You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A case for eliminating curation rewards
[Nesting]
Good content naturally rises to the top, there is no need to incentivizes people to vote.
But why not reward the people who have done their work well (assume it has really been done well)? With a "right" reward people will feel even better, so more engagement.
Also currently it is not 'good content' that rises to the top , it is 'content that will earn the most money'. The platform don't really reflects what most people want.
To be clear, I'm not saying trending in current system is natural. But current design is not good doesn't mean changing it to anything else is good.
It seems some people's thinking is stuck in an economic model despite its not working, and that could well stifle any discussion aimed at improving things, leading to ineffective, polarised debate only.
When a model doesn't predict what actually happens, or enable what you want, you change it. You can go to a linear curve, you can abolish curation rewards, etc. Both are better options than continuing with what we are doing. I'm in favour of a linear curve now, but if it turns out it doesn't help, I'll start opposing the idea in stead of blaming reality for not cooperating.
I would then be even more in favour of abolishing curation rewards, mainly because I have other ideas about what makes people invest, what motivates people to curate, and what damage bots and reward hunters are doing.
I will freely admit I am stuck in another economic theory for now, one that takes a more anthropological approach and includes non-financial motivation, group dynamics, and fun. I may well be proven wrong also.
Because there is no standard to tell what 'well' is , 'well' is subjective, some people might think well is this and other may think well is another thing, there is no way to define 'well'.
I don't want to change it, i want to eliminate it :)
Maybe in the future we could find a much better curation rewards system but meanwhile it is doing a lot damage and is undermining the credibility of steem.
This is why we have voting. We're trying to define "well" by "quantity of people/SP upvoted minus downvoted". If you disagree with this definition, then we have no base to discuss.
It's still a change.
By the way I just found that you replied to my post earlier, so it's my fault to link it here for several times, sorry.
This is the problem 'well' in the platform is currently defined by being 'content that pay the most.' not ' content that people like the most'
[Nesting]
Sounds like you want to get rid of stake based voting. That's interesting. Ask Dan?
IMHO without stake based voting Steem is no difference than reddit or other sites.
I don't want to get rid of stake based voting. It's the whole point of buying steem, to have more influence than others.
I want a system that do not use money to change people's voting behavior , I want a natural system where people upvote for stuff they like.
[Nesting]
Yes, with stake based voting, naturally you'll have some person has more influence than others. Then naturally you'll have 'content that pay the most' as the 'content that people like the most'. You can't have your cake and eat it. What do you really want indeed?
Use money to encourage people to vote for better content is not evil. BTW "better" is defined above.
I'll say it again: this can be done with a linear rewarding mechanism.