You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The New '5 Vote Target' does NOT Reduce Rewards - It Democratises Steemit Curation!!
Given that "Active Curation Humans" are responsible for the vast majority of actual curation...
Given that "Active Curation Humans" are responsible for the vast majority of actual curation...
I'm talking about the users who are voting 00's of times a day. This will change as the user base increases. Steemit ideally needs 00,000's or Millions of users voting on 3-10 posts per day. This mechanism is bring the curation rewards system more in line with where Steemit is going, and making it a fairer and more level playing field, and helping the Steem Digital Token distribute as far and wide as possible.
It is pointless to have a system where a few users receive all the rewards, this will make the Steemit user base tend to zero...
In reality, the users who are voting on 3-10 posts per day are casual voters who pile on the votes on Trending material. It's the active human curators who dig through "New" and find hidden gems which a casual curator never would. A utopian situation of the users voting 3-10 posts per day would each vote on entirely different posts simply isn't realistic.
As an active human curator, I know there are 50-100 good posts per day beyond what is Trending. Who is going to vote on these other than an active human curator? They are just going to remain lost, and the user base is going to shrink and lose diversity.
Not at all, You can still vote on all of them, You should still vote on all of them. Your voting power just diminishes with each vote, a little quicker than it did before. All that's happened is the curation rewards, for the same activity, have been reduce a little and redistributed to more passive users.
Call it a small tax on good performance. But this tax is not gobbled up by some centralised monster, it's redistributed to valuable community members.
It is passive users (in their millions) that will make or break this platform. NOT Active Curators (in their hundreds)
I'm talking about the author rewards, which is what gives the authors exposure and the community diversity. Let's say 10 active curators were voting for a well hidden post. Earlier these two curators would discover it and get it to $20 or so. That would give the post a fighting chance at being discovered by more casual curators.
Now, to vote on 50-100 posts, this post would only be $2 (or whatever) by these curators and get lost in a sea of overlooked posts. Curators will no longer have an incentive to curate, and will simply give up.
At this scale, the voting power does not diminish "a little quicker", but very significantly so.
We have seen earlier during the days of more restrictive voting that there was no diversity whatsoever. Since the voting was opened up, at last we have active human curators and groups, and more diversity starting to flourish. This move will just take us back to a Steemit with less diversity, where casual voters pile it on the Trending posts.
I agree that bots need to be stopped, but not at the expense of actual curation. As people have suggested, there are pretty easy ways to differentiate bots from humans. Heck, Steemit itself has a mechanism in place for new users.
Do you usually vote at 100%?
Even at much less then 100% voting power each vote will weight more than it did before. Granted other people's vote will too, but I'm worrying much less after looking at it like I posted above.
I understand your point of view, and I know it is shared by others. You have been on Steemit for sometime and I respect you opinion. I do however, see this from a different angle.
I think the curators will be forced to up their game, vote slightly less, however vote on only the 'creme de la creme' of content. This may have the impact of good content doing even better, at the expense of average content.
I also think that, another group of user that hasn't been mentioned is the 'whales' who have a lot of voting power that can be redistributed from this update.
I am not doubting the value that Human Curators add to Steemit. I'm just not concerned that some (a fraction) of their rewards and voting power is being redistributed to the community.