RE: Steemit Roadmap 2018: Community Input Requested
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:
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.
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.
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.
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)...
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.
Well said
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