Im new here so trying to figure this all out. Is the problem that there are bots in the first place? Can Steemit do away with that "problem"? If it is the problem?
One of the things that drew me to Steemit was the idea that good content would get up-voted and in so doing cause the Steemit system to flourish by attracting positive attention to the platform because of all the visible "good" content. Seems like what you are saying is that is not really the case? Or at least, some of the best content is not being lifted because of a gimmick in the profit pay out system?
Thanks for the post, and your time.
No, the problem is scarcity of curation rewards
Imagine 100 homeless people waiting at the shelter when suddently its announced that there will be only 10 meals served. What is going to happen? Everyone starts running, jumping and even beating up eachother to get a meal. These guys have completely lost their integrity ( stellabelle's word :-).
So you end up with a few people who managed somehow to take advantage of this situation and the rest of the people fighting for the crumbs.
Bots are a manifestation of a broken system.
So does seem like the curation fraction is not the real issue. It may seem like the break-even point is where the ROI is equal for the example posts you mentioned. But what if 4 other authors would accept an even lower return for themselves? You could make even more ROI! Simply allowing authors to give higher curation rewards to attract upvotes, is like the 100 homeless people bidding for only a fraction of the 10 meals. The lower amount any person will accept, the more likely they will get that small fraction of a meal. But it won't be enough to sustain them over time.
The code has to incentivize whales to care for the overall health of the Steem blockchain as the way to increase the value of their investment - and right now, that's through the Steemit platform. I like how you said that the bots are a manifestation of a broken system. Some bots are helpful for the overall system health, others aren't. It does seem like there should be enough data since HF19 to assess where code changes would be helpful.
Alternatively, there's always the possibility that some whales and witnesses are just waiting for hype about any of the new apps or SMTs to spike Steem values, so they can bail out.
You display a keen grasp of the issues and your comment reveals an insightful mind.
Thanks!
It is, if there was a way to pin this to the top, out of thread kind of, I would vote to do that. Wouldn't that be a cool feature?
In my analogy the homeless and 10 meals are the curators and curation rewards not the authors and authors rewards.
The portion of the curation ( 10 meals) will increase accross the board which is absolutely necessary for people to diversify their votes and change their voting habit.
Established authors may still use the same curator/author ratio but new authors who set the curation percentage high are going to earn a lot more than they currently do. ( I've given an example with exact numbers in OP)
Generally speaking yes, if bots are required to make the system healthy then something is missing in the code.
For example bots are needed to support minnows, this mean the incentives created by the code are broken.
Isn't it the case that my curation rewards go up as my reputation goes up? If so, isn't it the case that my curation rewards will go up as I like things that others like, meaning its in my best interest to like good things? Am I way off base? Am I being too naive or simple?
As far as i know reputation has no effect on curation rewards only the amount of steem power you have. The more your vote is worth the more you get back for each vote.