RE: 50/50 curation and bots getting more?
What this means is that the authors can get more as there are more voters and they are guaranteed 50%, while the bidbots are going to take less and with more frontrunners earning more, it will be even less than they get today percentage wise.
That's a big assumption that an author will just get more voters if the 50/50 split comes in. Those who already get larger upvotes will likely, as people pile on to vote for those who always get large voters so they can get more curation rewards. But everyone else, not much will change I don't think.
The author will be guaranteed 50%, indeed, as they are guaranteed 75% now. So not much upside there. It is an upside if they curate more, but won't likely account for the 25% less.
In your example, why did you use two different numbers for buying votes? 66 and 44? Why is a $44 bid still worth $100, while now it takes a $66 bid to be worth $100? It seems your saying it will cost vote buyers less to get the same $100 vote?
As for frontrunning, what's stopping people from doing it now? This is not specifically related to a new 50/50 split. Anyone can earn more right now by doing that, which would reduce curation rewards to delegating vote selling.
If this is all for the purpose to combat bidbots, why aren't we dealing with bidbots themselves? 75/25 was ok for a long time, but now it's a problem. Why? One author gets 75% of the rewards becuse they did the work to produce the content, and 25% of rewards are split between the voters by their stake and vote weight. Why is that unfair, when all they have to do is click to do the work, or autovote?
It seems like the work done to put content into the platform is being equated as equal to the work done to click on a post, which isn't the reality. Does merit for work and time not count as much anymore? Many seem to want to turn Steem into a corporate structure, where investors get more just because they are investors, while the workers of the organization get less and less, all to bring more profits to the investors (shareholders = stakeholders).
On my phone now but for the different buy of 44.
10 percent return requires it. The payout has to be around 50 dollars to cover the buy + 10%. That requires a 100 dollar vote as 50 goes to curation. This puts more exposed on the chain to be affected by curation or flags. A loss could be incurred with a 6 dollar flag rather than a 9. The curation would be affected as there is more incentive to curate. This will change the vote market structure and find a better equilibrium. Still not perfect, but better.
It means exactly that. It gets much cheaper for vote buyers to get a 100$ vote which increases the demand and vote buying. 50/50 is a horrendously stupid idea that has the potential to ruin STEEM even more.
We need to stop the 50/50 discussion and move into talking about the DAO and cuting author rewards to fund STEEM development.
Problem is i cant get anyone to talk about it since this is the only way for whale curators to increase their gains against vote sellers.
The content creators will suffer but at this point no one cares.
ummm... 50% curation. they will get a 50 dollar return, not 100. The vote has to be 100.
Bots are dead at 50/50 curation. Vote selling services arent. At 50/50 buying votes gets much cheaper since the vote selling services adjust the rates. No longer do you have to pay 10 USD for a 11 USD vote. You will pay something like 7 USD for a 11 USD vote which means it would be much cheaper to get higher up the trending page.
you want to fix trending, kill bots and vote selling?
https://steemit.com/steem/@tarazkp/locking-stake-for-100-passive-income-improving-content-helping-apps
Hehe. Thats a very bold idea. :)
The problem with this is that most people would opt for it.
From your posts ive read you seem like an extremely positive guy.
Im not. haha.
Because youre very positive is why i think you are supportive of the 50/50 split.
Im the type of person that thinks that assholes tend to continue acting like assholes and the decent people need no incentive to be decent and they will continue to be decent no matter what it costs them.
"Incentives" for me are just another word for:
haha.
As much as your idea is innovative i just think that most people would just opt for it and those that dont would grab at anyone that is left to give them votes.
I mean just ask yourself:
Im sorry i have to be blunt like this but thats what it boils down to.
hehe
I would want them to opt for it because, there are people here that recognize that attention is the name of the future game and at the moment, it isn't possible to influence because of people selling and, nothing really changes for values. Once they are out of the pool and not selling, people can't buy and those who want to curate actively will have real effect with low amounts. eventually, vying for the attention will bring some people back from the 100% stake to influence the system. Your stake is your voice, take the silent stake that influences content blindly, out of the game.
Hmm. So this could basically be called "The Haejin proposal". :D
I mean it makes sense. You get the ROI but dont defile the #pages.
The problem i see is big investors that have a large vote to share would all opt to getting the daily 10X and the community would be sharing dimes..
Im more for cuting the author earnings with the DAO to fund the projects. That would have a much greater positive effect.
Most are doing that now, right? The ones that aren't will recognise the power that comes with being able to affect trending on a daily basis - their favourite Dapps and authors pushed into real visibility
This is more likely to happen then the stake... at the moment ;D
It is fun though isn't? This Steem thing?
Dumb dilution. Yeah in my opinion there's no point in coding this because it's already available. Have at it, Farmers!