If people can't make money with quality then they'll make it up quantity. The sickest post are the one's where, "oh today I reach 666 gazillion followers". Who the hell has time to follow gazzillions of people?
While I somewhat agree with this sentiment, I fear people aren't looking at the bigger picture. Steemit is not Steem. We're poised to see a large influx of users through multiple platforms. Quality on Steemit does not equal quality on Zappl, Steepshot, or dTube. If platforms like these market well and gain a large and active user base because people prefer photos, videos, and tweets, the earnings for long form blogging will fall off a cliff on Steemit and we should be prepared.
Even now Steemit has no interface modifications to either filter out or mark the originating source of content. People on Steemit can have a knee jerk reaction to what seems like a "low quality" post not realizing it originated from a different app with a different focus & formatting.
I can't say I love the idea of making the voting protocol more "investor friendly." The reason is that it really just makes it short term investor friendly. People self voting 100% are just extracting value at the expense of a healthy platform and shouldn't be catered to. Long term investors are good stewards of the platform who take actions that they hope will benefit the "share price."
At the very least if a system like you're proposing were implemented, I'd want it to benefit casual platform users equally. There are plenty of people who use Steem in the spirit of it's creation and don't monitor their voting power or attempt to maximize voting gains, etc. Rather than simply allowing a slider system to utilize all available voting power, I think a better solution would be to have voting power dynamically calculated so that everyone always uses their voting power to it's maximum. Basically voting power would always be at 0% and the value of a users previously cast votes would either increase as they were inactive or decrease as they continue to cast more votes thereby spreading their own personal rewards pool around to more recipients.
This would be negative for the "short term investor" type because they are currently maximizing their gains with scheduled self posting/voting and they also gain more via their votes directing more rewards when other users do not fully utilize their SP.
the problem is people are incentived heavily to do so
If people can't make money with quality then they'll make it up quantity. The sickest post are the one's where, "oh today I reach 666 gazillion followers". Who the hell has time to follow gazzillions of people?
https://steemit.com/satire/@pompe72/thanks-to-my-50-000-non-followers
I'm going to clean up this post a little and re-post it tomorrow. Yes, i think the main point is we should encourage quality over quantity (spam).
I think there is a little irony in reposting the same article about spam over and over.
It is intentional irony. But I cleaned up the post with an edit since it actually ended up getting some attention.
While I somewhat agree with this sentiment, I fear people aren't looking at the bigger picture. Steemit is not Steem. We're poised to see a large influx of users through multiple platforms. Quality on Steemit does not equal quality on Zappl, Steepshot, or dTube. If platforms like these market well and gain a large and active user base because people prefer photos, videos, and tweets, the earnings for long form blogging will fall off a cliff on Steemit and we should be prepared.
Even now Steemit has no interface modifications to either filter out or mark the originating source of content. People on Steemit can have a knee jerk reaction to what seems like a "low quality" post not realizing it originated from a different app with a different focus & formatting.
I would have dropped a 100% VP on the dtube announcement if i could have.
I think dtube has the potential to be bigger than steemit.
I can't say I love the idea of making the voting protocol more "investor friendly." The reason is that it really just makes it short term investor friendly. People self voting 100% are just extracting value at the expense of a healthy platform and shouldn't be catered to. Long term investors are good stewards of the platform who take actions that they hope will benefit the "share price."
At the very least if a system like you're proposing were implemented, I'd want it to benefit casual platform users equally. There are plenty of people who use Steem in the spirit of it's creation and don't monitor their voting power or attempt to maximize voting gains, etc. Rather than simply allowing a slider system to utilize all available voting power, I think a better solution would be to have voting power dynamically calculated so that everyone always uses their voting power to it's maximum. Basically voting power would always be at 0% and the value of a users previously cast votes would either increase as they were inactive or decrease as they continue to cast more votes thereby spreading their own personal rewards pool around to more recipients.
This would be negative for the "short term investor" type because they are currently maximizing their gains with scheduled self posting/voting and they also gain more via their votes directing more rewards when other users do not fully utilize their SP.
The most investment friendly protocol is one that let's people be passive investors if they want to be.
As it is now, to maximize your investment you need to make 50 posts per week.
There is no solution that will stop a savy investor from doing this. It is just impossible if you allow the creation of multiple anonymous accounts.
And even if you could tie an identity to everyone, people can create groups of individuals that optimally up-vote each-other.