You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Suggestion for Masternode-like Incentive System for Investors
I agree with the major intention of proposed incentive system. There are too many meaningless voting bots, which actually prevent picking up the great posting in the steem community. However, adoption of masternode seems to bring some disadvantages and worries as well.
- If the incentive of masternode is greater than curation, who's gonna remain to be only for a good curator that finds a good posting?
- If there is no more curators, steem power seems to be centralized to authors' communities.
- Everyone who holds steem power rather than staking steem could have bad motivation because they earn less money than people holding the staking steem. In other words, there could be more people who are willing to abuse to get more rewards to compensate their opportunity costs.
- In fact, masternode should do something for community. What is the role that masternode gonna take? At some point of view, there is not enough reason to be witness rather than masternodes.
Much thank you for your effort to improve steem community. I would like to point out that I like your idea. But "I think" there should be modification of percentages for masternodes' interests.
Since the percentage for each reward is fixed, there will be a balance. That is, at some point, rewards for staking is lower than rewards for curation. And another variable to be considered is marginal costs and benefits of users. Some users more weigh psychological satisfaction over financial profits, and hence less care about smaller curation rewards. Some others do not want to spend time and effort for curation, and may be more willing to remain in staking even the reward is smaller.
The points from 2 are based on the point 1, which I rebut above.