80% of the reward pool is going to plankton, minnows and dolphins. This is far better most economies of the world.
There appear to be many orcas and whales happy to spread the love.
Communities are popping up all over the place.
Once SMTs arrive many Steemians will care more about other tokens than a Steem utility token anyway.
But the main drawback in your idea - why would anyone want to post when they are only receiving 50% of the reward showing on their post? This would turn more people off than it would attract. If anything 25% of the reward is too much.
It also won't solve anything - if the bad actors want 100% - your plan just means they don't have to work as hard to get it.
I don't see any problems here that won't fix themselves with the natural redistribution of Steem as people come and go, plus the introduction of SMTs.
I think you are wrong about communities too. They make a big difference.
A single whale can't change the whole system. But they can make a difference to many. And with discount accounts they can now start onboarding them too.
I really haven't followed your career here since the days of the Steem Wars - but Team Australia is still going strong and now SteemChurch too and this is just what I am doing.
If you genuinely want to make a difference and build the value of your investment - get on the ground and use your capital to create opportunities for the newbies. (Perhaps you are - I just don't know so sorry if I am wrong.)
Cheers.
SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android
Where did you get that 80% statistic? That's good to see such a healthy proportion. However, made the 80% is influenced by paid vote bots? So the poor is technically paying more.
Actually it is 90%
https://steemit.com/steemchurch/@sirknight/steemchurch-strategy-update-power-up-or-perish
But with 1% of votes being cast by the vote bid bots - it is probably closer to 80%
Posted using Partiko Android
My take on the 50/50 curation thing is that yeah, you will in theory lose a bit of your author rewards but you will also be getting extra curation money from the posts you vote on, so in the long run, it might balance out.
There's also the chance of getting more votes your self since more people would be voting out there trying to find the best authors to put their votes on so the lost of 25% might not even hurt you that much in the long run.
Posted using Partiko Android
I just don't believe the theory would work. It assumes firstly that those who are currently self-voting at 25:75 would do it less at 50:50. There is no evidence to suggest this. So now those in effective communities need to use more SP to reward minnows the same as the otherwise would have - and these minnows get nothing for their 50% curation anyway, which was your idea on why it could remain fair.
Posted using Partiko Android
Why are people in these communities “rewarding minnows” instead of rewarding creators of the content that they like?
This notion that we must reward all of the minnows is at the core of most of the problems with this platform. This is supposed to be based on social media concepts (and investment/stakeholding).
Do you go around Facebook or YouTube and only look for posts and videos from unknown users who get no attention just to give them a like or an upvote? Or do you just vote them up because you enjoyed the content?
Why does one’s wallet size matter so much here when it comes to who deserves your vote?
Very fair point, but I must say that that it's far more common than not for a whale to continue to upvote and engage with their fellow whales because they have more earning potential for them.
This leaves a small window for interacting with others, which would make this place retain and attract more people, which is healthier for the long run.
I struggle to find whales that are committed to providing quality upvotable content, yet as you know, the posts are still upvoted and supported (and realistically for reasons likely outside of it being good content).
The wallet size doesn't matter - it is our community based discussion which does.
Posted using Partiko Android
This has to do with the way money is distributed. Not just on Steemit, but in the world in general. The market favours people who look out for themselves and themselves only. It favours people willing to step on others in order to make a profit.
People who are nice and compassionate tend to have less money at their disposal due to not being willing and/or able to go the extra mile to be as ruthless as necessary.
You don't have to be morally ruthless to make more money. You can build a better business without compromising on morals.
Agree in part schattenjaeger - the truly successful people in life are those who create opportunities for others and then take a share of the profit along the way. Capitalism is not black and white and not everyone can be the CEO. But a great CEO might be able to find employment opportunities for many - at the same time maximising returns.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yeah, it wasn't a knock on capitalism, per se.
Couldn't have wrote it better
This is not true. When Steem rewarded people who formed actual friendships people then said "people are voting for themselves and their friends". So now that doesn't happen as much and people complain about something else?
You can't get everything. There are tradeoffs. Which tradeoffs do you prefer?
Me? I was always a fan of the old system.
Because they receive 0% of the reward if they post it on Facebook.
This is true - and once the Steem interfaces are as good as Facebook they are sure to come flocking across for 50% - but no doubt they will come quicker for 75%.
Posted using Partiko Android
50% is still way bigger than 0%. Anyone who will pass up that chance may not be cut out for this place.
You are right holybranches - and you know what... 25% is also better than 0% - so is 15%. You know what - f@#k the authors - let's pay them 10% and us curators can keep 90% for ourselves. And if they don't want to work for their 10%... well they just weren't cut out for Steem - lazy f@#ks.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yeah. And if they want the 90% share, they should power up and vote others. No need getting all emotional. With 50/50, you make posts to compete with 50% author rewards then go out and VOTE OTHERS to get back the other 50%. Simple vicious circle.
Truth is, you will never find a percentage that everyone is happy with anyway. I have always thought 25/75 was a reasonable split.
Posted using Partiko Android
Gotta agree here. The more deeply into this post's comments I delve, the more I think, there may be problems, but this is not a solution to them, mathematically.
The problem is not, how to financially incentivize readers, but rather, how to attract users. I'm in comedy, and this problem shows up in our communities. So many shows are just comedians watching other comedians. You get real audiences not by bribing them, but by doing good work consistently.
Again, not sure what the solution is, but if 80% of rewards are going to small fry, I think we're on the right path.
Posted using Partiko Android