RE: A case for eliminating curation rewards
I'm a musician, how 'bout while we're at it, we say "No more rewards for anything but music!"? Just because you don't use curation rewards to make an income doesn't mean other people don't.
It's not about who earns money on the platform, you need to get rid of this mindset of " how you are going to profit from steem" and instead think of how " to increase the value of the platform"
Curation ( 80-90% of which is done by bots) bring absolutely no value to the platform, a post whether its music, art or photo will bring value to the platform.
People are not going to vote here unless they're paid to do it.
They are not voting today already, 90% of votes is done by bots.
Eliminating curation rewards would send away not only curators, but also authors who are rational and realize that the platform can't sustain itself anymore and decide to get out while they can
How eliminating curation rewards will send authors away from the site? Why would the platform be any less sustainable? I don't follow The platform will be a lot more sustainable, users will have more influence which will incentivize them to buy more steem power and the site will be a lot more valuable in the eyes of investors. Do you really expect businesses to integrate a content reward system run by 90% bots? It's not going to happen.
New users don't care about increasing the value of the platform. Like it or not, they're in it to make profit (as are most voters and authors) (I.E. you're being paid for this article therefore you are making profit)
That means 90 percent of author rewards are also currently given out (diversified) by bots
I and many others would leave
Because most of the voters that give the platform its value would leave. The loss of voters would cause demand for steem to leave, and the value of steem to plummet.
No, it will alienate many people who are voting to get curation rewards (causing them to leave and leave only authors) and steemit to look unattractive to investors.
Yes, Google uses bots yet many businesses depend on their search engine.
Again, I'd recommend you read this article:
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/
As well as this article:
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp
You still didn't get the point. Profit will come as a form of increase in steem value if the platform is more valuable.
Solid argument.
Curators do not give the platform its value, authors do.
Eliminating curation reward would increase the amount of voters actually, today almost every vote is a bots. By removing these rewards active users will have more power and so will be voting more.
Again people are not voting robots do. This platform doesn't need curators , it needs people who actually bring value to it, by posting and engaging in the discussions.
Google picks up content that people have 'voted' for with their click, so unlike curators google actually 'vote' for content that people want.
I'm done arguing about this. You are just rephrasing what I debunk, and changing the definitions of words. Please resume fighting for a cause when you understand what it is you want.
It's funny that people like you who havn't invested a single penny into steem is trying to give an investment lesson to people like me who actually put their money where their mouth is. Pretty hilarious actually!
Edit: That's an observation I made recently is that most users who have not invested a single penny in steem care a lot about growing the number of steem in their wallet but real investors who spent their hard earn money mostly want the value of steem to increase. This is not speculation, it's a fact which can be verified by reading comments here and checking user's balance history.
[Nesting]
Flagged another comment for trolling.
This is not trolling, it's the cold hard truth.
I don't know if you paid attention but cmp2020 has been insisting on the fact that I don't know what I am talking about eventhough I made an argument for each point.
You've repeated this figure many times in this thread but it is wrong. Only about 20-30% of vote power comes from bots (vote count is meaningless in a stake-weighted system) and even that probably understates the human influence because a lot of that voting may be performed by a bot but is decided by a human primarily for influence and not profit-maximizing reasons (for example deciding on their favorite posters or types of posts they want to support, or in some cases as a delegated vote decided by another human).
20-30% really? do you have any stats or something i can check? Because when i look at the voting paterns all i see is a few votes before 30 min, then the bulk of all votes come at 30 min and then only a few votes after that and occasionnaly i see post with another round of bots after 30 min which will add a lot of votes. I also regularly check posts that biophil's bot is voting on and it has this exact pattern, about 90 votes comes in at 30 min, then hardly any votes after that.
I think what would be interesting to know also is what percentage of the curation rewards are earned by bots..
clayop and someone else did a study a week or two ago and came up with that number. it can only be approximated because nobody knows exactly which accounts are bots but it isn't surprising when you look at most of the top stakeholder and curator accounts by amount, most are not bots, they are either human curators or guilds (blocktrades, val, michael, dan, abit, ned, etc). You are paying too much attention to number of votes, and yes there are many small bot accounts/votes, but that isn't what matters.
I didn't noticed you were talking about stake voting, Id argue stake voting is not really the metric to look at because as you said it's only a few individuals. I was refering to 90% of the people. The amount of users using bots is what's important and i would say it's very close to my numbers.