@trafalgar isn't that hypocritical when you upvoted and resteemd kevinwong's post? Because he used bidbots and got his post to the top of trending. Why did you not have a problem with that?
I absolutely would have downvoted it had he bought any non trivial votes
smartsteem is now a curation only initiative (unlike smartmarket)
there's no transaction pointing ocdb to that post, it likely would have been manual curation when their mana is full and there's no buyers, something they do from time to time
Speaking of honest curation (and acknowledging the importance in attracting the support of whales), will you check out the @freewritehouse and consider supporting us with your honest curative vote? We've built a community that supports good people, many of them small users who engage across the platform, all of whom improve their writing skills through the exercises and contests we host (though many don't realize they're improving their skills until they look back at their work from when they began. It's wonderful to see their retrospectives!). Check us out and check out the users who work with us!
To be honest I'm not a fan of steem basic income and view it as some elaborate form of a vote trading/vote selling scheme.
These things really undermine honest curation in the long run. If people write well enough they should have enough confidence in this place to know that through persistence and consistency in quality, your writing will gradually get more notice and bubble up to the surface.
Your feelings on SBI aside, I'm asking about your support for the @freewritehouse community.
While I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of SBI, I'd like to separate that from the idea of supporting @freewritehouse with your curation if you like the work we do.
It's quite difficult to do as I'd be inadvertently supporting a scheme that serves to undermine this ecosystem
Maybe if I run into some of the freewrite participants organically without knowing it's part of the SBI ring. But I can't do it directly as supporting vote selling schemes, even those that provide good content, inevitably leads to a deteriorating of content over time.
ie. If vote selling pays more than curation, over time who's going to curate? Without curators, what is the incentive to produce good content? As you can see it's just a downward spiral that prevents me from supporting even 'good' content participating in these schemes
I see. We disagree entirely on what SBI is, both in purpose and practical application, but I respect that you are acting on your beliefs. If you're ever interested in why I think SBI is good for Steem, let me know! I'm around!
I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong and that it's not, at least in part, an elaborate vote selling/vote trading scheme.
Whenever you're handing out votes for reasons other than your subjective appraisal of content but instead, for example, an amount proportional to their delegation or the 'share' they have of a voting account, then you're at least in part undermining honest curation. And that's exactly what I think SBI is, even if it has the most benign intentions (which could be the case).
But I'm right here to have my mind changed. Maybe a high level explanation of how the scheme works and why it doesn't effectively do what I just stated is a start. Its intentions are irrelevant (eg. discovering, supporting and retaining good writers), only its economic effects please.
Excellent!
I'm about to go to bed, so I'll just start with point one and leave the rest for tomorrow.
Point one is this: in hf21, niche content suffers disproportionately from the new curve. If I like something but I know it's not widely popular, voting for it is the economic wrong choice. It's going to be way down on the rewards pendulum, so my otherwise $0.10 vote is worth only $0.05. It under-rewards the author relative to my stake, and if I'm trying to make good choices for curation and play the game of honest curation you're promoting, I'm going care that I get less in curation rewards, too. I can instead sponsor that user for SBI and get 50% curation, and know that I'm giving them the same value as if they were posting about things that were mainstream popular. I think of this like the subscriber model on Twitch.
That's use case 1. Feel free to respond, but I'm going to bed and will write more tomorrow.
Give me a high level quick explanation with how it works first
Circumventing the rewards curve is precisely something we don't want people to be doing. Every post goes through that dull period at the start where you're getting half rewards. How would a process that circumvents this be seen as fair?
@trafalgar isn't that hypocritical when you upvoted and resteemd kevinwong's post? Because he used bidbots and got his post to the top of trending. Why did you not have a problem with that?
I absolutely would have downvoted it had he bought any non trivial votes
smartsteem is now a curation only initiative (unlike smartmarket)
there's no transaction pointing ocdb to that post, it likely would have been manual curation when their mana is full and there's no buyers, something they do from time to time
Speaking of honest curation (and acknowledging the importance in attracting the support of whales), will you check out the @freewritehouse and consider supporting us with your honest curative vote? We've built a community that supports good people, many of them small users who engage across the platform, all of whom improve their writing skills through the exercises and contests we host (though many don't realize they're improving their skills until they look back at their work from when they began. It's wonderful to see their retrospectives!). Check us out and check out the users who work with us!
Posted using Partiko Android
To be honest I'm not a fan of steem basic income and view it as some elaborate form of a vote trading/vote selling scheme.
These things really undermine honest curation in the long run. If people write well enough they should have enough confidence in this place to know that through persistence and consistency in quality, your writing will gradually get more notice and bubble up to the surface.
Your feelings on SBI aside, I'm asking about your support for the @freewritehouse community.
While I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of SBI, I'd like to separate that from the idea of supporting @freewritehouse with your curation if you like the work we do.
Posted using Partiko Android
It's quite difficult to do as I'd be inadvertently supporting a scheme that serves to undermine this ecosystem
Maybe if I run into some of the freewrite participants organically without knowing it's part of the SBI ring. But I can't do it directly as supporting vote selling schemes, even those that provide good content, inevitably leads to a deteriorating of content over time.
ie. If vote selling pays more than curation, over time who's going to curate? Without curators, what is the incentive to produce good content? As you can see it's just a downward spiral that prevents me from supporting even 'good' content participating in these schemes
I see. We disagree entirely on what SBI is, both in purpose and practical application, but I respect that you are acting on your beliefs. If you're ever interested in why I think SBI is good for Steem, let me know! I'm around!
I am. Right now.
I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong and that it's not, at least in part, an elaborate vote selling/vote trading scheme.
Whenever you're handing out votes for reasons other than your subjective appraisal of content but instead, for example, an amount proportional to their delegation or the 'share' they have of a voting account, then you're at least in part undermining honest curation. And that's exactly what I think SBI is, even if it has the most benign intentions (which could be the case).
But I'm right here to have my mind changed. Maybe a high level explanation of how the scheme works and why it doesn't effectively do what I just stated is a start. Its intentions are irrelevant (eg. discovering, supporting and retaining good writers), only its economic effects please.
Excellent!
I'm about to go to bed, so I'll just start with point one and leave the rest for tomorrow.
Point one is this: in hf21, niche content suffers disproportionately from the new curve. If I like something but I know it's not widely popular, voting for it is the economic wrong choice. It's going to be way down on the rewards pendulum, so my otherwise $0.10 vote is worth only $0.05. It under-rewards the author relative to my stake, and if I'm trying to make good choices for curation and play the game of honest curation you're promoting, I'm going care that I get less in curation rewards, too. I can instead sponsor that user for SBI and get 50% curation, and know that I'm giving them the same value as if they were posting about things that were mainstream popular. I think of this like the subscriber model on Twitch.
That's use case 1. Feel free to respond, but I'm going to bed and will write more tomorrow.
Give me a high level quick explanation with how it works first
Circumventing the rewards curve is precisely something we don't want people to be doing. Every post goes through that dull period at the start where you're getting half rewards. How would a process that circumvents this be seen as fair?