RE: A case for eliminating curation rewards
Here's what I haven't figured out yet:
If you and other users are so adamantly against voting incentives/rewards, then why aren't you declining payout on your posts? Surely, you don't want to be contributing to the greed of voters who will earn ~12% of the total rewards allocated to your posts, right?
And if the argument continues to be that voting is done on other platforms without voting rewards, then let's also get rid of posting rewards - since posting on the most popular social media sites occurs millions and millions of times per day without rewards for doing so. Let's remain consistent here, shall we?
And if we're going to remain consistent and be opposed to rewards, why are we here? Why don't we have @dan rewrite the code and make this a free platform like all the others? I suppose Steemit would then just have to attract a larger user base with only its fantastic UI functions and design.
Has the "revolution" already ended? Did I miss it?
To be honest I don't care about the money from post, I never think about this when I post, i think of the comment response. If you look at my history you will see that I hardly ever post compared to people who posts everyday.
Also you fail to understand that I am not against curators personally, I didn't create this posts because I wanted to eliminate their gains. I created this post to improve the system and increase the value of steem.
This is not the argument actually. This is a response to a stupid argument which is that people will stop voting if curation rewards are eliminated.
Posting rewards do not harm the system in any way, they actually bring value to the site unlike curation rewards.
Your argument would be valid only if posts had the same bad incentives that curation rewards have which is not the case.
There is only a tiny amount of people who actually make any significant money from curation.
Curations rewards are not the same has authors rewards, please don't take things out of context.
Yes, and your plan to "increase the value of steem" is by eliminating the incentives for curators - to "eliminate their gains."
No, that was a response to the notion that "rewards aren't necessary because people will vote anyway." You have argued this point repeatedly - that users don't need monetary incentives to vote for content. The exact same is true for people who post online and do it without monetary incentives. There is no difference at all in the two arguments. Since this system is based on incentives for both content creators and content consumers, because they both perform necessary tasks of creation and evaluation, the reward incentives are for both types of users. If you eliminate one or heavily favor one over the other, then the incentive structure becomes imbalanced and the results become skewed, as we have observed.
What is your proof that the existence of curation rewards "harms" the system? And why do you believe that posting rewards do not? And are you not aware of the spam, plagiarism, and sybil attempts to game the system? I don't see how you can simply say that one incentive is bad and the other is good when both can be gamed, both are gamed, and both were designed to achieve specific results for the platform. But for all of the gaming that occurs (and was known would occur), the incentive structure has been proven to work for both creation and curation.
My argument is valid because people do post and do vote on other sites without monetary incentives. This is a fact. Let's not pretend that voting is done on other sites for free, therefore, we don't need to incentivize it. And let's not pretend that only voters are driven by the desire to earn. This isn't why curation is incentivized on Steemit. It's incentivized because this platform was created explicitly for the purposes of rewarding social media users for their social media activities.
This is irrelevant. The average user isn't supposed to be making "significant money" from upvoting posts in the first place. And I would argue that the average user isn't supposed to be making "significant money" from posting either. But users do have the opportunity to earn some money from being active on the platform. This isn't a job and this isn't supposed to be a UBI. It's simply an onboarding mechanism for a cryptocurrency. That's one of very few things that this site actually does well, in my opinion.
Nothing was taken "out of context." I was simply applying the arguments to posting rewards.
Which in turn will increase the value of their steem. Also there is only a tiny minority earning decent rewards from curation.
80-90% of voting is done by bots, curation rewards do not incentivize voting, they incentivize people running bots to earn money.
The structure is unbalanced today because of this, comments gets a few views and hundreds of votes, you can't get any more unbalanced than that.
Read OP please
Posting rewards and curation rewards are not comparable. There is no algorithm for posting. They are two very different things with different incentives.
Thanks for validating my point.
90% of curators are bots, and so inactive on the platform.
I want to add more. If one posts garbage, it can be downvoted and ones reputation will be harmed. There is both positive/negative feedback system on posting reward. However, there is no feedback on one's voting itself, and there is no costs from voting.
Equating no curation reward with no posting reward does not make sense IMO, and I agree that badly designed (mis-aligned) incentives is the target here.
Actually authors have nothing to lose, because authors don't need to buy STEEM to be able to post. Write good contents then earn more, or write garbage then earn less even nothing, but it is still no financial cost.
On the other hand, for voters, they have financial opportunity cost as a whole, voting badly (or others voting badly) then STEEM price go down, but voting better doesn't mean price go up, just my speculations though.
Both authors and voters don't have to buy STEEM if they signed up via Steemit. There are many free accounts using Steemvoter service (while they barely get curation reward, they are doing because they can earn anyway).
Generally, writing a post consumes tens of times of time and energy more than reading, or infinite times more than bots because they don't read. While, there is an argument for tipping-based system as well and I understand it's reasons, I would say rewarding author is essential.
Bad voting doesn't directly decrease the price nor good voting increase it. But degraded platform by bad voting can drive away users and consequently harm the price.
Except...this isn't true. If one continually makes bad votes, then they risk losing out on curation rewards because other voters may likely disagree with their choices. The result of that is not earning a curation reward and the cost is losing that voting power.
Let's not continue to make arguments based on the skewed results we see today due to disproportionate pre-mined stakes and imbalanced incentive structures. Why do some people continue to confuse cause and effect?
That's true only if one makes very bad votes 40 times everyday. If they do not make such a mistake, there are some profit.
Many for-profit bots are from non-pre-mined accounts. Curation reward is a separate issue; not heavily related to fairness but related to wrongly designed incentive system.
Lol, I'm crying
lol
This is the saddest part actually, people are fighting for crumbs and they want these crumbs so badly that they can't see the enormous value that would come from removing these crumbs.
No, the saddest part is that the rewards are only 12% because they have been reduced from 50% to 25%, minus the reverse auction. This is the reason why you're seeing more automation for voting. It has to do with that whole incentive thing. When the rewards for spending time/energy on a specific task are reduced, you tend to get less of it or a lower quality, or both. Or you get automation, which can result in the same outcome.
Hence Linux?
There are other rewards and motivators than money. As long as you do not include those in your economic thinking, I predict your predictions will not be very good.
Yes, but on this platform, the incentives are the cryptocurrency. It's the entire purpose of the token. It is meant as an onboarding mechanism for social media users, hence the payments in STEEM, STEEM Power, and STEEM-backed dollars.
As long as people refuse to acknowledge the purpose, I predict that their solutions will not be very good.
Many debating tricks and very little reasoning in what you write here, and I suspect you know that. Very un-gentlemanlike, I'm used to better from you.
That's impossible. My profile specifically states that I am indeed a gentleman.
My apologies. It must be true, then.