HF Proposal - Is it time to decrease or remove the 30 minute author-curation reward window.
With the volume of posts having increased by so much recently due to the explosive user growth, is it time to reduce the curation reward split time down from 30 minutes to 5 minutes, or even scrap it altogether?
We all want to be rewarded for good content, but we also need to incentivise good curation, and encourage voters to vote where content is good. The problem is that good content disappears very quickly down New the feed list, and anybody wanting to maximize their curation reward needs to scroll through so much mud to get the the content they spotted 30 minutes earlier. This causes users to not vote on brand new posts, and to only vote for posts of users they are following in their home feed, because that feed is easier to get to the 30 minute mark.
This is espicially true of high value voters who want to earn their fair share of curation rewards from their bug votes. They may miss a good quality post in the New feed because they have to wait 30 minutes before getting their maximum reward, so they move to their Home feed and vote there instead. If they like a post, they should be able to upvote and resteem there and then, without sacrificing their rewards.
For those of us who don't know how the curation rewards work, here is a screensht from the Steemit FAQ:
source
You see, if you vote too soon you get almost no curation reward. Your best reward cimes if you only vote in post 30 minutes old, which are far down the feeds.
By bringing the curation reward timeline down from 30 minutes to 5 minutes, or getting rid of it altogether, we get to the point where the author gets 75%, and the rest is split according to the voting weight and voting timeline. I also believe this will help reduce self-voting to some degree because every vote you cast earns you up to 25% reward if you get in early enough, and the author may get the bigger votes because his post hasn't been pushed down the feed list into oblivion. A self vote will also then only get 75%, with the rest going into the curation reward pool.
I'm sure there would be many pros and cons. Perhaps it would increase self votes because you would feel justified by "giving away" your 25%? Perhaps self upvoted should be split 25% author reward , 75% curation pool? I just don't think the 30 minute split is working at the current volume of posts and needs to be looked at to improve curation rewards.
I do empathize, but there is a problem shortening this time, it's the reason that time is there in the first place. If there was no hold off deterrent, every time a whale posted, people would just autovote it knowing that it was going to be a big money generating post and being an early voter this would mean more money for them. Possibly delaying the time before posts appear in Hot/trending might help, but that might have unforseen results too. There is no easy solution.
Thanks for pointing this out.
I don't think the WP makes it clear why this rule exists..
@bmj, thanks for posting this; I always wondered about this rule. I think upvoting bots, sort of make it a non-issue.
@maxbullion - what would you say is the percentage of users using upvote bots these days, any idea?
I guess I was talking specifically about the likes of autovoting using Steemvoter.com. I've been all over the Steemvoter website and their user page, but can't find any reference to their user base. My personal experience is I came to Steemit through YouTube. By my second day on Steemit on the recommendation of Trevon James and Craig Grant, I was setting up Steemvoter before I even knew what I was doing, it was almost a natural part of getting started on Steemit. Given these guys power in the Steemit community and as conduits into Steemit from their other social media platform followings I can see quite a few newbies are running it. Two of Trevon James' top 3 videos mention it. Of course it probably matters more if the dolphins and whales are using it than the newbies as their influence can propel a post to stardom in no time. I'm not criticising too strongly, but if they all engage in this mutual back scratching, then they risk killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Don't be lazy whales, get stuck into the new posts and weed out the good ones. In the interests of full disclosure, I should state that I weened myself off Steemvoter within a couple of days and that I am no longer a user.
I am totally in favor of removing this arrangement. It makes curation easier and more straightforward.
Scrap it. We're missing out on a lot of votes because of the stipulation. One vote every 30 seconds is fine, but making people wait 30 minutes before voting on a good post is insane.
Anything that makes this more profitable and less complicated is good. The help docs are difficult to understand, even for the tech savvy.
I'm receiving something close to zero conversation on my blog. This is a tough place to grow -_-
Buy some SP dude, then start making some real friends ;-)
Waiting for Steem to go back to $1. Is it hopeless? -_-
I see that I would not receive much curation for upvoting this post as I did so at 5 minutes in.(not that I have any weight for you.) Though I agree why should one have to wait if they stumble across a good post? What troubles me and of which I am unaware is how curation rewards is weighted to steempower. I'll admit I havn't read the whitepaper yet as it seems like a daunting task. Does my early curration vote effectively limit the possible curation reward of the next person? Does that mean an early upvote is detrimental to someone if the upvoter is not a whale?
Not at all. It just means the author gets the bulk of rewards for early votes. If you want to maximise your curation rewards you need to wait until the post is 30minutes old. There's no harm done to anyone by voting early, it just means you accept a lower curation reward.
So I upvote a post at 3 minutes(lets pretend my upvote weight was a 10 cents) then 10 percent or 1 penny is given to me at the end of 7 days? I've only been here 4 sofar and my upvotes are kinda only worth moral support so I didn't know. Thanks for the clarification
In a nutshell, yes, but there are all sorts of other calculations that go on behund the scenes as well, depwnding on who else has voted, and their voting strength. You also only yet rewarded for curation in STEEM POWER, which is more expensive then SBD. You may find your reward somewhere around 0.001SP. But if you vote at 30 minutes it may be 0.004SP. There are lots of other calculations to make, but the 30 minute mark is where you get the best curation return.
I like the idea. I would completely cancel the initial window
I love reading NEW posts because it's from random Steemians I have never met before. If I enjoy it, I upvote it right away. They say it's not a good idea to do so. Well, I really like new feeds, if that's a punishment, then shame on me for having no selfish agenda. Aloha!
Aloha to you too :). It's not about selfishness or being punished at all. It's about being rewarded for putting in the time to read a post and upvote because it's good. I vote early often as well, and resteem because I want to go back and read it again later. I do think 30 minutes is too long though , and should be reduced. It probably wasn't 6 months ago, when there was a fraction of the daily created posts.
I'm not sure when it was introduced but back then bots in throngs were upvoting single posts, basically there were trails that people followed and when the leader upvotes everyone behind him based on some set time delay do the same. So the rule got set to favor the authors rather than reward farming. Curators would have already voted in the first 30 minutes, mostly after the 15min mark, then bots would come and give moneh to everyone, mostly those first curators since they would receive a bigger portion based on the smaller stake, still it evens out in the end. I do vote in the 30 min mark sometimes, other times I just wait around 10 minutes, other times I completely forget and in the best case come back to it on a later date.
Thanks for the insight @j3dy. That makes a lot of sense, and the vote trails are very difficult to stop, and I suppose in that respect it is better to reward the author than the bots. Fron what I have seen, these trails only vote with a very small %, so would they have that much bigger an impact on those giving 100% votes if the time was reduced by even half?
it quickly drains voting power and people still do manual curation. the overall payout would be the same, they would probably get more rewards. It's stake based anyways. I don't know the reward algorithm but the earlier you catch the post the bigger the percentage of the reward for curation, it's still stake based so someone voting with 10usd on a post that's 0 lets say on the 30 minute mark, should get .00something(?5) if the post pays out 50 but the person that voted the 50 would get probably most of the rewards, so 10usd, it's how investors should be rewarded, for their buying in the stake of the platform.
I don't know the math tho. I did spend around 2 months voting and getting no rewards tho :D once when a post earned some decent payout and I caught it without any bots on it I did get my first reward, then I went on a hunt for steem, the rest is history :D I didn't make much :D
A slight exaggeration on my part but I sooo agree with you the reason why I don't mind voting early is for that 1. I like it 2. If I don't vote it now, it will disappear and it's time Cindy to search for it 3. I won't search for it because I'll be reading new posts.
You have a good proposal is my point. Enjoy the rest of your day 😜 Aloha
No harm done. I understand you reasoning 100% and I'm glad you understamd mine. Thanks for your input. Have great weekend😁
Good idea !
Because I can't see any good in that 30 mins rule !
=]
I'd be in favour of scrapping it.
@mechanism whatcha think? 😊