You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proposed Changes & Curation Rewards
well you failed to find the main problem - "Steem whales are not the best curators"... so Good Luck
I DID try to offer reasonable solution here
https://steemit.com/steem/@james-show/steem-the-solution-to-curation-rewards
, but it takes time... probably another platform even.
who decide who are the best curator? I will be earning all my steempower through content creation. That doesn't guarantee that I am going to be a good curator.
That's just what his suggestion tries to solve, give curation power depending on previous curation success. Too big of a change to "just do" though, this'd change the whole thing.
I like the changes that @dantheman propose, they are on the right direction.
The only problem that remains now is that the average users have to little power to make any difference with their votes .... so...
THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE POWER OF WHALES
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF USERS/CURATORS ARE POWERLESS
we should give de-facto more power to proven active unique users/individuals!
We should give more power to the Voter as a person like in Democracy. If we let it like this, it means we assume that the best curators are only the rich user's in our platform.
WARNING!
I don't say the users stake (risk) should not play a major role! I just say we must take a little more into account the VOTE itself...
Reddit takes it 100% into account... I don't say we should do the same, but we could take it 50% into account and the other 50% keeps Steem Power into account (like before but half)...
Please see my reply to tinfoilfedora above.
Users being powerless really isn't the problem. Power through numbers!
Whales can be a problem right now when they don't act reasonable, but all I can see is they're doing a great job. Over time, their power will go down relative to the rest. This won't mean that the others' votes are worth more then! Only that there'll be a lot more others.
Please post the math on your "Power through numbers!" assumption. How many users will it take to give 1 cent.
This is not really true and will be less true once rewards pay out. Even most non-star users will start getting some rewards from comments and posts. That will boost their Steem power. Even now, the power of entry-level users is not as small as it appears. You can't by yourself take a new post from 0 to 0.01 (and in a sense this is good for brand new free account because those are exactly the sock-puppet type accounts you want to have minimal influence) but if there are already votes then adding your vote does matter.
but if they only vote (curate) and don't post and comment?
In that case there will still be some small payoffs, but only when you vote on very popular posts along with other people (especially when you are early), not just voting for a post yourself. In other words, good wisdom-of-the-crowd curation. Leave lone-wolfing to the whales (and even for them it isn't a good approach). There is also the opportunity to see those with more SP earning more for doing the same thing you are and consider buying some.
If this system gets big enough whales will probably hire teams of the best curators (in reality this probably includes a combination of humans an bots working together). So indeed whales will in fact be the best curators.
If you are a whale and don't curate well you will have a sub-par ROI and lose value. So you will likely either improve your curation, sell your stake and invest in something that doesn't require you to do something you aren't good at, or, eventually, lose it all.
On the other side, some will curate well and by virtue of getting an above-par ROI, become whales. Someone will be the Warren Buffet of Steem curation.
I didn't see major curation mishaps so far, did you?
I hate what you guys curate. JK. The more you have to lose the more you should have the potential to gain and the more you have to lose the more you'll want to engage and devote time to make things right. This should be proportional as is.