't think that would happen, universally, but I also think there are cases where 80-90% curation makes perfect sense as a way to encourage risky voting on less-known or less-mainstream content.

Really excellent posts (high potential earnings) would get votes even with a low percentage. If you can vote on a post with 10% curation rewards but likely to reach $100 or a post with 100% curation that probably won't exceed $2, which do you choose?

I think we'd see different types of content and different authors offering different percentages, in a sort of curation-market way (more obscure content and authors would have to offer more, but at least they have the option to offer more and get noticed).

I do see some issues with UI but only pro curators and bots need pay attention to most of it anyway (like most of the low-level curation rules). Both can build their own tools or a market can develop for better tools than the baseline (steemit.com) platform (as is the case now for features like beneficiaries).

·
·
·

Thank you very much for this mindset. I hope your clout resonates with the development team to enact some of this logic.

Loading...
·
·

I agree. But it could also turn around the other side, Tim... Giving more curation could also attract bots and false curation.

So in my view, the system has to have some kind of credibility (reputation) before you can jump on such high differentials. For example, low reputation should star at High Author percentage and accounts should be more affected by bandwidth when posting (and less when commenting). Then the more you go up in reputation, the more you can set the bar to allow only curators to receive rewards.

·
·
·

I agree with this. Bots will find a way to find all the posts with higher curation rewards and start upvoting them. I think these guys are overthinking it. The curation rewards are fine the way it is but I'm open to hear other ideas about this.

·
·
·

Exactlyyyy!!
It will be more inclined towards curators in terms of revenue generation.
But yes!!. The platform should provide author with more options to decide.

·
·
·
·

That's right... so, why not incentive everyone to behave and provide good input and value to the platform, right? By allowing only good reputation to strive, we give public opinion the power to decide. And that's what counts on steemit!

·
·
·
·
·

You'd have to stop Steem Power being buyable though (otherwise Steem becomes a buy your way to becoming rich issue)...

·
·
·

Giving more curation could also attract bots and false curation.

I disagree with your statement, I think it would do the opposite. Vote buying is the result of a decrease in curation rewards. ( when steem forked from 50/50 to 75/25.) At this point it became more profitable to sell your vote to a bot than curate.

·
·
·
·

So increasing curation rewards should not attract bots? Will not the sell vote to bots apply here?

Can you clarify your view. I still can't see how you are seeing it.

Thanks

·
·
·
·
·

New users will be able to promote their posts by giving higher curation rewards and whales like myself would earn good curation rewards by voting most posts, there will be no need for services like randowhale,etc...these services are just taking advantage of a weakeness in steem.

·
·
·
·
·
·

OK. Point taken.

Only one more question...
Are we then saying that we agree with money being the monopolization factor? Being that... the more you invest in STEEM the more you will win?

I can only agree to the above if, both high reputation and weight can play together a somehow equivalent play. Meaning that there should be another valuable attribute that balances the fact someone could put 1 Million on STEEM, make lots of random curations and then come out without any consequence. For me, this is not acceptable. Money should not be the only way to decide the future of the platform.

My view. And thanks for yours.

·
·

Steemit will replace facebook

·
·

Yeah, I think this sort of thing will induce a 'race to the bottom', where no author really wins. I like the idea of them being adjustable within reasonably small bounds (say 50/50 -> 75/25), though. But I'm not a believer in the 'free market', as we have too many irrational psychological foibles that sabotage us (both individually and as a group dynamic).

·
·
·

The free market works fine in a society where everyone makes decisions rationally. Unfortunately, people are irrational beings

·
·
·

I agree.

·
·

Even if people were to only upvote content with 80-90% curation I still think it wouldn't be a problem because it will make curation so profitable that many people will invest in SP thus increasing the price of steem (authors payout )

Also according to this rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) only 1% of internet users actively create content while the other 99% consume it, so to me it makes perfect sense that authors gets 10% and curators(consumers) 90%.

·
·
·

Interesting view.

·
·
·

It seems to lean in favor of consumers to the detriment of creators. There's a reason content creators earn good money, it's hard work. Hitting an upvote button is not especially for a bot.

While the rule you mentioned is true, giving 90% to the consumers will disincentivize content creators.

Why would they do all that work when all they have to do is read and upvote?

·
·
·
·

Curators need steem power to earn rewards whereas authors can keep earning while cashing out every dime they earn.

Giving 90% to consumers is important to bring the system closer to a natural state. On steemit there is almost no readers and people are earning hundreds of dollars per posts, I mean are authors on steemit interested only about the money or do they care about the size of their audience?
A system like this is not sustainable, we need to incentivize people to buy steem power , its because people power up that authors earn anything at all.

·
·
·
·
·

This does make a lot of sense actually.

Good economics in this case in point.

I spend a lot of time writing lengthy blog posts, and though I attract some upvotes from dolphins and small whales from time to time, it's not nearly as much as I'd like (because it's not incentivized for them to do so)

In most cases, it's more rewarding for me to re-invest my payouts into bid bots

But I find this ridiculous... I put in a lot of work (half a day's work per post minimum), and it's content people do enjoy reading when they get around to it, but at the same time, I would much rather have a genuine audience of readers, say an audience ten fold, and earn 90% less on post-payouts.

Because that would eliminate the incentive for me to pay for my upvotes, and my content would reach a larger audience, which is exactly what I want.

I think my content is currently rewarded fairly for what it's worth, given that I've only just started. However, the economic environment in which I am contributing my content, is not conducive to me growing my audience.

So your point hits home very hard.

I would gladly lower my author rewards to 20% if it meant I'd have a 500% increase in my visibility (through upvotes and resteems)

Does that make sense? It certainly does to me

·
·
·
·
·
·

Umm Not Sure . This may work for Posts which are written or photographs taken by people on their phones and DSLRs .

But what if Steemit platforms actually end up growing to the point where it competes with youtube and people who make professional videos by investing money come on board. Content like documentaries , Short Films etc are Expensive to produce.

Would the growth be so massive with the above mentioned model that 10-20% reward will compensate the costs ? I am not sure .....And in case the costs don't add up steemit will become the dumping ground of global content while Quality content moves to other more profitable platforms ....

·
·

This was my first thought upon seeing the idea as well. I'm afraid that this would lead to more problems that we already experience (people reciprocating votes with the intent of profit, bots, poor content, etc.). Being able to control the ratio would be cool though. Not exactly sure what the best call is here

·

Other than free account creation, these are some solid ideas. I’ll have to think on the free accounts and bandwidth, but it just doesn’t sound like it would work out well, given the lure of “easy money” around here.

To be continued...

·
·

As the reward pool will never be large enough to make fb level amount of users happy, steemit is not destined to have that many users.
At some point users will need to pay some price to get in, imo.

This would both cut spammers and encourage only serious content creators imo.

·
·
·

I pretty much agree with that. Most users will likely never achieve any significant level of "popularity" or even have any of their posts go "viral." That's just the nature of social media. And unless an interface is created where users aren't primarily interested in rewards and are instead using it because it's genuinely a fun interface to interact, hoping for and comparing rewards will always be the main attraction and activity.

I actually prefer the idea of something that isn't necessarily "mass-adopted" over trying to onboard as many people as possible at no cost or minimal cost. When making money is involved and when it's advertised as being possible with minimal effort, you'll end up with a lot of people trying to milk the system with minimal effort...as we have actually witnessed ourselves. It spawns endless attempts at spamming, scamming, and the creation of mostly "low-quality" content just to make some quick cash.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with having a niche market or niche content. If that's what needs to happen to keep the system credible/workable, then that's perfectly OK. But if that's the goal, then the proper protocols need to be adopted. If that's not the goal...well, then...I'm not sure that there's any way to make both the money-earning aspect and the quality aspect workable without some serious reconsideration given to the entire system that has been created in the first place.

There seems to be a lot of conflicting expectations and protocols. Do we want mass adoption and everything that comes with it, or do we want exclusivity and a more managed/quality user experience? I don't think the blockchain protocols can properly facilitate both.

·
·
·
·

Right, my content is unlikely to be popular, too much cognitive dissonance, but if you want a well rounded content bundle you can't have it without what I bring to the conversation, imo.

The only way I see me getting any votes at all is through networking on the platform.
If this is to be the case, then new users shouldn't be encouraged through random upvotes, but rather the users we already have need to be given a chance to be known.
For instance, folks with less than 100 posts haven't really put in the effort, if you ask me.

I support folks whose content I do not agree with, but I do agree with their being allowed to say it.
Nsfw, specifically.
I have no love for it, but if that is their thing, I won't downvote it either.
Poo humor, too.

·
·
·
·
·

If this is to be the case, then new users shouldn't be encouraged through random upvotes...

I completely agree with that. I've been saying this for a long, long time. The problem that I see a lot of on this platform is the same problem that I see with "failed" bloggers elsewhere - they either don't create interesting content or they don't bother with or know how to network. That's all social media is. If you can't or are unwilling to do those two things, then there shouldn't be much expectation of "making money online."

The random and/or widespread upvotes for new users and "minnows," just for the sake of "giving them something," isn't exactly the best approach for growing value from a content and user/viewer interest perspective. I've never understood the idea of trying to support all new users rather than trying to support users who produce good/popular content or even just users that you like.

Social media is about finding good information for you or entertaining content for you. Vote on the things that you enjoy and want to see more of, not what you think will "help minnows get more power" or "help spread the rewards around." That's the wrong approach on multiple levels, in my opinion.

But what do I know?

·
·
·
·
·
·

Lol, thanks for being here, David.

I don't know much, either, just an old, retired, hobo.

·
·

Agreed, that's a hard one. Free accounts would require some radical changes to go along side it, I don't think it would just work if we simply allowed it. A potential solution could be some sort of free/temporary account (where everything's "temporary" and not permanent on-chain somehow). The user could use this account to only post (100% SP) with it to "earn" themselves an account. Only once they've "earned" the account would their history actually be recorded on-chain and unlocked of all features.

It's a tall order, and I'm sure there's better solutions, but we need something different than what we have now.

·
·
·

@jesta, now a temporary account that was mentioned only puts us at a disadvantage in the sense that "forcefully" making an author accept only full power up, what if the person requires fund as per an emergency? The truth is that the living conditions of people differ and there are those who know how data consuming steemit site is, especially to those in certain countries. How does compulsory full power up help such a person when the 50/50 option will be beneficial?
That is like creating a matrix system where you have to get to a certain level to get certain rewards. P.S. what is the assurance that spammers are new members? A new person cannot operate such complex reward farms as effortlessly like that, they are mostly pre-existing members who we'll never suspect that are the masterminds, so at the end of the day, people who are already aware of of service like anon steem won't be deterred by the temporary new accounts. Rather, new members who genuinely want to blog and earn will suffer more.

·
·
·
·

It would be 100% SP because each account requires a minimum amount of SP to be created. If they're a new "temporary" account - they wouldn't be able to depend on those funds for an emergency. It's a limitation people would have to live with.

And it absolutely is a system where you have to achieve a certain level to get rewards. The bar is low though - the cost of creating an account. They could always pay to have an account created and bypass this entire system.

·
·
·

"Temporary", until it expires and then you create another free account (or 100 of them) and keep on spamming. I don't think this is workable at all.

I understand where you are coming from in terms of wanting free accounts (i.e. most other web sites) but I really think this is a situation where the nature of a public blockchain and limited resources is an irreducible difference from most other web sites and makes it unworkable. Someone has to pay for the resources, whether with an actual fee or some sort of stake-limiting.

·
·
·
·

I meant that the posts themselves would be temporary as well, which means if they created 100 accounts and spammed, when all 100 accounts expired, all those spam posts would go away with the accounts.

There's a lot of hurdles to make that happen though - which is why I said it'd be a radical change.

·
·
·
·
·

You can't just delete the whole history from the blockchain. There was some discussion about an idea to have offchain "free" accounts (sort of like a "Guest account"), which would be a way to do something like this, but as you say there are a lot of hurdles to it, including that it represents a big change from the current "everything on the blockchain and the front end is just a UI view of that" architecture.

·
·
·
·
·
·

I feel like we're getting in the weeds here on implementation details, but that's fun sometimes :)

I understand you can't delete things from the blockchain and I never said you'd have to. I imagine that these temporary posts/accounts would exist in a mempool like state (to borrow a term from bitcoin) - where they exist as pending transactions. This mempool would persist and propagate between witnesses just like blocks do using the p2p network. There would be a maximum lifespan of these transactions and a set of criteria that the account must meet before any of the transactions are actually included in a block.

None of this remotely exists AFAIK within Steem - so it would be a huge undertaking.

On the other hand, you're right - this whole system could exist off-chain and be integrated invisibly within the frontends.
The only problem there is now that system is responsible for paying for the account to be created upon completion of the steps. It'd be way easier than building it on-chain, that's for sure.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Yup, weeds. The on-chain/off-chain distinction is the main thing. Whether it is a mempool-like thing or a separate database or something else is definitely weeds.

As far as the system being responsible for paying, I could imagine some sort of setup where if these pseudo-posts from pseudo-accounts get votes and earn, then the rewards could accumulate in a pool or holding account or something which could then pay for accounts/bandwidth.

But the problem is still that many users are not going to earn significant rewards, ever. I'm just not sure the 'earn your way to pay your way' model of providing bandwidth is viable at all. Some users are going to be content producers and some (probably most, by a lot) are going to be content consumers. The latter need their bandwidth paid for from some external source, somehow.

·
·
·

See...that sounds like a reasonable option. Kind of adds to the “gamification” aspect as well. Not sure how it could be implemented though. Could it be done via a side- or sub-chain? As each user then reaches the required targets, the information would be extracted and essentially added to Steem in their own version of a user “genesis” block that contains all of their previous data.

As a new user, they probably wouldn’t have a ton of content, so I imagine the block numbers and sizes would be relatively small. And, of course, if your other suggestion can be resolved (content storage), it wouldn’t matter too much anyway.

·
·
·
·

LOL.

Steemit and Steemit RED!

Nice idea, I'm fresh to blockchain but played enough shity RPG's and media outlet's over time to see idea this work, (as a model in general, I'm new to Steem so can't comment on it really) kind of like where in a game you are restricted to level 5(intro/#steemitlyf so can read everything but have restricted input) then graduate to Steemit.
From my basic software understanding with cryptoing, blockneting and interneting I can't see why this concept would not work as a general platform level in the near future IMHO.

·
·
·

nice comment

·
·

(Almost) free account creation is a must.
Please consider this use case scenario:
I have a mature, well prospered forum / site with 100k users. I want SMTs. I want my users to get accounts on steem. Given current min reg fee 0.2 STEEM that's around $20,000 (if you can afford $3,000,000 in SP delegation, freezing those funds for 30days + 13weeks) or just $600,000 for account creation without delegation.
Freemium would be the key. As long as we would be able to keep bandwidth limits at the level preventing million of 0SP accounts from spamming the network.

·
·

A suggestion on the free account creation thing, maybe there should be kind of a replenishable quota of free accounts an already existing "parent" account could create. Going beyond the quota would then cost that parent account.

·
·
·

You can do that now with delegation.

·

THANK YOU FOR THIS. It's funny, I was wondering when Steem would stop holding itself back by allowing potential users to wait weeks in order to be accepted/verified. What a turn off. Only took me about two weeks to be accepted (eye roll).....So glad these issues will be resolved. Hoping for some great steps forward in 2018! Cheers, mate!

·
·

Yess!!..
I strongly believe that the Sign up process taking too much time is actually losing a lot of users and also from its platform-scaling point of view in terms of users count.

If it really wants to compete with Facebook, Twitter, etc. Steemit do need to make users feel that they are on a equally competent platform with awesome front-end UI.
This is that one thing lacking in existing #Blockchain-based Dapps.

Please prioritize this.

·
·

I HAVE WAITED MONTHS to see this problem fixed and it is still a problem....
And the value of STEEM will not go up until its fixed.

·

@jesta I agree with you on the need of easness to the signup process. I recently wrote a post about the need of an invite a friend button, and my idea on the backend of it is related to make it easier and faster, as well as showing the users the advantages of steemit, and how great the platform is to learn too. I also wrote a post on the creation of a Mentions tab function. That will also help steemians communicate faster, and increase the speed of task completion. @gold84

·

I am happy with all my heart that there is like you in this great site
Who are doing development work and a road map to develop this great site
thank you all
Thank @jesta
Thank @timcliff
My greetings to all of you in this future map
Thanks for all and my greetings to you
@walidsalah

·

great information and easy to understand

·

You are very correct

·

informative comment...

·

Well you got 33$ on this comment in 14 hours. claps

Loading...
·

Mmmmmmm who is this @jesta, lemme check him out. Full of knowledge.
Look forward to emulating your steps.

·

I’ve created a word cloud for the comments section of this post that I hope you will find of value and will want to share. While the creation of the actual word cloud is relatively easy and straightforward, the creation of a relevant word list that will produce a meaningful word cloud is quite another matter, as I’m sure you know, and takes considerable time and effort. Unfortunately, as of now, the post has only had 41 views. It needs a little love. Perhaps a resteem might be of help, if you think it is worthwhile, and, of course, it would be much appreciated too. TIA
https://steemit.com/steemit/@cryptographic/word-cloud-for-steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input

·

Different types of content deserve different types of rewards and by allowing this option to be configurable, it opens Steem up to different opportunities.

Could you give some examples of what possibilities this would open up?

·

apart from all this which is really cool but dont you think the world as to rock steemit, hacking our way into existing social media, and bring more users to steemit, have been on facebook over the years with thousand of likes and shares not even a penny i recieved, nobody hears about steemit and he/she is not HOT!(bigshaq), i believe steemit should work on publicity too, to promote the platform and reach more users, attatching some amount of steem to social sharing conditioned with algorithm like that of rewards could be looked into,

·

Thanks for all the great ideas put forth.

·

as far as content storage, an archive option similar to Instagram would be amazing... to quickly archive a post in order for it to be publicly hidden yet permanent. User may toggle posts to be visible or not and that could be done through a side chain if i'm not mistaken no ? I know some people live life with no regrets and all but boy do i regret one of my posts... like dam... very unprofessional post and i cant do anything about it.. no options other than living with an impulsive post made out of curiosity. In my opinion an archive would be key in rethinking content storage, or even allowing users to delete posts they no longer want to have

·

Why you stop. Nice writting

Perfect timing. Thanks for asking. Here's a list of things that come to mind presently:

  1. Add an option to filter out resteems on people's blogs so they don't look cluttered and you can find the main author's posts easily. I never resteem posts because this doesn't exist, which is kind of a shame, but it makes your blog look terrible without this feature.
  2. Consider changing the formula for curation so that curators are more highly rewarded again. 25% seems to be too low to encourage people to spend much effort curating. Then again, 50% seems a bit high. Either 70/30, 65/35 or even 60/40 author to curator split. This should be a top priority. [Edit: another great option would be to have curation rewards customizable. Then people could choose how much of the rewards they want to share with their curators.]
  3. Prioritize releasing a fully functional Steemit app for iOs/ Android, not just a wallet app. This will bring more people in first-world countries online and drive demand for STEEM up.
  4. Keep trying out new cosmetic variations for the site and take polls on the community's preferences. Be creative/innovative! It is a minor thing to a developer that makes a big difference to non-technical users, increases excitement and the impression that changes are constantly being implemented and feedback from the community is being valued by Team Steemit.
  5. I won't say too much about account creation since it's already being prioritized, but yeah, that will open the floodgates to mass adoption. Make sure you're ready for hundreds of thousands and millions of new users before you implement it (which you probably already realize.)

At the moment, that's what comes to mind. I may edit this comment with other requests as they come forth. Thank you so much for asking!!!

·

I guess people don't like my curation suggestion. Lol. (Probably don't like the idea of their author payouts going down.) Right now Steemit is mostly content creators all hungry for a payout and few curators, so something really needs to be done about it, even if bloggers don't like it, they will get used to it and it will improve the platform.

·
·

I agree that curation needs to be looked at. It would be nice to make changes that encourage whales to upvote/curate from varying authors so more authors get a nice payout occasionally.

·
·
·

Definitely. Not just whales though. Right now someone can just set a bot to upvote popular user's posts, and they'll get almost guaranteed curation rewards.
Perhaps an algorythm based on a user's average post payout rewarding more curation rewards for upvotes on lesser known users. This way it encourages everyone to go out there and find the diamonds in the rough.

·
·
·

Everytime a 'whale' votes EVERYBODY ELSE'S vote loses value.

If one person votes, their vote gets the entire reward pool.
If one minnow, and one whale votes, the minnow gets next to nothing and the whale takes the rest.
Whale voting is making it impossible for the newbs to get votes and exposure.

·
·

I like # 4 by d-pend, where the community decides on issues of realavence that will affect us all. One question at a time. If you notice, this type of questionnaire tends to attract the same people repeatedly. If stats are correct their are a whole lot of steemians that are not seeing this right now. Thanks for your suggestions.

·

Like your list and think it's pretty dead on. #3 will cause more adoption naturally and increase retention. Currently this feels like being on Myspace having to be at my computer to post. 99% of my facebook time is on my cell, very rare I use my computer for it.

And #1 is Top of my list. My feed gets cluttered with resteems and has caused me to unfollow a few people that resteem everything under the sun vs quality, but I like their posts. Being able to toggle that on and off would be a huge help to make sure I don't miss content from those I want to read in my limited time. If there is more time then seeing content from others is of interest and then it makes sense to turn on the resteems...but I should be in control of this.

·
·

I created a front end called steemfeed.social that allows you to filter out resteems (among a host of other things). It's still pretty beta at the moment, but it's there if you want to see only the original content of the people you follow.

·
·

I am with you on this @thedarkhorse and have never seen anyone mention it. I too quit following some folks that like to resteem so many posts.

I like their posts but would prefer not to get so many in my feed they resteem.

·

25% seems to be too low to encourage people to spend much effort curating

The problem, in part, is that it isn't actually 25%, it is much less than 25% after factoring in the reverse auction (early voting penalty). The last estimate I saw was 12%. Even bringing it back up to actually 25% (or closer to 25%) would be a step in the right direction.

I too like @jesta's idea to make it customization on a per-post or per-community basis.

Prioritize releasing a fully functional Steemit app for iOs/ Android, not just a wallet app.

Maybe partner with esteem or other existing apps to promote them better, or even acquire them outright. That's a much faster path to getting this done.

·
·

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out, you're exactly right. I agree that assimilating existing app development would be a solid choice if it works out.

·

I’ve created a word cloud for the comments section of this post that I hope you will find of value and will want to share. While the creation of the actual word cloud is relatively easy and straightforward, the creation of a relevant word list that will produce a meaningful word cloud is quite another matter, as I’m sure you know, and takes considerable time and effort. Unfortunately, as of now, the post has only had 41 views. It needs a little love. Perhaps a resteem might be of help, if you think it is worthwhile, and, of course, it would be much appreciated too. TIA
https://steemit.com/steemit/@cryptographic/word-cloud-for-steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input

·

I agree with him

·

1, 3, 4, & 5 are all right on the money.

·

Great suggestions, @d-pend - especially 1 & 4!

·

I could see reading posts on my phone, or maybe a tablet, but there is no way I would want to write a blog post on my phone.
I think an app would mainly help users that are already here stay in touch, and respond to comments on their posts. That's highly important though. It will mean more activity on the site.

·

Number 1 is a must

For some users it's no problem to have lots of Resteems, but for others, I think having tons of other people's posts clouding our own blog is not the ideal visual setup we're striving for!

Great idea. It's been something preventing me from hitting more resteems on articles I like just because I think to myself "do I really want this to be there in 2 months time"

·
Loading...
·

100%. Communities were an objective of the 2017 roadmap, with an aim to deliver in Q3. It would be great to see these happen in 2018.

·

Agree. Agree. Agree.

I'm sure there are other things worth doing, but do that first and then reassess. It is such a huge change that it could change many current assumptions about how the platform works and what it needs.

·

Straight to the point!

·

Exactly @donkeyong, communities are being overlooked and they are the building block of the platform. Do we want growth on the platrform? Yes! but then imagine reviewing the curation formula to 50/50, that is basically taking away more from an author who already earns less simply because you enjoyed his content enough to even vote.
This is like building a house from the roof first when there is need for the foundation (communities) to be built first.
I admit the roadmap shows steemit has progress in mind but the communities should be a priority like you said.

My primary suggestions mostly have to do with blockchain protocols.

  1. Change the voting algorithm from full linear to anything but full linear. This has been an abject failure in practice and ought to be rolled back. Then we can discuss a better alternative that is neither n2 nor n.

  2. Restore the 40-vote target.

  3. Remove the STEEM Power delegation function. It not only reduces user demand for STEEM on the open markets, but it has also created another avenue for widespread mismanagement and abuse/exploitation of the collective and limited reward pool.

  4. Reintroduce stronger bandwidth limitations. The amount of spam on the network via posts, comments, and wallet transfers/memos from new accounts is very high and is greatly inflating the daily "transaction" numbers for the blockchain. This is "bloat" that can be easily managed. Those who wish to spam can spend money on STEEM, if they so choose.

  5. Consider reintroducing the four-post reward limits. This has no impact on the number of posts that one may publish in a given day. It only affects the total number of rewards that one user can receive from the limited collective reward pool.

Other than those suggestions, I'd still like to see some basic features/functions implemented on the Steemit.com website. Here are some additional suggestions:

  1. A separate "Resteem" tab on your individual profile page that sorts your posts from those that you have shared. This has been a feature request for over a year.

  2. Restoring the pop-out window for viewing of posts that could be neatly closed without having to push the 'back' button, which often brings you back to the wrong place on the page that you were previously on.

  3. Serious consideration of revenue models that can be partially shared with investors in Steem and users of Steemit.com and affiliated apps/websites that Steemit, Inc. owns.

  4. Additional "gamification" of the platform, particularly related to holding STEEM Power - if the other protocol changes are made.

·

Remove the STEEM Power delegation function. It not only reduces user demand for STEEM on the open markets, but it has also created another avenue for widespread mismanagement and abuse/exploitation of the collective and limited reward pool.

What about groups like steemstem that partially (or even fully) depend on delegation?

·
·

When one minnow votes s/he gets the entire reward pool for that vote.
When one minnow and one whale vote the whale gets most of the pool and the minnow gets next to nothing.
Enlarging the numbers do not change the ratios.
Whales delegating sp that previously was not getting voted is what made my vote go from a dollar just after the hf to a dime today.

The only out I see is if folks with more than 35mvests don't vote, then all the little votes grow in influence and the little voters have a reason to be here.
Otherwise it will devolve into only the 'whales' circle jerking each other and the price will tank.
#m2c

·
·

What about groups like steemstem that partially (or even fully) depend on delegation?

Why are they so dependent on delegation? And if I recall correctly, SteemStem was operating fairly successfully long before delegation began.

·
·
·

so that votes of the main account are more powerful. This helps us gain curation rewards that can be used for projects.

and I would say overall its doing better than it ever has before

·

Excellent suggestions.

A separate "Resteem" tab on your individual profile page that sorts your posts from those that you have shared. This has been a feature request for over a year.

There seems to be widespread consensus here, quite perplexed as to why this hasn't already been implemented.

Change the voting algorithm from full linear to anything but full linear. This has been an abject failure in practice and ought to be rolled back. Then we can discuss a better alternative that is neither n2 nor n.

This brings to mind the truth that "nature builds in curves, not straight lines." In my opinion, it also relates to my suggestion to change the 25/75 curation rewards, which is an 'unnatural' rigid number that does not work well.

Remove the STEEM Power delegation function. It not only reduces user demand for STEEM on the open markets, but it has also created another avenue for widespread mismanagement and abuse/exploitation of the collective and limited reward pool.

A radical suggestion for a radical and widespread problem. Not sure if it's the answer, but it is evident that the current state of affairs is quite imbalanced.

Additional "gamification" of the platform, particularly related to holding STEEM Power - if the other protocol changes are made.

This was listed in the whitepaper for 2017 yet I have seen nothing implemented along these lines thus far (perhaps @steemitboard, but that doesn't really count if you ask me as it is not embedded into the actual site.) The effects of gamification can't be overstated, as it makes the whole experience much more vivid for the average user.

·
·

In regards to delegation. I was thinking about this the other day. Delegation could exist via a model similar to crowdfunding, and evidently, the same way that earlier investors here get reward for.. becoming early investors.

As an example, a new user joins. No one knows if they bring quality (if an identity already has a successful online identity then it's a no-brainer). They introduce themselves and outline their road map. They state: "I bring this, will be this active, and I intend to stay". If it's a blogger then a proof post might aid their cause. If it's a project, well then it's based on much more that just words.

So if a backer decides "I believe in you.. I'll delegate x amount of my SP to your cause". From there an agreement on return can be outlined. Maybe as a 'smart contract' but not mandatory. It's not like people can just cash out anyway. So as an early investor, you have a larger stake in their potential earnings. Along the way new investors have less and less. Or depending on the amount of delegation.

New members, can then utilize that delegated SP to grow their blog/project. Not to pay themselves. Early followers could also receive a small fraction of the reward. Not automatic. Engagement would always be necessary. The delegated SP would go towards rewarding comments that are engaging. (Essentially by a system of attraction. Rather then the way that exist now. Which is, work your ass off for a year or pay the damn fee to get noticed).

This would drive thoughtful comments. As any one that sees that a thoughtful comment received say $5.00 reward, as opposed to ZERO for parasite comments that clearly don't even read the content. It would create buzz around quality bloggers. Hence = rewards for engagement = rewards for those that delegate SP. It would also never allow a blogger, who reaches heights to simply post.. and not engage their followers. Something evident in the current system.

It time, quality bloggers/projects could even exist as tradeable asset. Where say one investor has backed X amount which is doing fantastic. They have long received their return and are in surplus. Someone new comes along, invests in first STEEM. Wants to back something, as he/she has money but not so much the time or maybe talent to post and grow their investment. So they can now buy the stake that someone else has in an active member. Placing them in 'the game' from the get go as they work to find their own worthy candidates to invest in.

So essentially whales, who are cashed up grow a portfolio of valuable steemians. Grow their wallet but at the same time the platform and the community. In turn, the price of STEEM. So it pays to support quality. It also hurts to support members who don't live up to their claims. So @freedom throwing money at shitpost accounts for instance. Would and should suffer.

From the outside looking in, it also improves the platform image and would truly have that quality feel. This would drive external buzz and I believe would sell itself as the true alternative to the standard players in social media. That old line "build it and they will jizz" (or something like that) would reign supreme. Because one thing is undeniable. Steemit has a very bad reputation outside of the minds of loyalists. You can't pretend it's not the reason why it hasn't grown and become more mainstream.

This is my idea of a platform that attracts and retains quality without corruption.

·

Consider reintroducing the four-post reward limits.

Maybe not 4 but definitely a limit. Right now it is easy for relatively new accounts to post 200+ posts a day with only a url for content. Either that or a bandwidth penalty for short content.

A separate "Resteem" tab...

Please!

·
·

There is bandwidth limit.

·
·

But short content has value, so who are you to limit it? What if people tweet over Steem?

·
·
·

The content isn't limited. The rewards are. And the rewards don't stop after the posting threshold is reached - the maximum allocated to each post is just reduced after that threshold.

If the maximum allocation threshold for parent posts is five posts, but you're posting 10 times per day, then instead of receiving the full $100 allocated to each of the ten posts ($1000), you may only receive $70 or $80 per post ($700 - $800) and the rest goes back into the daily pool.

There are various trade-offs between quality and quantity by doing this, but the point to remember is that it is a limited daily reward pool. On a future interface, it may be possible for a few celebrities "tweeting" 10 times per day to capture a massive percentage of that pool compared to the other millions of users. I think it would be good to have some sort of protocols in place to mitigate that type of reward allocation.

Some people will argue that it can easily be circumvented by creating sock puppets, but managing multiple accounts on a daily basis at least requires extra steps and would be enough to deter a good number of users. It might even be preferable to simply take the relatively small loss in rewards rather than manage multiple accounts. And those who decide to manage the multiple accounts will likely be discovered eventually, as they'll probably do their best to coordinate votes and interactions and have similar/identical content and behavior.

Overall, I think the goal continues to be token/rewards "distribution" as widely as possible. At least that's the argument that I keep hearing. This could certainly help, even with today's tiny user base.

·
·
·
·

Yeah it used to be like that last year and when it was, people like me were getting $500-1000 per post. They changed the rules because the rewards were concentrated on fewer posts, but it seem now people want to go back to the old rules. What difference does it make?

Under the old rules I could post long detailed posts and under the new rules I must post frequent but shorter posts. The truth is people don't really read the longer posts so it likely will just encourage the use of bots.

·
·
·
·

How the rewards don't stop after the posting threshold i s reached?

·
·

Who have time for 200+ posts per day?
I envy the persons who manage 4 a day as for me the max was 2 in a day!

·
·
·

Spammers are inventive.

  1. Scrape pages for memes and images - 5 minutes to get a few thousand
  2. Upload them to a web hosting site - another 5 minutes
  3. Load up a spreadsheet of links to the meme's and photos. - 2 minutes
  4. Enter title & tag in spreadsheet
  5. Export to csv.
  6. Feed csv to posting bot.

Maybe an hour to queue up several hundred posts. Especially if the post title can be taken from the file name.

·
·
·
·

200 posts in a day is physically impossible. The most I could do in a day was 16. But it also impossible to manually vote 90 votes in a day for the same reasons. So people don't vote and use bots.

·
·
·
·
·

https://steemit.com/@cryptomonitor

This guy is quite prolific!

247 top level posts yesterday, currently worth around $20($15 to him).

·
·
·
·
·
·

And people complained about me for posting 16 posts in one day (which is humanly achievable). 247 posts, only possible if there is either a team of humans, or if a human saved their posts in doc files to post on Steemit, but even then you would notice the frequency will taper off after a few days.

If it is a sustained frequency of hundreds of posts per day without any rest periods then you have to suspect a bot. That said it is $20 a day? It's not like he is getting rich.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Yeah that has to be scripted, i'd lose my mind very quickly if it was a manual task!

$15 isn't bad in some parts of the world.

I hear bandwidth could be the main issue - 4/5 images each post from what i see = 1000+ a day.

·
·
·
·

That is crazy!
I manage 38 blogs and 1048 posts and this in almost 5 months and this spammers are adding hundreds in one hour!!!
The worst thing is they dont add value to the platform...

·
·
·

200 posts a day is not humanly possible but anyone can post more than 4 a day. It doesn't actually matter how long or how short the posts or how many posts a day. What matters is growing the reward pool and increasing the size of the user base.

See my ideas for referral marketing programs for SMTs, and also like with anything people who have more time than money can post more than people who have more money than time. Increase the wealth of the network with SMTs to avoid the scarcity mind set.

·
·
·
·

200 posts a day 'is' (collectively) humanly possible... with a sufficiently big team of content creators or shadow-writers (discounting plagiarism). Just saying. :c)

·
·

maybe at least limit for resteeming? Right now there are many "I will resteem your post to 9876 followers for $9.99" bots

·
·
·

Markets are a good thing, they increase the value of the network. Less limits, grow the user base and connections between users. Limiting what people can do will not attract more people.

·
·
·
·

I'm reading your brilliance all down this page. Following.

·
·
·

Too many of those scams going around right now. A limit might just have them creating more accounts... That leads to more follow/unfollow bots working to gain followers for those accounts.

Not sure what a solution would be.

·

A separate "Resteem" tab on your individual profile page that sorts your posts from those that you have shared. This has been a feature request for over a year.

I said the same thing.

I would add:

  • Create a place where people can pay for steem with a debit card in house. For example, I can play clash of clans, throw $20.00 at it and not get anything in return. I don't play as much any more so I would be interested in throwing a few bux at steem here and there to see my account grow. Especially when I see a future explosion of growth. with the implication of smt's we should see steem make a solid stay at over $1.00 for ever.
·
·

Create a place where people can pay for steem with a debit card in house.

I think this has a lot more legal barriers to consider. And it also makes the purchasing of STEEM possible off of existing exchanges, which could complicate price discovery, especially when the holder of that STEEM in question gained it at the outset of the blockchain's creation - when there was no price at all.

In other words, it would be messy all around. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't happen because of the legal aspects. I could be wrong though.

·
·

Definitely.
I would have already bought steem to power up if there was a way to buy it on the site.
As it is, I instead searched for over an hour if there was any site that sold steem directly. The one that said it did had poor reviews, and listed $0 in steem for $50 USD. Then I spent another hour trying to decide what crypto currency to buy to exchange for it, because of the horrible transfer fees on bitcoin recently, and ended up going to bed. Then the next day I saw a bot censor someone, and decided to think more on it first.

·
·
·

Agreed. A definite negative for the cryptos at present. Especially Bitcoin - too slow and too expensive fees. Etherium is also problematic used - Chrome extension (Metamask) UI is terrible.

·

You took the words right out of my head,..

The only thing I see missing is the comment link not taking us to the comment if the comment is over the limit and hidden behind another link.

·
·

Yes, the recent changes on the site have made it worse. When I click on my comments, I don’t necessarily want to be taken to the full page, especially if it doesn’t even drop me off on that comment when I get there...which happens quite often.

·
·
·

Looks to me like it would increase server load by creating more calls for data, too?

·
·
·

Targeting directly to a reply/comment works in night mode for me (on windows). If I then switch to normal mode after the first visit to said reply in night mode, i will be successfully directed to the target comment.

Normal mode doesn't take me to the target reply/comment. So i assume 'night mode' has ballsed this up.

·
·

I actually forgot to mention that in my comment on the UI.

·

Seriously, very good suggestions.

However, I'm not sure how projects like @utopian-io and other open-source projects would function without delegation being there... though delegation removal would fix some problems, I personally think it would create many others and isn't the right solution.

·
·

However, I'm not sure how projects like @utopian-io and other open-source projects would function without delegation being there...

They would function just like other projects that have functioned on Steem/Steemit without delegation for the past year and a half. They can provide updates with posts, receive donations from those who want to support them, have other accounts trail their votes, buy STEEM to power up...there are many options.

I know that delegation can be good, but it unfortunately creates far too much "bad" in an environment that does not include enough people willing to counter the "bad." So if the community as a whole proves to be inadequate in mitigating the "bad," then revert to prior protocols that didn't allow the avenue for abuse/exploitation/whatever you want to call it, then find a new/better solution...if there truly is a problem that needs to be resolved in the first place.

For every bit of good that delegation may do when given to good curators, we get two or more situations like this - and the latter seems to be increasing.

https://steemit.com/steem/@transisto/whales-witnesses-we-have-to-talk

·
·
·

I see, it makes sense that a delegation market would pressure the price of STEEM downwards :(

Pretty sad because delegation really helped lots of users earn a 'voice' and especially helped projects function much better, but if we have to reorganize for the better of STEEM in the future (long-term), so be it.

·
·
·

If the delegators would research into the project they are delegating to then this would be a start.

Upvotes/Downvotes on a delegations list each week? Auto cancelled if community sides that way?

·

Why not expand the reward pool?

·
·

This is a response to what? And by "expanding the reward pool," do you mean "inflate the currency at a higher rate?"

·

I’ve created a word cloud for the comments section of this post that I hope you will find of value and will want to share. While the creation of the actual word cloud is relatively easy and straightforward, the creation of a relevant word list that will produce a meaningful word cloud is quite another matter, as I’m sure you know, and takes considerable time and effort. Unfortunately, as of now, the post has only had 41 views. It needs a little love. Perhaps a resteem might be of help, if you think it is worthwhile, and, of course, it would be much appreciated too. TIA
https://steemit.com/steemit/@cryptographic/word-cloud-for-steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input

·

Everything that was said by @ats-david !!!

·

Very valuable advice, it shows your commitment to this platform. I am a big fan of stronger bandwidth limitations to cut down on spam.

·

Remove the STEEM Power delegation function. It not only reduces user demand for STEEM on the open markets, but it has also created another avenue for widespread mismanagement and abuse/exploitation of the collective and limited reward pool.

Delegating/leasing Steem power is one of the best/efficient ways for us minnows to accumulate SP in order to become dolphins and dolphins to be orcas/mini-whales. Sadly, you are proposing to take that right away from us those with low Steem power.

Blaming that for the low Steem price is diverting the issue that one particular big whale seems to be now powering down/cashing out exiting Steem in batches without absolutely crashing the price according to @chitty in his post recently: https://steemit.com/steem/@chitty/steem-price-will-remain-low-i-am-sorry.

·
·

Delegating/leasing Steem power is one of the best/efficient ways for us minnows to accumulate SP...

Actually, if you're leasing it, the chances are that you're barely breaking even, if you're breaking even at all. The best way to increase your SP would be to create content that is in demand and that you can create at a high-quality level. And in addition to that, you'd need to be able to consistently engage on the platform and network with your peers and followers to expand your audience.

The next best way would be to simply buy STEEM. Leasing it just takes you down a longer path to the same destination.

Sadly, you are proposing to take that right away from us those with low Steem power.

There is no "right" to lease STEEM Power. And can it really be said to be a "right" anyway, when just a few months ago, the function didn't even exist? Changing blockchain protocols has nothing to do with rights or entitlements. If something isn't working out or needs to be improved, it can be changed via the consensus protocols, which has happened 19 times already.

Blaming that for the low Steem price...

I am not blaming delegation for the low STEEM price. I simply stated that delegation reduces user demand for STEEM on the markets. It is only one of many factors.

·
·
·

Thank you for the reply but I am breaking even for 2 months now or else I would have stopped the practice. It all depends on how well you manually curate always (upvote hot posts that are exactly 28 to 30 minutes old) and not depend on steemvoter doing the voting for me.

·
·
·

The best way to increase your SP would be to create content that is in demand and that you can create at a high-quality level.
There is NO connection between quality of content and rewards right now. Any organic votes will be outbid by paid votes on a random kittens photos.

·
·
·
·

You forgot to read the next sentence.

And in addition to that, you'd need to be able to consistently engage on the platform and network with your peers and followers to expand your audience.

Also - this was written in response to "needing" delegation. Context matters.

And just so we're clear - I'm not a fan of the amount of paid voting bots that are operating. But if we really look at the paid voting, the returns are about as good as leasing delegation...which is to say that they're not very good. If you want the most bang for your buck when it comes to SP, it's still better to just earn it by posting/engaging and networking or by purchasing the STEEM outright and powering it up.

·

great suggestions.

·

all of what @ats-david wrote specially #3
I do agree it's the main cause of price drop and it'll get worse if it continues

·

Absolute good comments. I loved the old system of steemit.

·

Excellent comment as well as nice tips

Communities

For several reasons, I am still in full agreement with this excellent statement from the 2017 roadmap:

We believe that high-quality content and communities of content producers and their audiences are the primary driver of growth of the steemit.com site, and in turn the wider adoption of the platform and STEEM. To this end, we wish to enable many users to build communities in parallel around curating specific types of content valuable to their audiences.

  1. I didn't even see this post because both the trending page and even my feed are out of control with content that is not as focused as I would like. Communities would fix this for me and make it easier to digest the content that I want.
  2. I can't wait to experiment with setting up my own community and SMT. For me, this seems like the biggest immediate use case for SMTs and the one I am most excited about because it is the easiest.
  3. SMTs and Communities would be a great place to play around with features like Author/Curator payout percentages. They could even act as kind of test net to see what the communities like - what succeeds.
  4. Communities seem to be the next logical step to keep Steemit on track as the nextgen blockchain social app. This step would be in alignment with simplicity, velocity, and the 2017 roadmap. It is a big step, but one that needs to be taken sooner rather than later IMO.

In summary, we need communities as a driver of user growth, a better way to digest content, and a place to play with parameters and SMTs.

Priority no 1: Faster Account Creation

Priority no 2:

ReImplement "Promoted" feature, and make it efficient and attractive to users which now prefer to use voting bots.

Facts

  • no one is looking into "promoted tab"
  • "promoting tab" is not effective, therefore people are looking for more effective solutions

Solution?

  • Promoted content should be mixed by default into trending page
    • fact: artificially promoted content is already mixed into trending, by voting bots, but right now it is much harder to check how many of paid votes some article got
  • starting from 2nd or 3rd spot on trending, every 10-15 entry on trending should be filled by promoted content
  • with only a few spots on trending page, people will get proportional number of displays (impressions) in comparison to amount of SBD spent on promotion
    • this mean, that if @fknmayhem would spend 50SBD on promotion, and @steevc would spend 100 SBD on promotion, then article of @steevc will appear twice as often on trending page as article of @fknmayhem
  • even with spending just 1 SBD you will have a chance to be displayed on trending page. If you will have some luck and your content will be good, some whale will vote for you!

Selection_488.png

·

Here are some additional ideas for the promoted section. https://steemit.com/steemit/@littlejoeward/fixing-steemit-s-post-promotion-killing-the-voting-bots I would love your thoughts on them

·
·

you are reading my mind! :)

And it looks like this problems bothers a lot of people. You have written your posts yesterday, posts with simmilar ideas written by @raised2b was written 2 days ago:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@raised2b/if-we-want-to-slow-the-use-of-voting-bots-we-need-to-meet-a-market-need-here-s-a-possible-solution

BTW, why not instead of burning those SBD, just convert then to STEEM and move to SteemPower of all SteemPower holders?

That would be additional incentive to Power Up, very easy to marketing: All revenue from promotion goes to long term investors! :)

·
·
·

"BTW, why not instead of burning those SBD, just convert then to STEEM and move to SteemPower of all SteemPower holders?"

Actually I think a better thought vs burning the SBD is to use those SBD to then pay developers to implement items faster and allow Steemit to actually evolve to a powerhouse. There is plenty of work that needs to be done and lots of talent on Steemit to get these items accomplished.

·
·
·
·

I think burning them and then using something like utopia.io to pay developers makes more sense. That way, we can decrease the supply of steem (increasing the value) and then separately, support the developers by voting for the best contributions. Promotion and development are separate things so I think they shouldn't be connected.

·
·
·
·
·

IMO the Supply isn't an issue, exposure is. You can have almost any amount steem out there if enough people want to own it the price will still rise. Using SBD that otherwise would have been burned means zero costs for improvements which can have an exponential effect on the value of Steem vs a minor effect in terms of reduced supply.

·
·
·

Yeah, this is a great idea too. Obvisouly there's a lot of us seeing the problem as it stands currently and there are definite solutions out there that would benefit our community as a whole.

·
·
·

I have seen 4 or 5 posts that all say about the same things written about the same time! Sounds like consensus to me! haha

·
·
·

I think that burning them would be about the same as your suggestion, but I like how burning them creates upward pressure on the value of steem benefiting all steem holders. Though I think your idea would work... it is just a more complicated way to do it. I'll have to think about it more...

·

I'm not sure if no one checks the Promoted tab, but I know I don't. I rarely find anything good there, so I tend to ignore it. The idea of incorporating it into Promoted is probably the way to go.
I was thinking on the side or top, where ads usually are, auto-scrolling slowly.
The point is to give people more incentive to use the official method of promotion, rather than bots.

·

I like this idea, reminds me a bit of Reddits ad system except that this way the whole community and stakeholders would benefit through the burning of sbd.

·

Hey there @noisy, I have actually posted an 2 in-depth posts about your priority number 2 with very similar thoughts and points. In 1, I diagnose the issue and in the other, as a proposal on utopian.io I determine the solution, which is in essence, what you have stated here.

You can find them here :

Growing Unhappiness with Upvote Bots on Steemit
Proposal for New 'Promoted' Function

I am working towards bringing as much attention towards the proposal as I sincerely feel it will bring positive impact upon steemit, the same thought which you have. I'd appreciate if you would have a look at it.

Thank you!

·

Oh, this is going to be major! The two main problems now are account creation and voting bots.

·

Yep, exacly what he wrote.

As a medium-importance priority item for Steemit in 2018, I'd like to see the ability to categorize posts within each of our blogs.

Currently, it's a nightmare to scroll through the abyss of some users' blogs (mine included)... and we're only a year-and-a-half in. The ability to categorize our posts would allow users to quickly find their favorite blogger's articles based on topic (and possibly, publish date). It would also make each blog look cleaner and more organized.

An improved Steemit search experience would be another item I would add.

Thanks for your consideration, Steemit Inc.

·

As well as tools to help us better organize so that readers can more easily access the content they're looking for, I have two other wish list candidates:

● An optional "registered Steemit users only" setting for posts that would allow content creators to voluntarily participate in an active effort to drive user registration (and for those who choose to seek a wider audience the right to do so as well, hence the individual post by post optional ability - we'd all probably end up using a mix, depending on the individual post).

● A @steemit stake decentralization proportional airdrop to all accounts created after April 17, 2016, AND also having a reputation above 25. This would "spread the wealth" of that early "easy mine" in the most equitable way to real users who bought into STEEM with hard cash, sweat and tears while excluding all pre-exchange, early miner whale accounts. This type of second-stage early adopter "award" would not only fairly and appropriately redistribute that STEEM, it would also highly motivate and serve as invaluable community support PR.

Good job all, and thanks for asking!

·
·

Great ideas and upvoted....

The second idea really takes care of a point of contention among many on here. Developing a second pool that gives preference to the non-whales makes a lot of sense. This way, those who dont have the SP will start to acquire some and add to their accounts which makes their votes even more valuable.

It also gives newer people the incentive to work that much harder.

·
·

Upsteemed, especially for the second suggestion. With the account mining capability coming forth in the next hardfork, I think the pressure on the Steem stake would lower and they may put it to better work.

·
·
·

Once that war-chest is gone, it's gone.

·

I agree with you. It would be nice if we could have our own tags for our own pages. Keeping our posts in a specific place for referral back to when needed.
I don't know how many times someone has asked me about a link, or I am working on a new post and need one of my links from four days ago. I have to scroll through about 2-3 dozen (if not more) posts and resteems on my page.

I would also like to see a place for our favorite people that we follow. Not necessarily a 'friends' list but more of a favorites. I like to see certain people's posts on a daily basis and I have to search for them sometimes. Just a tab that says "here's my favorites".

and thank you for considering all our input and for your endless work and time into steemit.

·

And, of course... thank you to the entire team for all of your hard work. It's incredibly appreciated and the number of positives vastly outweighs the negatives.