RE: Does the 7 Day Payout Period on STEEM Still Make Sense?
Very interesting thoughts Raci.
I do see your point about the 7 day payout period . That is the one thing that at first i found unattractive of steemit. However, i have changed my mind about this now.
If people got rewarded for as long as the post is outher on the web... and if this articles do so good , like the ones that make more that 200 steem backed dollars.. and after the 7 days keep collecting... it might hurt the Steemit ecosystem. Not to mention that people would create less contend on a weekly basis.. since what they have already posted is still generating income. This way.. with the 7 days limitation, they have to keep creating content .
I agree that people should still get rewarded but maybe in a different way.. i don't know... like a monthly fee depending on how much it made during the 7 days period?? i don't know.. lets say a 30% monthly fee? like royalties .. i don;t know haha.
I am runaware of this 3.5 day thing you mentioned about @grumpycat... what is that about?
Thanks for your reply and the interesting thoughts @soykatonline. I do agree with you that the reward system needs to be sustainable and incentivize the production of new content on a regular basis. I think the steem reward system is doing that just fine. I just think that it is a major shortcoming that high quality content does not get rewarded in the long term, while medium quality content sometimes gets higher rewards. This sometimes depends on the reputation of the author, which is a different topic (I do think that the reputation system on steemit is quite sophisticated, by the way).
I personally do see great promise in platforms like www.wildspark.me which seem to encourage value distribution over a longer term period. Once you generate a wildspark link, you keep profiting from people sharing the content. I actually think that this would be very interesting to combine with steem - you could use wildspark links to curate content on steem. However, at the moment, this is technically not possible.
I do like your idea of introducing a royalties-like structure, I will have to think about that :) sounds good!
The 3.5 day policy by @grumpycat that I mentioned earlier is about a new policy that upvote bots are not allowed to sell upvotes on posts older than 3.5 days, otherwise it will get severely downvoted by Grumpycat. It seems like @grumpycat is some sort of "bad cop" on steemit, enforcing the more controversial policies that prevent behavior that hurts the platform in the long run :) check the article I linked above for further infos.
I totally agree.
It seems like this @grumpycat guy is too extremist ... i mean, why should he decide for everybody else .. just because he has that much power? i just checked his account and holy cow! he has an account value of $3,832,114.29 .. i am sure he can down vote good .. but... i think maybe there should be a whale meeting where they all decide together what to do.. not just take matters on his own hands. I haven't used many bots... i am not very sure of how to use them well, so i really don't use them.. i don't know how good or bad they are... but i do think it should be a decision made by many, not just one person.